For women vets, a battle along with a war
Today's female veterans are poised to challenge perceptions over how
women serve in the military. By Patrik Jonsson
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1112/p03s01-usmi.html?s=hns
Full Version: For women vets, a battle along with a war
Common Ground Common Sense > Issues that Affect Our Lives > U.S. Military Issues > U.S. Military Issues Archive
Don't you just love how well news organizations vet their stories for accuracy?
For example - there is NO USS Comfort! That caught my eye right away and made me wonder what else in the story might be factually deficient.
For example - there is NO USS Comfort! That caught my eye right away and made me wonder what else in the story might be factually deficient.
QUOTE(flydangler @ Nov 12 2004, 01:26 PM)
Don't you just love how well news organizations vet their stories for accuracy?
For example - there is NO USS Comfort! That caught my eye right away and made me wonder what else in the story might be factually deficient.
For example - there is NO USS Comfort! That caught my eye right away and made me wonder what else in the story might be factually deficient.
flydangler - actually - it was a hospital ship...
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ships/...-6_Comfort.html
QUOTE(winger @ Nov 12 2004, 12:49 PM)
actually - it was a hospital ship...
Ah yes, but not a commissioned U.S. naval vessel as the story indicates. It's a T-AH manned and operated by civilians, but carries Navy medical & surgical teams on board when it deploys. That's actually a big difference - there were two ships named USS Comfort, but the most recent was decommissioned in 1946. A good reporter would have checked this out before including that in their story while a reporter basing a story only on information others provide them probably wouldn't bother.
QUOTE(flydangler @ Nov 12 2004, 10:20 AM)
Ah yes, but not a commissioned U.S. naval vessel as the story indicates. It's a T-AH manned and operated by civilians, but carries Navy medical & surgical teams on board when it deploys. That's actually a big difference - there were two ships named USS Comfort, but the most recent was decommissioned in 1946. A good reporter would have checked this out before including that in their story while a reporter basing a story only on information others provide them probably wouldn't bother.
This was a mistake. The article should have read "USNS Comfort" rather than USS Comfort. But is that alone a reason to discount the article as a whole? I don't think so. You may not like what the article has to say. If so, that is your right. But let's not pretend the whole article is debunked because of a missing N.
The USNS Comfort has performed a huge service to our nation during the war in Iraq. From Bill Moyers' web site:
QUOTE
[I]ts crew of 300 are predominantly from the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland and about 60 civil service mariners from the Navy's Military Sealift Command, headquartered in Washington, D.C. The Comfort was activated Dec. 26, 2002, and returned to Baltimore on June 12, 2003.
The Comfort had 300 military medical and support personnel when its voyage began. In March, the military contingent expanded to approximately 1,100 personnel, including about 1,000 medical specialists, while the ship was on station in the Persian Gulf. During its time at sea, Comfort's Medical Treatment Facility treated more than 650 patients, including about 200 Iraqi prisoners of war and Iraqi civilians. More than 600 surgeries were performed, and nearly 600 units of blood were transfused.
The Comfort had 300 military medical and support personnel when its voyage began. In March, the military contingent expanded to approximately 1,100 personnel, including about 1,000 medical specialists, while the ship was on station in the Persian Gulf. During its time at sea, Comfort's Medical Treatment Facility treated more than 650 patients, including about 200 Iraqi prisoners of war and Iraqi civilians. More than 600 surgeries were performed, and nearly 600 units of blood were transfused.
http://www.pbs.org/now/arts/grinker.html
I have no doubt they saved many lives.
Ship's web site: http://www.comfort.navy.mil/
QUOTE
This was a mistake. The article should have read "USNS Comfort" rather than USS Comfort. But is that alone a reason to discount the article as a whole? I don't think so. You may not like what the article has to say. If so, that is your right. But let's not pretend the whole article is debunked because of a missing N.
The USNS Comfort has performed a huge service to our nation during the war in Iraq. From Bill Moyers' web site:
The USNS Comfort has performed a huge service to our nation during the war in Iraq. From Bill Moyers' web site:
See you got FLYDANGLER'S number too Edie. It's called BAITING. These folks who come from the Miltiary.com, the Hannity and other right-wing forums to loiter at target='_blank'>
http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...p?showtopic=147 may be INDEPENDENT but they are about as PROGRESSIVE, or MODERATE as KARL ROVE.
