Army Chief Seems To Treat Women In Combat Issue
Lightly, As A Joke, Like Women Driving Cars
By Michael A. Peroutka The Covenant News ~ May 17, 2005
One in seven of our troops in Iraq is female. Thirty-five of them have been killed; 271 have been injured. And whatever your view on women in the military, I've never thought that our wives, daughters and/or sisters being in combat is a joking matter, a topic to be taken lightly. But, evidently, apparently, U.S. Army Chief of Staff General Peter J. Schoomaker thinks differently. Following a recent address at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington DC, a questioner, a General Bob Miller, identified as being with an organization called "Hope For America," raised with Gen. Schoomaker what he called "a moral question" in two parts:
Q: "One is do you and the Army see, as some of us have been trained to understand as youngsters, that men have a moral responsibility to be protective of women?.... And if we do not hold that there is such a moral responsibility, then does the all volunteer force stand unable to recruit and commission men who do commit themselves to such a sense of moral obligation to be protectors of women rather than employing them in hostile and dangerous circumstances to be killed and to kill."
Now, whether he knew it or not, Gen. Schoomaker was being asked if he agreed with the Christian view that one role of men is to protect women. Well, he does not. He began his reply by saying: "I think we have a moral responsibility to protect the weak regardless of gender, and I do not see this as a gender issue." Whoa! Excuse me, sir, but the question of women in military, women in combat, most certainly IS a "gender" issue!
Gen. Schoomaker continued: "First of all, we have a policy…that says that we will not assign females to the infantry armor and Special Forces organizations that are trained, organized, and equipped to routinely close with and destroy the enemy. And we have an Army policy that adds to that and says we will not co-locate these women at the time that those units are undergoing those operations."
But, in all honesty, this is a dishonest statement. Gen. Schoomaker knows that there are no clearly defined front lines in the Iraq war. Our troops are subject to being attacked virtually anywhere in Iraq. Thus, female troops in Iraq can be killed, wounded, raped or captured. And, as previously noted, 35 female troops have been killed there; 271 have been wounded.
Gen. Schoomaker continued his answer: "The realities of the battlefield are such that this is not an issue of whether or not women will become injured and maimed anymore than anybody else will, anymore than children will or elderly or males.
"The fact is that I think we have a moral responsibility to prepare those women that are serving in our armed forces to number one, have the very best chance of surviving by providing them with the warrior skills and tasks that, are required and, number two, make sure that as we operate that we operate in such a way that reduces the probability that any soldier will be placed in a position to be injured or killed. So that's kind of the way that I approach that.
"I don't know if I understood your total question, but I don't happen to share a feeling that somehow that women do not have either the capability or the responsibility to share in the service the country, and I think that that's--we've now had a volunteer force for over 20 years, and the women play such an extraordinary important part in what we do that I think that we're good to go so far."
Gen. Schoomaker's questioner, Gen. Bob Miller, persisted. He asked: Then are men who believe that men have a moral commitment to protect women unsuitable to be in the U.S. Army?
Gen. Schoomaker: "Well, that's an interesting question I would never have thought about. I would say no. But, you know, I think that we all have different little things that--but, you know, that may differ from one another on some things, but I mean I think you're going in the direction of conscientious objectors kind of status.
"I mean something that would be similar to that, and I don't see that as--I mean, you know, there are some people that would say, you know, men and women can't even share the same tornado shelter in Oklahoma. I mean there are. I mean there's quite a wide spectrum here on what all this means. I think that maybe since we're killing 40,000 people a year on the highways, they shouldn't drive. Okay. That's very dangerous, too."
The transcript of this exchange notes that after this reply there was "laughter."
But, when women are killed and maimed-for-life in combat this is no laughing matter. To believe, as I do, that our wives, daughters and/or sisters ought not to be in the military where, in combat, they can be killed and maimed-for-life is no "little thing" about which to disagree.
And what in the world was Gen. Schoomaker thinking when he likened women being in combat to men and women being together in tornado shelters, and women driving? This is absurd and trivializes the literal life-and-death issue of women being in combat.
I repeat what I've said before. As a Christian, I do not want women in our military to be trained as "warriors." In fact --- because I believe it is the role of men to protect women --- I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT WOMEN SHOULD BE IN OUR MILITARY AT ALL, IN ANY POSITIONS! If, at some point, we are involved in a truly Godly, Biblical, Constitutional war that is really self-defense, women might help in some capacity, as volunteers. But, even then, it would not be necessary for them to be members of our Armed Forces.