Sgt. Kimberly Munley (AP)
One of the back stories now emerging from the Fort Hood shootings is the
story of Sgt. Kimberly Munley, the 34-year-old civilian Defense Department police officer at the base credited with ending the firing rampage of Army Major Nidal Hasan. She was the first armed individual to respond to the scene. As Munley ran toward the shooting, she came around a corner and found herself face-to-face with Hasan. The two exchanged fire. Both were struck, Munley in the legs and wrist and Hasan in the chest, and within minutes after it began, the shooting spree was over. (She's in stable condition; he remains in a coma.)It raises a good question: If women can defend Fort Hood, why can't they defend America?
The simple answer is, it's policy, but isn't it time we changed that policy?
Department of Defense policy states that "women shall be excluded from assignment to units below the brigade level whose primary mission is to engage in direct combat on the ground." According to the policy, "Direct ground combat takes place well forward on the battlefield."
What forward battlefield? What battlefield? There's no forward battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's a world of car bombs, snipers, suicide bombers, improvised explosive devices, and civilian airplane attacks. The battlefield is everywhere and everything.
And so are women. More women have fought and died in Iraq than in all the wars since World War II put together. Over 206,000 have served in the Middle East since March 2003, most of them in Iraq; and over 600 have been wounded and 104 have died in Iraq and another 15 have died in Afghanistan, according to the Department of Defense.
There are 10,000 female personnel in Iraq --that's one in 10 soldiers-- and 4,000 more in Afghanistan. They're driving trucks, treating wounded and shooting when attacked. More than 100 have given their lives in Iraq; another 15 have died in Afghanistan.
It seems arcane to suggest that women can't take combat risks without harming overall military performance, but arcane thinking appears to be the driving force behind the ban:
…the military--from Pentagon to the troops on the ground--has been slow to recognize the service these women perform, or even to see them as real soldiers. Rather, it is permeated with age-old stereotypes of women as passive sex objects who have no business fighting and cannot be relied upon in battle.
Earlier this year, the secretary of the Navy ordered that women are not to be assigned in any operations "likely to result in being exposed to hostile fire."
Sgt Munley not only exposed herself to hostile fire, she was shot, and she still managed to take out the Army psychiatrist. Would the Secretary of the Navy care to comment?
The Center for Military Readiness, which supports the ban, blames the expanding roles of women in the military on "the agendas of civilian feminists." War is no time or place for "social experiments," the center argues. "The needs of the military --and the nation-- must come first."
That's the right principle but that doesn't mean women aren't capable, or would the Center for Military Readiness argue that Kimberly Munley wasn't capable of putting the needs of her military 
and her nation first. And yet, I can picture the same rationale being used back in the days when it was an issue whether women were capable of police duty beyond the stationhouse desk; today they're on the beat and in the squad car, and no one bats an eye. What about:
and her nation first. And yet, I can picture the same rationale being used back in the days when it was an issue whether women were capable of police duty beyond the stationhouse desk; today they're on the beat and in the squad car, and no one bats an eye. What about: --Spc. Ashley Pullen, who earned a Bronze Star in Iraq by running through a line of fire and using her body as a shield to save a wounded soldier
--Spc. Monica Brown got a Silver Star for rescuing five injured comrades under heavy fire in Afghanistan
--Sgt. Leigh Ann Hester led her team through a line of fire in Iraq to outflank and destroy insurgents who had ambushed her convoy.
Perhaps the secretary of the Navy or the Center for Military Readiness would care to combat on the role feminism played in the work these soldiers did? At their moments of duress, these women clearly weren't thinking about who was the better sex, and, I dare say, they aren't feminists; they're soldiers and they're patriots who not only did their job, but did it under battlefield conditions.
No one's saying every enlisted woman should be assigned combat duty, but neither is every man --nor is there any shame if you're not cut out for battle duty. Military operations cover a broad front and all who serve provide valuable service to their units and to their country. Let's not even get into the report issued this past week by several retired military leaders citing that 75 percent of Americans ages 17 to 24 are unfit for military service because of poor physical condition, criminal history, or failure to complete high school.
This is like the don't ask, don't tell policy. We shouldn't worry about what sex they happen to be or what sex they happen to be into; our concern should be whether they are fit to fight --period. And let's not kid ourselves: If we have unfit men performing in combat roles, it doesn't make our fighting forces better, does it?
Wouldn't our combat forces be that much better if we replaced unfit men with fit women? Sorry, but if there's a failed "social experiment," it's in barring capable soldiers from combat duty strictly on sexual grounds. There's no doubt Sgt Munley will be decorated for her heroism, though if she's a typical soldier, she'll just tell you she was doing her job. Frankly, if we really want to recognize her efforts, the best way would be to end the ban on women in combat.
Would you not agree?
Comments
i agree, ms. munley saved countless lives at fort hood. she proved that she is combat capable on any battlefield. she is a true heroine!
Absolutely not.
It is insanity to send our best and brightest people to kill and be killed for politicians. Any "war" short of the invasion of our shores is illegal as well as immoral. It is triple insanity to send the mothers of the next generation to the same senseless slaughter.