Well WE better get use to WOMEN serving in combat in Iraq because at least THE ARMY is about to make that policy.
I'VE COMMENTED ON THIS FORUM AND THE KERRY FORUM BEFORE THAT THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PROPOSED MILITARY DRAFT THAT WAS VOTED DOWN IN CONGRESS AND THE ONE IN EXISTENCE WAS THE PROPOSED ONE INCLUDED "DRAFTING WOMEN."
CHECK THIS OUT.
COULD THERE BE A REVISED DRAFT IN THE AIR.
AS I SAID ARMYDAD SUPPORTS A NATIONAL DRAFT TO QUICKLY BRING OUR TROOPS HOME BECAUSE SUPPORT FOR THE WAR AMONG THE RIGHT-WING WILL PLUMMET ONCE THEIR KIDS ARE VULNERABLE.
BUT I DO NOT SUPPORT THE DRAFTING OF WOMEN FOR COMBAT ROLES "IF" THERE SHOULD BE CONSCRIPTION.
Report leans toward women in combat
By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Internal Army documents advocate changing Pentagon rules on mixed-sex units in a way that critics say will risk placing female soldiers in ground-combat situations.
The Nov. 29 briefing to senior Army officers at the Pentagon, presented as part of the service's sweeping transformation of its 10 war-fighting divisions, advocates scrapping the military's ban on collocation — the deployment of mixed-sex noncombat units alongside all-male combat brigades.
NOW THIS WILL GO OVER BIG WITH SPOUSES OF MARRIED TROOPS DEPLOYED WHO ARE ALREADY UNDER EXTREME STRESS THAT THEIR HUSBANDS AND WIVES ARE BEING SHOT AT. WHO'S BRILLIANT IDEA IN RUMSFELD'S CORPORATION IS THIS? ARMYDAD.
The briefing contained the phrase: "The way ahead: rewrite/eliminate the Army collocation policy."
To some in the Army, the confidential briefing proves that the service is moving toward a decision to put women within direct combat units, despite statements denying such plans, including a Nov. 3 Capitol Hill briefing for senior congressional staff members by Army and Pentagon officials.
According to one aide, the Nov. 3 briefers assured the staff members that the Army was complying with the collocation rule and did not want it changed.
"We are not collocating," a senior congressional aide quoted the presenters as saying.
But the Army's Nov. 29 paper suggests otherwise, and critics of the plan, both inside and outside the Army, argue that it is part of an overall plan to override a 1994 policy prohibiting women from serving in direct land combat.
The Pentagon has said it maintains the ban because upper-body strength is needed for land combat and because polls show most female soldiers do not want the policy changed.
Elaine Donnelly, who heads the independent Center for Military Readiness, has sent a letter to Rep. Duncan Hunter, California Republican and House Armed Services Committee chairman, accusing the Army of violating Pentagon rules.
"Female soldiers, including young mothers, should not have to pay the price for Pentagon bureaucratic blunders and gender-based recruiting quotas that have caused apparent shortages in male soldiers for the new land-combat brigades," Mrs. Donnelly said.
"It does not make sense to sacrifice the advantage of modular organizations, just to make ideological points about gender equality. Land combat is not fair or equal, nor is it even civilized," she said.
NOR IS IT CIVILIZED? SAY WHAT! THE GOP VETERANS AND RIGHT-WINGERS ARE GOING TO EAR HER ALIVE. HAVE AT HER! ARMYDAD.
An Army spokeswoman at the Pentagon said, "It is my understanding that the Nov. 29 briefing was predecisional. There are a number of Army policies under review."
The debate's roots go back to 1994. Impressed with the performance of military women in Operation Desert Storm, the Clinton administration lifted long-standing bans on women in combat aircraft and ships.
But the new policy clearly stated that a prohibition would continue for ground units that participate in direct combat. The 1994 policy also said women would not serve "where units and positions are doctrinally required to physically collocate and remain with direct ground combat units that are closed to women."
