Monday
May232005
Pink and blue soldiers
Monday, May 23, 2005 at 3:00AM
By Ellen Ratner
Some House Republicans would like to create a pink and blue military. U.S. Representative John McHugh, R-N.Y., recently threw in a last minute amendment to the House's defense appropriations bill that would bar women from key positions they now serve in the global War on Terror. The Republican-led sneak attack on the U.S. military was not completely successful.
The House Armed Services Committee voted for a compromise that, according to the military's senior leadership, ties the hands of our commanders by requiring that Congress must authorize by law any additional roles for women in uniform. The 1994 law that governs the role of women in uniform has always required the military to notify Congress of changes, but should this bill pass, military readiness and flexibility will be determined in the halls of Congress, not by the senior leadership serving the commander in chief.
I have often judged the quality of a piece of legislation by who supports it and who opposes it. This last-minute amendment, which did not permit ample debate, was supported by the politics of public relations and emotion over the politics of reason and readiness. Congressman McHugh grabbed headlines by saying, "If the nation's mothers and daughters are sent into combat, it's because we ordered it."
Excuse me Mr. McHugh, but where have you been for the last 10 years? Women have been serving in aerial combat roles since 1994. Before that, over 40,000 women served in the first Gulf War in key combat-support positions. Over a dozen of them were killed and two were held as prisoners. Today, one out of seven serving in Iraq is a woman and 38 of them have paid the ultimate price for their service.
There is a long and distinguished list of those who oppose the amendment. The commanders of the women who serve our nation are at the top of the list. Veterans groups who represent the National Guard and Reserves are also outraged. It doesn't take a math major to realize that our armed forces are critically understaffed. Forty percent of those serving in Iraq are National Guard and Reserves because we do not have the Active Duty forces to support the mission.
Meanwhile women make up 15 percent of the total service – a service that is having a tough time recruiting soldiers in a time of war. The Army missed its recruiting target for the first time in five years this past February. They were almost 2,000 soldiers short. March and April were no better. It is no wonder the military is opposed to buying into this Republican-led hysteria.
I would recommend Representative McHugh and company listen to his colleague, Republican Representative and Air Force veteran Heather Wilson of New Mexico. In a press conference last week, Wilson exhibited political courage scarcely seen in the halls of Congress. She broke with many members of her party in order to serve the interests of the nation. She expressed the sentiment that we don't need soldiers in pink and soldiers in blue – we need soldiers in green who support the mission.
Unlike over 90 percent of her congressional colleagues, Representative Wilson has actually served in the military and is therefore familiar with something I learned on my two trips to Iraq: The mission comes before the individual. The military is not in the business of creating social policy. Women are an integral part of the mission or they would not be in Iraq. In fact, there are some missions in Iraq which can only be accomplished by women. Every unit that conducts house to house searches must have a woman present to search the female Iraqis. This amendment is another classic congressional case of "Shoot, Fire, Aim."
Republican sponsors McHugh of New York and his sidekick, Hunter of California, show their ignorance when they talk of women on the front line. If they had ever been to Iraq, or spent more than a few hours on the ground, they would know there is no front. Iraq is a 360-degree battle zone in which disaster can strike from any direction at any time. Just ask the families of the over 300 Iraqi civilians who have been killed in the last few weeks.
As I have outlined, there are more than enough operational reasons to retain the current policy on women in the military. The experts in uniform should determine how their troops are best utilized. But there are also some non-operational reasons – namely, the negative impact this amendment has on morale. What do you think that woman in uniform is thinking right now as she risks her life day in and day so that these congressmen don't have to send their sons over to Iraq and Afghanistan?
I believe it would be hard for these women not to take this assault on their vital role in the war personally. The U.S. military isn't interested in marginalizing these women. Women are not in Iraq because someone has a political agenda. They are there because we cannot do the job without them. I recommend some of these House Republicans look for a real problem to solve instead of creating more problems for our Americans in uniform.
Some House Republicans would like to create a pink and blue military. U.S. Representative John McHugh, R-N.Y., recently threw in a last minute amendment to the House's defense appropriations bill that would bar women from key positions they now serve in the global War on Terror. The Republican-led sneak attack on the U.S. military was not completely successful.
The House Armed Services Committee voted for a compromise that, according to the military's senior leadership, ties the hands of our commanders by requiring that Congress must authorize by law any additional roles for women in uniform. The 1994 law that governs the role of women in uniform has always required the military to notify Congress of changes, but should this bill pass, military readiness and flexibility will be determined in the halls of Congress, not by the senior leadership serving the commander in chief.
I have often judged the quality of a piece of legislation by who supports it and who opposes it. This last-minute amendment, which did not permit ample debate, was supported by the politics of public relations and emotion over the politics of reason and readiness. Congressman McHugh grabbed headlines by saying, "If the nation's mothers and daughters are sent into combat, it's because we ordered it."
