IRAQI FAIRS

The role of women in combat and military positions extends back nearly 4,000 years, to include many cultures and nations. The roles these women have played start with the ancient warrior women and extend through history to include women serving in modern day conflicts such as Operation Iraq Freedom. Although assigned various roles in past societies on an ad hoc basis, women today are already on the “frontline” in today’s armed forces.

The debate continues as to what role women should play as part of their military obligations. The response has been increased opportunities for women to serve outside the traditional roles they were relegated to in the past. This has occurred not only in the United States Armed Forces, but in many other nations as well.

The debate around service in the military for women is seen by some as sexual discrimination. Both sides of the issue argue that the physical and mental differences between men and women are a primary concern. Secondly, having opposite sexes on the battlefield creates primal responses that could endanger missions. And the third most heated part of the debate center around the traditional views of men as soldiers under combat conditions.

Several civilizations from early history on have wrestled with these debates as well. Societal responses have varied over the centuries. For example, some countries do not allow or even consider the possibility of women on the battlefield. While other countries such as the Soviet Union allows women to serve alongside their male counterparts.

Traditionally, women serve mostly in support roles. But in today’s modern conflicts, where the “front line” is debatable, roles such as convoy escorts, military police, staffing checkpoints and firefighting account for women on the pseudo front line as part of mixed deployment units.

Combat roles have been very restrictive for women and only a few countries recruit women to serve in active combat roles. Countries such as Great Britain allow women to serve in artillery roles, but exclude them from dedicated infantry roles. On the other hand, the United States does permit women to assume combat flying positions but not necessarily any other positions that require their presence on the frontline.

So the arguments for women in combat positions are still on the table. Outside the physical differences between men and women, the mentality differences and the effects of one sex presence in the company of the other, in a combat situation, not a lot of additional debatable concerns exist.

The most obvious and hotly debated issue of women on the battlefield concern physical differences. The female skeletal system is obviously different from that of her male counterpart. Female soldiers may be more easily damaged during intense combat situations because there skeletal systems are less dense and more prone to breakage. Even though women are allowed to become fighter pilots, concerns regarding their ability to handle g-forces in modern fighter aircraft are becoming more of a concern.

The Navy continues to argue that female health issues when deployed on submarines is the primary reasons for avoiding female recruits for these combat situations. They also note that mixed-gender accommodations are problematic.

The traditional male solider has stated that such issues as trust in their female counterpart and romantic relationships as a disruptive influence on the fighting capability of the unit. They’ve also mentioned how female soldiers are typically shorter and smaller than men on average and have less upper body strength which might endanger the mission as a typical male response when seeing women struggling with lifting and carrying gets them somewhat out of character.

Further reaching issues subsist outside the more obvious reasons stated above.  For example, many are concerned about treatment of women prisoners of war.  The risks of being captured, tortured and sexually abused are unacceptable practices during war time and could cause unnecessary challenges for commanders deciding how to mitigate these situations.

Aside from the negatives, the US Government has been accused of not tapping into a potentially huge source of soldiers to meet increased manning requirements for military operations.

The arguments on this side of the aisle also accuse the US Government of creating sub class citizens by excluding women from serving in any position they desire in their military career. Equal opportunities aside, some accuse the military of honoring the traditional soldiering profession despite the equal opportunities we espouse in other areas of life.

As a professional “women solider” I can understand the concerns on both sides of the table.  But as a solider sworn to defend my country, I see no reason why women cannot serve in combat positions if they choose that as the motivating reason for their service to our nation.

For example, I had to defend against the enemy while out on patrol…I was in combat. Being a woman veteran of 15 years, serving two tours in Operation Iraqi Freedom I was in combat. I was traveling in a convoy that was receiving small arms fire and 3 km away an Improvised Explosive device denoted.  I was in combat.  My male counterpart did not look around to see if I was male or female.  He knew I was trained to make quick decisions based on the same training we’d both received.

We know as women we have strengths and weaknesses just like any other solider, whether male or female. No discrimination while training.  I must carry my load and know and be able to perform my duties as a soldier, not a woman. This is no difference than performing on the battlefield.

