The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Combat Ineffective

4.30.03 @ 12:01AM

SKIRTING THE ISSUE
Re: Jed Babbin's Babes at Arms:

Jed Babbin, as always, is right. The nation that tries to hide behind its women's skirts will not last long. Nor does it deserve to. An Army and Marine Corps full of M-16 toting Hoo-ah! babes raises some provocative questions about what exactly the hell we are fighting for, nicht? Aside from the obvious fact that women warriors are an offense to morality, honor, and good sense, there are the practical questions. I'd hope not even General Patricia Schroeder would argue against the obvious, to wit: if it takes six men soldiers to pull a stuck Jeep out of the mud, it would take 12 women soldiers to do the same thing.

Then there's the distraction factor, absolutely essential for the survival of the species, but a bit of a bother in combat or combat training. I don't have to wonder whether if in the combat information center of the destroyer I served on in the sixties -- had there been a lovely 19-year-old radarperson sitting knee to knee with me in the dark instead a grungy guy with "USN" tattooed on one bicep and a likeness of Miss Subic Bay on the other -- would I have had any attention left over for the blips on the screen? The question answers itself.
-- Larry Thornberry
Tampa, FL

Please, Mr. Babbin, exercise some measure of creative restraint when writing about such hot button issues. I'm certain your tongue-in-cheek mention of "the First Amazon Division" has by now sent the television reality show writers scrambling for their keyboards. My guess is you've spawned another cultural roadside attraction along Rome's headlong rush to the big bonfire. The image of strong women in combat is no less ridiculous and less appealing now than when I last viewed it at the drive-in movie in 1959.

And, as you so aptly noted, the bedrock principle of combat squad cohesion is the issue upon which every other rests. You wrote, "There is no way of knowing whether mixed gender teams can function as well as all-male teams in close combat environment." I may not know from experience but I can venture an educated guess regarding the lack of squad cohesion caused by young women in combat dying while wearing their entrails as necklaces. I'll venture a further educated guess that this generation's young men and those of future generations are unprepared and unwilling to deal with those combat realities.

Regardless of social "rights" or "wrongs," women in combat will unintentionally and apart from their physical limitations put themselves and other soldiers at greater risk.
-- Doc Watson

CANADA'S FINEST SYRUP
Re: Herbert London's Oil on Reserve:

Re: Herb London's piece, it is also remarkable that the brief mention in a Mark Steyn column, about a week ago, of Chrétien's family connection to the French oil company which had the contracts with Saddam, has never made it to the front pages. Why is that?
-- Jameson Campaigne
Ottawa, IL

I am a Canadian living in Alberta, which as you noted has oil deposits. We are the province that is in the best financial shape of any in Canada because of this oil. It has been a very real contributor to our goal of reducing the Alberta debt, among others.

Our Premier Klein is a man much like President Bush -- what you see is what you get. He is well respected in Alberta, the type of man who wrote to the American ambassador to ensure that America knew Albertans did not agree with our Prime Minister's decision to not support America. The letter was sent before the ambassador rebuked us for our behavior. This behavior was from our Prime Minister and members of his party. Albertans have held rallies, started websites, and even raised money for an ad to be placed in USA Today letting Americans know where we stood in this matter. 71% of western Canada support President Bush and the war. Our population is 6-8% American in Alberta and we did not want them to take any flak over the great divide of the western and eastern thinking on this matter.

America knows the oil is here, and to my knowledge nothing has been said regarding it. ... If Washington wants our oil, I am sure they will contact the Prime Minister, but it would take him about three years to make a decision, you know! He could embark on a mumbling exercise for a long time! He mumbles well!

Your suggestion has merit -- and yes, it would be quite a surprise to the Arab world, a significant surprise!...

The one thing I would like to see is American and Canadians relationship be a partnership in all our endeavors in the future. A new Prime Minister and time to get settled is necessary for us at this time, but we will elect a leader who understands the meaning of loyalty to our neighbors and is determined to create a military that is as modern as a forces can be, with the latest equipment and high military standards. Our soldiers are great, but it is difficult to shoot an enemy with your finger after arriving on the slow boat from Canada in the wrong uniform.
-- Carole Graham

Apropos "Oil on Reserve" by Herbert London, exactly why is Canada a more dependable trading partner than is Saudi Arabia? The Saudis frequently have increased production -- to their own detriment -- to benefit the U.S. economy, while the Canadians have...what?
-- David Govett
Davis, CA

DIXIE CHIQUITAS
Re: Enemy Central's Among the Feather-Brained:

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Taxes, Trade, Television, Religion, Islam, Environment, Books, Hollywood, Military, Iraq, Russia, Oil