Excuse me Mr. McHugh, but where have you been for the last 10 years? Women have been serving in aerial combat roles since 1994. Before that, over 40,000 women served in the first Gulf War in key combat-support positions. Over a dozen of them were killed and two were held as prisoners. Today, one out of seven serving in Iraq is a woman and 38 of them have paid the ultimate price for their service.
There is a long and distinguished list of those who oppose the amendment. The commanders of the women who serve our nation are at the top of the list. Veterans groups who represent the National Guard and Reserves are also outraged. It doesn't take a math major to realize that our armed forces are critically understaffed. Forty percent of those serving in Iraq are National Guard and Reserves because we do not have the Active Duty forces to support the mission.
Meanwhile women make up 15 percent of the total service – a service that is having a tough time recruiting soldiers in a time of war. The Army missed its recruiting target for the first time in five years this past February. They were almost 2,000 soldiers short. March and April were no better. It is no wonder the military is opposed to buying into this Republican-led hysteria.
I would recommend Representative McHugh and company listen to his colleague, Republican Representative and Air Force veteran Heather Wilson of New Mexico. In a press conference last week, Wilson exhibited political courage scarcely seen in the halls of Congress. She broke with many members of her party in order to serve the interests of the nation. She expressed the sentiment that we don't need soldiers in pink and soldiers in blue – we need soldiers in green who support the mission.
Unlike over 90 percent of her congressional colleagues, Representative Wilson has actually served in the military and is therefore familiar with something I learned on my two trips to Iraq: The mission comes before the individual. The military is not in the business of creating social policy. Women are an integral part of the mission or they would not be in Iraq. In fact, there are some missions in Iraq which can only be accomplished by women. Every unit that conducts house to house searches must have a woman present to search the female Iraqis. This amendment is another classic congressional case of "Shoot, Fire, Aim."
Republican sponsors McHugh of New York and his sidekick, Hunter of California, show their ignorance when they talk of women on the front line. If they had ever been to Iraq, or spent more than a few hours on the ground, they would know there is no front. Iraq is a 360-degree battle zone in which disaster can strike from any direction at any time. Just ask the families of the over 300 Iraqi civilians who have been killed in the last few weeks.
As I have outlined, there are more than enough operational reasons to retain the current policy on women in the military. The experts in uniform should determine how their troops are best utilized. But there are also some non-operational reasons – namely, the negative impact this amendment has on morale. What do you think that woman in uniform is thinking right now as she risks her life day in and day so that these congressmen don't have to send their sons over to Iraq and Afghanistan?
I believe it would be hard for these women not to take this assault on their vital role in the war personally. The U.S. military isn't interested in marginalizing these women. Women are not in Iraq because someone has a political agenda. They are there because we cannot do the job without them. I recommend some of these House Republicans look for a real problem to solve instead of creating more problems for our Americans in uniform.
A day for remembrance
I was born six years after the end of World War II. I grew up spending Memorial Day (or Decoration Day as it was called then) at the Cleveland, Ohio, cemetery with my mother. We carefully placed the flowers on the graves of my relatives and family friends, some of whom had served in world wars. We did not celebrate Memorial Day, we observed it by honoring our loved ones. The cemetery was full of families like mine who also spent the day in remembrance. There were no barbeques or Memorial Day sales – in fact, the stores were closed.
My mother took great pains to explain why we commemorated this day. She told me about our relatives who had served in the war. She told me about the sacrifices that they had made and that their families had made while at home. She told me about ration cards and that in "those days" it did not matter how much money you had, everyone sacrificed for the good of the country.
As I observe my 53rd Memorial Day, I cannot help but compare those days in the Cleveland cemetery to what has become just another three-day weekend. For most of us, Memorial Day's only distinction is that it kicks off the 121 days of summer.
Many suggested in the wake of Sept. 11, 2001, that we declare that day a national holiday. Those who opposed the gesture used the irreverence that we display toward Memorial Day as a reason not to make it a holiday. They feared that Sept. 11 would be another American three-day weekend with little relevance to the majority of us.
Some readers may think it is disingenuous for me to comment on Memorial Day because I openly speak out against the blanket use of war as a means to project America's power in the world. Somehow, those who support war – as the first option vs. the last – have convinced many of the perverted thought that "to oppose a war is to oppose those who must fight it."
We lost almost 50,000 Americans before we finally decided that we could not win the war in Vietnam. Five thousand of them died before anyone took notice enough to protest their loss. I think regardless of one's political affiliation, we owe it to the men and women in harm's way to continue to demand accountability from our government before, during and after sending them into danger.
Our nation was not accountable to the families of Vietnam. Their grief is still palpable. It can be understood in the letters they place on Memorial Day at the base of the Vietnam Memorial where their loved one's name is etched for eternity.
I doubt that in writing this column, I can restore Memorial Day to its rightful place of reverence and remembrance. But it is my hope that our nation honors the fallen by embracing its responsibility to those who are in harm's way on this Memorial Day. My way of honoring their sacrifice is to continue to hold this government accountable for their welfare abroad and at home.