Recently, I conducted a survey of ten male soldiers. Each solider was asked “Should women serve in combat?”  8 out of 10 stated women are already in combat.  Some talked about their experience with women in hostile situations during guard duty or patrols in Iraq.  Some said they would rather have a woman by their side is some situation.  Most agreed that no matter what the debate is about women are in combat, women can provide an essential role as frontline combatants along with their male counterparts.

The United States Institute of Peace (USIP) recently held a briefing with top counter terrorism and Middle East policy researchers and experts on the future of Iraq and the Obama administration. Many of these experts agreed that the U.S. troop withdrawal plan over the next few years must rely upon both continued Iraqi security force training to improve regional stability as well as the development and reconstruction of Iraqi civil society. One could call the military-based approach an exercise in counter terrorism training for Iraqi security forces, whereas the development based approach includes anti terrorism training for Iraqis. The Iraqi government, security services, and greater population will require both counter terrorism training and anti terrorism training, which brings one to question what exactly is the difference between anti terrorism and counter terrorism and how can U.S. policy best incorporate both types into an effective strategy in other countries as well as its own terrorism prevention policy.

Counter terrorism operations are a tactical approach used by governments, militaries, local law enforcement, and other parties towards dealing with terrorists. Counter terrorism includes applying intelligence and using force to eliminate terrorists, and is essentially a strategy of repression or suppression. The U.S. military defines counter terrorism as “operations that include the offensive measures taken to prevent, deter, preempt, and respond to terrorism.” (Joint Publication 1-02 Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms; U.S. Department of Defense ; 12 July 2007) The short term goal of counter terrorism policy is not to eliminate root causes of terrorism, but to bring the current crisis under control. Continued counter terrorism training of Iraqi security forces is an integral component for a timely withdrawal of U.S. troops, as Iraqi security officers need to prepare to deal tactically with Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) and other subversive forces on the ground. Experts from the USIP briefing suggested key steps related to counter terrorism policy for the new administration should include the continued training and equipping of Iraqi security forces, among other efforts. (USIP briefing; “Iraq in the Obama Administration,” December 2008) Continued Iraqi security and reconstruction, however, is also dependent upon anti terrorism training.

While similar and often incorrectly interchanged with the term “counter terrorism,” anti terrorism is a strategic, long- term effort towards reducing and altogether halting terrorism by focusing on root causes and seeking to change the environment which fosters terrorism. “Anti terrorism tactics consist of gathering information and disseminating it broadly, promoting public discourse, lobbying policy makers to encourage violence reduction policies and legislation, conducting civil litigation against terrorist actors, and organizing social institutions to accomplish these functions. Anti terrorism is a strategy of expanding democracy to eliminate the causes and resources enabling terrorism.”(Paul de Armond; “Rock, Paper, Scissors: Counter Terrorism, Anti Terrorism, and Terrorism,” Public Good Occasion Paper #6, 1997) Experts suggest that the U.S. government must continue to lobby for a settlement between the Kurdistan Regional Government and the central government, develop a strategy for national elections, and support peaceful power transitions – all efforts that can be categorized as anti terrorism training. (USIP briefing, December 2008)

The suggestions made by terrorism and Middle East experts for a successful and timely withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq illustrate the importance of a blended approach towards dealing with terrorism in Iraq, across the globe, and within the U.S. Anti terrorism and counter terrorism strategies are jointly important for the United States’ continued success in preventing and eliminating the terrorist threat in the present and in the future. This blended approach highlights the importance of developing policies under the rubric of strategic security, which is the multi disciplinary, global view of past, present, and future security issues that permits the timely accumulation of accurate, objective knowledge. Strategic security thinking is vital for the continued safety and protection of the U.S., as well as states around the globe.