Don't send women to war overseas... don't send anyone! If our shores are invaded, you had better believe that the women will fight side by side with their men. I'll be there.
Of course there should be a draft for all men and all women. Ideally we would have no wars but until we evolve to that...
Nobody (at least not me) is saying that women don't have the courage to be in combat. Some do, some don't. Same goes for men. The Israelis had women in combat and if I remember correctly, they rescinded that policy. Not because they found the women lacking, but that men would drop everything they were doing to help women in trouble, thereby endangering the mission. Seems there is some kind of ingrained response to save the "weaker sex".
Ignorance is one of our greatest enemies. Show some common sense. Let solider do their parts as for the bureaucrat they need do their parts. this will the war ends, finally have peace. In this war, the people are victor. I do not want see history repeat itself.
Robb says: Nobody (at least not me) is saying that women don't have the courage to be in combat. Some do, some don't. Same goes for men. The Israelis had women in combat and if I remember correctly, they rescinded that policy. Not because they found the women lacking, but that men would drop everything they were doing to help women in trouble, thereby endangering the mission. Seems there is some kind of ingrained response to save the "weaker sex".
Soldiers do that for soldiers already, but not if it meant compromise a larger mission, and I would think proper training would overcome that. War is a sh**ty deal. Anyone who doesn't know that when they sign up for it learns it in a hurry. We have to remember that these people are trained to be professionals. This is a highly skilled job and discipline is key. I understand your point but ultimately, everyone signed up for a job and you hope everyone does it to their best professional level.
The reason women aren't in combat is simple: Feminists don't want women dying. They prefer men to die in their stead.
If only men were allowed to be MBAs, women's groups would protest. But since only men die in combat, feminists remain silent.
You know, the group that really-really-really DEMANDS equality.
Are you all really arguing over giving women the right to die in combat? If there is no cause then create one right... I say let everyone have the OPPORTUNITY to die: the wealthy, educated, poor, ignorant, male, female, brave, cowards, gay, straight, black, white, brown, Christian, Muslim, teenagers, the elderly. Come on who have I left out? Children? Pets? Don’t discriminate. Santa clause should be allowed to die in combat. LMFAO! Should ham be considered a lunch meat?
MerelyMortalMale says: "... You know, the group that really-really-really DEMANDS equality. "
Then why are women in the military at all? Besides, I doubt the Pentagon gives a damn about a group that a) has no political clout and b) has no business interjecting. The problem is the policy. If women can do the job (and they can), they should be given the option to do so. It's their business, not the business of feminists which, either you hate or you fear, I can't tell. What do you care what feminists want? What IS a feminist anyway?From your attitude, it almost sounds like you resent any woman who makes you feel like less of "a man."
Citizen M. says: "Are you all really arguing over giving women the right to die in combat?"
No; I'm arguing that we shouldn't exclude capable people because of arcane thinking and obsolete policies. I don't know what other point you're trying to make but if you think certain people don't belong in the military because of their sex or sexuality (how about color or race?) then here's the sad news: Unless you can find a time machine to take you back to Ozzie & Harriet land, you're either going to have to live with the changes or die miserable. Diversity should not be a casualty of crusty stubbornness. Things change, life moves on, some people get left behind. The train of progress doesn't give a damn if you get on or get off. You choose.
Women should be given the opportunity to prove themselves in infantry combat. Form an all female unit and see how well they perform in combat situations. If they perform as well as males then integrate them fully. Will never happen because the results would prove the idiocy of such a policy. Could they fight? Yes. As well as men? Absolutely not! Which is why they remain 15 to 20% of force (Same as in police and less in fire service). That's the maximum percent allowed before the dilution of effectiveness becomes obvious. Who do you think would win if Army fielded all women against Navy in their annual Football game? Hmmm? After all women can play football too! When our enemies decide to field Junior Varsity players then so should we. Oh by the way there was another officer (male) involved the Ft Hood situation. AP story shows he might be the one who actually took the Muslim Terrorist down. Google Sgt Mark Todd. Doubt we'll get much play to that aspect of the story
Jim says:
Women should be given the opportunity to prove themselves in infantry combat. Form an all female unit and see how well they perform in combat situations. If they perform as well as males then integrate them fully. Will never happen because the results would prove the idiocy of such a policy. Could they fight? Yes. As well as men? Absolutely not! Which is why they remain 15 to 20% of force (Same as in police and less in fire service).
That's not why; women make their own choices. Women choose not to fight in the percentages you cite. The ones who do and who prove they can should be allowed, side by side, to do the work of professional combat soldiers. There's no point in arguing with people who aren't convinced by evidence in contradiction to their values. If the actions of Sgt Munley don't convince you that they're capable, or the examples of the soldiers cited who happen to be female, what can? You want them to play football?
Bruce says, “I don't know what other point you're trying to make but if you think certain people don't belong in the military because of their sex or sexuality (how about color or race?) then here's the sad news: Unless you can find a time machine to take you back to Ozzie & Harriet land, you're either going to have to live with the changes or die miserable. Diversity should not be a casualty of crusty stubbornness. Things change, life moves on, some people get left behind. The train of progress doesn't give a damn if you get on or get off. You choose.”