Now, the Army's transformation plans include proposals for much tighter mingling of combat and noncombat units.
Gen. Peter Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, has redesigned the basic combat brigade into self-contained "units of action" that train and deploy with their support teams, including a unit called the Forward Support Company (FSC).
Currently, women serve in units that perform the functions of FSCs.
Mrs. Donnelly and Army officials, who asked not to be named, contend that the new design would require the Army to violate the collocation rule. They say federal law requires the military to notify Congress.
THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION IS NOTORIOUS FOR ACTIVELY SEEKING AND FINDING LOOPHOLES FOR NOT TELLING CONGRESS ANYTHING THAT INVOLVES PROGRESS (OR THE LACK THEREOF) IN IRAQ. BUSH IS GOING TO COME HAT IN HAND ASKING FOR A BLANK CHECK FOR 100 BILLION DOLLARS AFTER HIS INAUGERATION WITH NO STRINGS ATTACHED AND NO CONGRESSIONAL "OVERSIGHT." THIS WILL BE A VERY, VERY BIG MISTAKE = AGAIN. THAT IS WHY JOHN KERRY VOTED AGAINST THE 82 BILLION DOLLARS = NOT AS A VOTE AGAINST THE TROOPS = WE KNOW BETTER, BUT AS A VOTE AGAINST CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT. FOLLOW THE MONEY
But in the Nov. 3 presentation to congressional aides, the Army said it was complying with the collocation rule by attaching the FSC to a brigade support battalion — not to the combat brigade itself. The first redesigned division, the 3rd Infantry at Fort Stewart, Ga., is scheduled to return to Iraq in January.
But Mrs. Donnelly said the change is on paper only. She said that the 3rd Infantry's FSC, which is mixed-sex, would have to stay, or collocate, with the combat brigade "100 percent of the time" to do its job in the way the Army envisions.
Even the Army's own documents, previously reported by The Washington Times and labeled "draft close hold," state that this arrangement "could be perceived as subterfuge to avoid reporting requirements" to Congress on changing the policy.
SEE WHAT I MEAN ABOUT THE BUSH ADMIN
About three weeks after the Nov. 3 briefing, the Army created another internal presentation — this one on why the ban on collocation should be lifted.
The Nov. 29 briefing was prepared by Col. Robert H. Woods Jr., the director of the Human Resources Policy Directorate at the Pentagon. The directorate reports to the deputy chief of staff for personnel. Col. Woods has been nominated for promotion to brigadier general.
The Woods briefing's cover page contains the headline, "Patriotic women of excellence contributing to our force."
After writing that the "way ahead" is to eliminate the collocation rule, the briefing states, "incorporate lessons learned from 3rd [Infantry] into future decisions on policy affecting the assignment and utilization of women soldiers."
Said Mrs. Donnelly: "It appears that certain shortsighted Army officials have decided to ignore the congressional notification law in order to gather 'lessons learned,' which in turn will be used to declare this live-fire, extremely dangerous social experiment a big 'success.' "
The briefing also gives an example of how the Army might get rid of the rule. Army regulations state female soldiers are banned from units "which are assigned a routine mission to engage in direct combat or which collocate routinely with units assigned a direct combat mission."
The proposed change deletes the collocation rule altogether, meaning only direct-combat units are off-limits.
The Army document also states that the 1994 policy concerning the need to notify the Office of the Secretary of Defense is "silent on dropping restrictions."
Mrs. Donnelly said this appears to be an argument for not notifying Pentagon civilians.
"It is preposterous to suggest that the Army could put women into the infantry, armor or units collocated with them without formal approval by the secretary of defense," Mrs. Donnelly said.
The Times reported last week on an internal May 10 briefing that portrayed the Army as in a bind. The briefing states the Army does not have enough male soldiers to fill the FSCs if they were to collocate with combat brigades and thus required to be men-only.
All-male FSCs, the paper states, "creates potential long-term challenge to Army; pool of male recruits too small to sustain force."
http://www.military.com/News/Home/0,13324,...0041213,00.html
ARMYDADYou got that post, right on Bro'. Snuffy, dynamite post - for sure.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.