“Fahrenheit 9/11″ auteur Michael Moore recently fueled the epidemic of hatred for America by denouncing his own country and his own people to the foreign press. The UK’s Mirror printed Mr. Moore’s observation of Americans: “They are the dumbest people on the face of the earth…in thrall to conniving, thieving, smug pricks…We Americans suffer from an enforced ignorance. We don’t know about anything that’s happening outside our country. Our stupidity is embarrassing.” (1)

That’s right. We are. In fact, we’re stupid enough to believe that we have a great country. Why? Let’s look at the facts…

In 2002, the US Census Bureau estimated that 32.5 million people, from places Moore claims our children can’t find on a map, lived in the United States, the largest foreign-born population in America since we started keeping records in 1850. (2) Why are all these people risking drowning, hardships, cultural barriers and possible contamination by our laziness, aggression and arrogance, incompetence, shallowness, and sexually explicit media? Why do people such as California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger come here, entertain, take advantage of opportunity, and enrich our economy through business and philanthropy?

Shock time: Americans are not nearly as despised as Al-Jazeera would have you believe. In fact, the PEW Global Attitudes Project reports that in its 2004 survey, roughly half the respondents in Russia, Turkey and Morocco say people who have moved to the U.S. have a better life (natives of Germany, France and Britain who responded to the survey disagreed, but that’s hardly a surprise, even though Britain has always been a friend).3

None of the usual pat phrases such as “land of opportunity,” “let freedom ring,” and “democracy, democracy, democracy,” seem to explain why Elian Gonzalez’ mother died to bring him to America.

But perhaps we as Americans are stupid enough to believe that those phrases actually mean something. Perhaps we are the dumbest people on the face of the earth. “Dumb” in this case can mean “na?ve,” generally meant as an insult, as in “Don’t be so na?ve about why al-Qa’eda hates us so much.”

These days, anyone who doesn’t adopt the de rigueur attitude of boredom and yawning in the face of just about everything is called na?ve. But Americans have always been known for innocence and openness.

Beverly West quoted actress Alicia Silverstone in Culinarytherapy. Ms. Silverstone, perhaps channeling President Abraham Lincoln’s optimism, once remarked, “Like when I’m in the bathroom looking at my toilet paper I’m like ‘Wow! That’s toilet paper!’ I don’t know if we appreciate how much we have.” (p. 184)

The idea of anything-therapy and the overuse of “like” appear to the global audience to be authentically American, impressed with our own coolness in one breath and cheerfully mangling the English language in the next, not to mention taking the words of a nubile young Hollywood actress (who starred, interestingly, in a contemporary remake of Jane Austen’s satire on manners Emma) as wisdom. Being excited about toilet paper seems, in this high-tech age, a little backward and disingenuous.

Yet all major religions, particularly the Judeo-Christian tradition on which America as we know it was founded, emphasize gratitude as part of spiritual consciousness. Gratitude for the simplest of things, like toilet paper. The great composer Aaron Copeland based his “Appalachian Spring” symphony on the Shaker song of gratitude, “Simple Gifts.”

“Simple” is often a synonym for “dumb.” Yet if simplicity means stupidity, Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau were prize idiots. Both of these quintessential American philosophers emphasized simplicity.

In a land of high-speed Internet, 500 channels, strip malls, and coffee companies proliferating like WMD, simplicity seems a foreign concept. Yet in America, we’re “simple” enough to believe that we live in a land of liberty, that (political correctness aside) we can pray, say, or sing whatever we want. We’re simple enough to believe that there still is a personal God, no matter what name we praise; that our kids have the right to attend church, despite the brouhaha over “one nation under God” in the Declaration of Independence; and that (reality shows and a 50 percent divorce rate aside) saying “till death do us part” still means something.

We’re na?ve and open enough to believe that, “conniving, thieving, smug” CEOs notwithstanding, we can work hard, start businesses, take care of our families, and create a life that we can be proud of when we leave this world. Even the much-vilified Martha Stewart is admired as a self-made American success story, someone who has used traditional homemaking arts to build a worldwide brand that emphasizes the good life. So much for the idea that Americans are a land of instant macaroni-and-cheese and fast-food eaters. Yes, people sue McDonald’s over getting fat, but the majority of Americans work hard, try to eat well (often together as a family), and pride themselves on playing fair and upholding the law.

Despite celebrity trials, racial prejudices, judicial snafus, serial killers and publicity-hungry lawyers, we still think that “the little guy” still gets a day in court and a fair trial by jury. There is still a sense of personal responsibility for oneself, one’s fellow citizens, and one’s children.

