previous post next post  

Gone Stupid: Get Medal, Go to the Back of the Bus

By Kat on May 1, 2008 | | Comments (34)

[Kat]

So, a few weeks ago we were all agog at the silver star medal pinned on Spc Monica Brown's DCUs for running through enemy fire to save her fellow soldiers.

They gave her the medal and then the Army got stupid.

From Small Wars Journal comes this link:

Woman Gains Silver Star -- And Removal From Combat

Vice President Cheney pinned Brown, of Lake Jackson, Tex., with a Silver Star in March for repeatedly risking her life on April 25, 2007, to shield and treat her wounded comrades, displaying bravery and grit. She is the second woman since World War II to receive the nation's third-highest combat medal.

Within a few days of her heroic acts, however, the Army pulled Brown out of the remote camp in Paktika province where she was serving with a cavalry unit -- because, her platoon commander said, Army restrictions on women in combat barred her from such missions.

"We weren't supposed to take her out" on missions "but we had to because there was no other medic," said Lt. Martin Robbins, a platoon leader with Charlie Troop, 4th Squadron, 73rd Cavalry Regiment, whose men Brown saved. "By regulations you're not supposed to," he said, but Brown "was one of the guys, mixing it up, clearing rooms, doing everything that anybody else was doing."

The pragmatic side of me says that there is probably some other legitimate reason to keep her off the front lines now. Like, you know, she is now out in public and the Taliban/AQ types would probably make her target #1 in the AO. Beau Coup Propaganda Coup.

On the other hand, that's just retarded because that is the danger of being on the front lines, period. That is the essence of signing that little contract. That is the reality of equality in the military. Share in Equal Rank, share in equal danger.

So, what is the deal here? Give the chick a medal, but now that she's officially "out", as in "known to be in combat situations", she has to go to the back of the bus?

And, what is the army going to do every time somebody gets a whiff of women soldiers on the front line, they are going to yank them? And, replace them with whom? And, Why?

In a military where 30% of forces are women and appx 15% of those serving in Iraq are women, are we going to cut off our right hand in order to serve some bizarre, antiquated notion that there is a) some place safe in an insurgency or b) that women cannot hack it in the field or c) that they are a danger to the men due to some unknown accomodations that apparently have not kept women like Leigh Ann Hester and Monica Brown from being out there (among the unsung many).

US Army - gone stupid.

And, yes, I know, they are just trying to quietly operate through the loop holes in the antiquated, restrictive laws that an equally, if not more so, ignorant congress had put in place almost 2 decades ago. Reality has long since past these folks by.

Please read this entire story because it gives much more background on Brown and the actions that got her the Silver Star.

At dusk on April 25, 2007, Brown's platoon had just finished searching for a Taliban leader near the village of Jani Khel. The convoy of four Humvees and one Afghan National Army pickup truck had turned into a dry streambed when a pressure-plate bomb exploded under the rear Humvee.

"Two-One is hit!" Staff Sgt. Jose Santos yelled. Looking back, Brown saw the Humvee engulfed in a fireball as its fuel tank and fuel cans ignited. Insurgents about 100 yards to the east opened up with machine guns and AK-47 semiautomatic rifles, as Brown and Santos ran without cover to the burning vehicle.

PS...she earned the coveted title every respected combat medic earns:

"I didn't want to leave," Brown said, after being pulled from the platoon. Robbins said he and his men, who called Brown "Doc," also wanted to keep her as their medic.

"Doc"

Share This Article:

Categories:

34 Comments

By BillT on May 1, 2008 10:43 AM
"We weren't supposed to take her out" on missions "but we had to because there was no other medic." Do they *have* another medic, now? If so, pulling SPC Brown out makes sense (unless, of course, her replacement is also female). If not, then I'd like to take a peek at the RAM the Chain fills out for a patrol...
 
By kat-missouri on May 1, 2008 10:56 AM
Do they *have* another medic, now? If so, pulling SPC Brown out makes sense (unless, of course, her replacement is also female).
why does it "make sense"? Why should they have to pull her out? My point, really, is why are those rules still in place? And, if she fits in with the unit, performs well, saves lives like any other medic, why is she being pulled? You know, I read a book recently called "band of sisters". Any idea how many female medics have been injured or killed doing "non-combat"? Bill, this is just stupid.
 
By John S. on May 1, 2008 11:02 AM
I salute "Doc" Brown for her service, courage and commitment. Damn fine soldier, as are her patrol mates. The wussy chain of commnad, not so much.
 
