 |
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
Click here
|
President Bush Noncommittal on Women in Combat 5/14/2003 Activists Say a Clear Signal from the White House is Needed
In comments to The Washington Times on Thursday, President Bush said he would leave the issue of women in combat to the military.
“I will take guidance from the United States military,” Mr. Bush told reporter Bill Sammon. “Our commanders will make those decisions.”
“The configuration of our force and who ought to be fighting where — that’s going to be up to the generals,” the President added. “That’s how we run our business here in the White House. We set the strategy and we rely upon our military to make the judgments necessary to achieve the strategy.”
Those comments triggered concern among conservatives, like retired Army Infantry Col. Robert Maginnis, now a commentator for FOX News.
“Under most situations, it is wise to seek the military’s counsel on issues concerning war,” he told The Culture & Family Report. “It’s proper for the president to receive ‘guidance’ from the military before announcing a policy decision. However, he must make the decision.”
“The military should not make a politically charged decision. Also, the Congress under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution sets the personnel policy for the military,” he added.
Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness and former member of the 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces, agrees with Maginnis.
“In my opinion, the president has to do more than just let the generals decide,” Donnelly told The Culture & Family Report. “Remember that an entire generation of flag officers has been promoted by Clinton, and all now face Hillary Clinton on the Senate Armed Services Committee, where she can ruin their retirement in grade if she decides to accuse them of something,” she added, noting the case of Admiral Kelso following the Tailhook scandal.
Donnelly also noted an ideological tug-of-war within the Pentagon that requires the President’s leadership.
“The brass is subject to civilian control,” Donnelly said. “The problem is the Bush civilian appointees left just enough Clinton appointees in there, burrowed in the woodwork, to frustrate the good civilian appointees who are trying to undo some of Clinton’s legacies. It’s a constant battle over there.”
One of the chief legacies of the Clinton administration that conservatives hope to overturn, is the 1994 change to the “risk rule,” which governs the assignment of women in ground forces. The result of which was the very public capture of two female POWs and the death of a third.
“The decision to place women in combat is no ordinary military decision,” Maginnis said. “It is fraught with both moral and readiness problems.”
“In 1991, Congress rescinded the law prohibiting women in combat — combatant ships and aircraft — and in 1994 the Clinton administration exploited the absence of statutory restraint to push more women into combat,” he added.
“This issue has not been debated nationally. Even women in the military do not want to be on the front lines, especially Army women. Only the politically motivated feminists want our young daughters to be pushed into front-line combat,” he said.
Both say the President is backing away from the fight.
“The president has to show the same leadership here that he did in taking on the forces of Saddam Hussein,” Donnelly told The Washington Times. “I know sometimes feminist advocates seem even scarier, but I think this president could do it and he should.”
“Unfortunately, the President is trying to side step an important policy
decision,” Maginnis said. “His advisors must understand that most Americans do not want their daughters to become a future Jessica Lynch, even if she volunteered.
“The military is conducting extensive post-war evaluations to glean lessons learned from Operation Iraqi Freedom. Congress ought to find out the facts about women in OIF. It ought to launch an evaluation team with cart blanche authority to dig around,” he said.
“That team must include people who understand the issues, are not easily intimidated by rank, and are fair minded. We don’t need a bunch of radical feminists writing another report about why my daughter deserves a 'chance' to be forced into combat,” Maginnis said.
Donnelly said the Pentagon must re-evaluate “adjusted” training standards, the effects on children of long-term separation during war, personal discipline issues, readiness and personnel shortages due to medical issues and pregnancies, and the imposition of gender-based recruiting “goals.”
Other actions Donnelly suggested include returning the phrase “a substantial risk of capture” to the risk rule governing the assignment of women to combat support roles, allowing field commanders in future wars to use their own best judgment regarding the assignment of women to support units, and ending co-ed basic training in the Army.
|
|
Concerned Women for America 1015 Fifteenth St. N.W., Suite 1100 Washington, D.C. 20005 Phone: (202) 488-7000 Fax: (202) 488-0806 |
Feedback / Questions? || Problem with this page? || Archives