Despite increasing pressures that erode childhood, our kids still have faith in parents to set limits, to be an example, and to lay the foundation for a good life. Certainly many of the young men and women we have seen interviewed in Operation Iraqi Freedom represent the best and the brightest. Our children exhibit the unique dedication to serving others that so many of our leaders, from President Kennedy to Eleanor Roosevelt to Colin Powell, extol. Ms. Stewart advocated teaching disadvantaged women how to start their own businesses. In America, even some of our high-profile so-called criminals want to improve life for others.

We’re simpleminded enough to believe we can make a difference abroad and in our own communities. We have a strong commitment to preserving the earth for future generations. From Thoreau to Rachel Carson to the eco-friendly celebrity spokesperson of the week, Americans show a love for the natural beauty of the earth, a beauty that we celebrate in our own homeland. Many of our citizens support recycling, controls on pollution, wilderness/rainforest conservation, and wildlife preservation. As the riots at the 1999 WTO Summit in Seattle show, Americans can be quite over-zealous when supporting their causes. In short: Americans care.

This should come as no surprise. Our ancestors banded together to secede from British rule. Even in our fight for liberty, we held opposing views, contrarian views amongst ourselves. The Whigs who supported the Revolution and the Tories who supported England clashed with the fervor of their descendants, demonstrators with opposing views on wars from Vietnam to Operation Iraqi Freedom.

This passion for ideas, this devotion, may seem to undermine the unity we boast of. We’re na?ve enough to protect the free expression of ideas, even sometimes seemingly at great cost. You don’t see death squads breaking into antiwar protesters’ homes. For all the controversy over the Patriot Act, people who disagree with the US government do not simply disappear without a trace. Case in point: “Fahrenheit 9/11.” It has made over $1 million (the first documentary to do so), yet people coming out of movie theaters don’t get dragged into unmarked cars and interrogated. You can’t be more critical of the government than Mr. Moore, and yet he won an Oscar for “Bowling For Columbine.” Unlike Soviet artists who criticized Communism, Americans are not forced to flee their homeland–the rest of us won’t stand for it.

Lest we forget, it was recently-deceased and much-praised former President Ronald Reagan who uttered the famous phrase, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear
down this wall.” His administration was hardly free of controversy, and yet “the Gipper” maintained a cheerful optimism, an openness to the “Evil Empire,” and yes, a na?ve belief that America was “a shining city on a hill.” Reagan was actually dumb enough to believe that America would prosper long after he left office. From this standpoint, “the Gipper” personifies Mr. Moore’s idea of American idiocy.

In that case, the countless mourners, including children too young to have heard of President Reagan, who streamed by the casket in the Capitol Rotunda and at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library all suffer from a collective lobotomy. For that matter, so do the world’s most famous figures, including Mr. Gorbachev and Dame Margaret Thatcher, who all responded to President Reagan’s uniquely American character.

At this rate we’ll be a nation of Forrest Gumps, which wouldn’t be all bad if it meant we could have his decency and kindness (not to mention Tom Hanks’ sense of history).

Oh wait…maybe we do. Perhaps that’s what Mr. Moore means when he calls us “the dumbest people on the face of the earth.” By that standard, we’re an entire nation of “Jeopardy” champions.

So the next time people here or abroad say, “You Americans are the world’s dumbest people,” we can say with pride, “Yes, we are. God Bless America!”

Postscript: Michael Moore’s IMDB.com entry includes this quote: “I like America to some extent. Take the Japanese for instance. They are complicated and tend to be reserved in expressing themselves. Sometimes, it is difficult for me to understand them. Americans are simple and clear. They are charming people. You will understand how good an individual American is. What I am not satisfied with America is that the nation cannot control the government and economy. Only a handful of people have the power to control the country.” He also reportedly liked Mel Gibson’s “Passion of the Christ,” since he has stated in DUDE, WHERE’S MY COUNTRY that the left has a “hoity-toity view of religion”–we give the devil his due.

1 June 26, 2004, http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/6/26/103545.shtml

2 http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0073.html

3 http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=206