This is so far from my point and so typical of your rhetoric. Isn’t war an arcane concept? Isn’t the idea of fighting over whom is qualified to die in said wars even more arcane? Every time I comment on here you twist my point or refute me with non fact or fallacy. This is not and has never been “dialogue” rather you argue with the point of view that you assign me each and every time.
"Isn’t war an arcane concept? Isn’t the idea of fighting over whom is qualified to die in said wars even more arcane? Every time I comment on here you twist my point or refute me with non fact or fallacy."
I would suggest that you stick to the subject at hand rather than use the comments section as a soapbox. We're not talking about whether war is arcane. That's a "no s***, Sherlock" observation. War is an unfortunately reality the result of a primitive species that doesn't know how to engage in conflict resolution. That's so patently obvious that I don't think it needs an article or a column telling us that war is bad. However, if you feel the need to write one, do that elsewhere. Meanwhile, as long as we have an armed forces and wars in which they are dispatched to fight, then the military should drop its arcane policy and let women who are capable do the fighting as well.
Bruce says, "I would suggest that you stick to the subject at hand rather than use the comments section as a soapbox. We're not talking about whether war is arcane. That's a "no s***, Sherlock" observation. War is an unfortunately reality the result of a primitive species that doesn't know how to engage in conflict resolution. That's so patently obvious that I don't think it needs an article or a column telling us that war is bad. However, if you feel the need to write one, do that elsewhere. Meanwhile, as long as we have an armed forces and wars in which they are dispatched to fight, then the military should drop its arcane policy and let women who are capable do the fighting as well.
You are still arguing the point of view that you have assigned me… Not having Dialogue related to my actual statement. I hope others read these exchanges and see the same trend. I used to think this was an interesting way to discuss differing views but you continually respond in an angry almost person
You are still arguing the point of view that you have assigned me… Not having Dialogue related to my actual statement. I hope others read these exchanges and see the same trend. I used to think this was an interesting way to discuss differing views but you continually respond in an angry almost personal manor with the same rhetoric that rarely engages my angle. Boring and trite… Yawn
Citizen M. says: "You are still arguing the point of view that you have assigned me… Not having Dialogue related to my actual statement. I hope others read these exchanges and see the same trend. I used to think this was an interesting way to discuss differing views but you continually respond in an angry almost personal manor with the same rhetoric that rarely engages my angle. Boring and trite… Yawn"
Okay, how's this. I don't believe there's any value in discussing whether war is arcane or not. You're as right as a ton of bricks, and about as obvious. War is arcane. What does that have to do with a military policy barring women from engaging in the combat zone? Can you answer that question directly. I'll even take a faux elitist trite answer if you prefer. And then answer this: Since war isn't going away despite your pithiness, should the policy be changed or not?
You implied that I was bringing race and discrimination into the discussion and that my way of thinking was crusty and ARCANE. Additionally you said that I could time travel back to Ozzie and Harriet land or get on the train of progress (and then suggested that I stay on topic LOL). My point as stated in my original comment was that everyone should have the “OPPORTUNITY” to die but where is the progress in our women coming home in boxes or missing limbs? How does that improve anything? To further my position I am white of German decent and my wife is a Latina who served 13 years in the military. She was in Afghanistan (tent city) and Germany (Ramstein AFB). I am proud of her service and grateful that she wasn’t killed or maimed. My problem is that so much is made of progress but some times this progress does nothing to further us as human beings. Women being blown apart does not equate to progress. If that is my own personal soapbox as you said or faux elitist because I won’t be rolled
Cont.
If that is my own personal soapbox as you said or faux elitist because I won’t be rolled over when you pick out one irrelevant phrase from my paragraph and spin it then so be it.
Citizen M. says: "...I won’t be rolled over when you pick out one irrelevant phrase from my paragraph and spin it then so be it..."
I have to wonder why anyone who has only a thousand characters to make a point would include any phrase or point that's irrelevant. I'd start with your post of November 8, 8:19 AM, to which I responded (at 11:02) that outside of your first sentence, "I don't know what other point you're trying to make but if..." as in, "if the rest of what you're saying is..." To which you responded (at 4:02): "This is so far from my point..." Precisely, after which, you seemed to make your point, which is so far beyond the need for elucidation that I don't think it's worth writing about. Now, if it's so typical of my rhetoric to try and parse out vague comments, maybe that can be avoided with more clarity. No one is trying to roll you over. This is not about winning arguments; I'm trying to get more clarity. Your wife has my deepest respect and gratitude.
If a kid shoots a grown man, does that mean he's ready for combat (NO). With all that would be at risk wouldn't you want to test this theory out before you actually put women on the frontline. Why not train lets say 300 plus women for about six weeks and send them out into combat and see how they fair. That makes a lot more sense than intergrating your forces only to find out later that it doesn't work (then what?). You will probably find you and your fellow country men speaking your enemy's language.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!