By LT Nixon on May 1, 2008 11:06 AM
I thought the F.U. of the day was going to go out to Mayday protestors, but now it's going to the US Army! What are they thinkin'!
 
By John of Argghhh! on May 1, 2008 11:36 AM
Oh, What Are They Thinking? Trying to follow the law, which the breach when they have to. Bad laws with bad enforcement lead to bad decisions.
 
By Oldloadr on May 1, 2008 1:12 PM
So, a female medic going out with an infantry unit is against the rules, but a female MP on convoy patrol can earn (rightfully so) the same medal as a shooter and that's OK because that is an MP unit and not a combat arms unit. You know, a bullet doesn't know the MOS of the soldier it's heading towards, but when it comes to females in the military, congress can't find its collective a$$ with both hands.
 
By Oldloadr on May 1, 2008 1:15 PM
Sorry, I said infanty instead of Cav... zoomie mistake...
 
By Oldloadr on May 1, 2008 1:28 PM
Full disclosure: I am the proud yet concerned father of a female GI curently serving in Iraq.
 
By Argent on May 1, 2008 1:58 PM
Kat, as you pretty much said, the US army can't avoid being stupid if the governing laws are stupid. If there is now no medic i guess that's compound interest. I guess one could draw parallels with gays and race. It's a jarring disconnect with what is otherwise a fairly meritocratic system. However I don't think kicking a stink about it is much use without also targeting the rules and laws that are making it hard for commanders to do what might make the Army better. If there are no rules then one needs to make the commanders better. And none of that will change until enough are aligned with the idea women on the front lines isn't a bad thing. Then the rules and laws might be altered. Well then let me open the can of worms. What is the problem with women on the front lines/in combat roles?
 
By Damian on May 1, 2008 2:26 PM
If a woman can do the job, she should be allowed to do the job. Period. If the laws don't allow that, I say the laws are bad ones and should be changed.
 
By Blake Kirk on May 1, 2008 2:33 PM
"There's no good reason for it, but it's policy." How many times have I heard that (or the equivalent,) in the last thirty years? It just makes perfect sense to take a highly effective medic, who has demonstrated in the most concrete way the ability to function under the worst possible conditions, and reassign that medic to somewhere other than where that medic is needed most, and other than where the unit the medic is supporting WANTS that medic to be, solely because the medic is female. I was in the infantry as an enlisted soldier, and the 19D cav scouts in the RSTA squadrons are cut from the same cloth. The platoon medic generally doesn't start getting called "Doc" until he or she has demonstrated that he/she has it together and can be counted upon when things get hot and nasty. The fact that "her" platoon called her "Doc" tells me all I need to know about where she really belongs.
 
By kat-missouri on May 1, 2008 2:39 PM
What is the problem with women on the front lines/in combat roles?
So far, all of the physical objections that I know of have been put to bed because there many women who are doing so. there are a bunch of "cultural" and psychological questions that are meandering around the edges. Most of which are about our own angst: Mothers in combat (my mom once karate kicked my bedroom door off the hinges; I am thinking that OBL should be afraid) Children left without mothers (I don't know if this is any worse than missing fathers, either temporarily due to deployment or permanent due to death) Women more likely to suffer PTSD (I'm not sure that one has been settled, but certainly could be proven or disproven statistically). Sex But, like I said, we are already there. I don't know why we haven't crossed the line. Oh...one more thing. we can't seem to wrap our minds around "selective service" for women. The draft. I guess those are the top grumbles that I can recall. PS...and some of you folks thought I was a conservative. ;)
 
By kat-missouri on May 1, 2008 2:43 PM
If the laws don't allow that, I say the laws are bad ones and should be changed.
Amen
The fact that "her" platoon called her "Doc" tells me all I need to know about where she really belongs.
Double Amen
 
By John of Argghhh! on May 1, 2008 3:57 PM
Have a care when making sweeping generalizations about things - such as extrapolating combat performance of women in the roles they now play vice the needs of a more generalized infantry combat. There really are still some strength issues we've not yet fully examined - such as if we had 1/4 female-manned (heh) leg platoons doing the fighting in Fallujah how would that have gone? What we have empirically shown is that in most roles in the current war, the gender exclusions are virtually meaningless - and the "cannot be deployed forward of the Brigade" and other nonsense should probably be scrapped - though it will take Congress to do that, the Services shouldn't just start ignoring it completely, if only for that whole "civlians are in charge" thing we hear so much about. As has been discussed in this space and many others prior to this - much of the sex-related sorts of norm issues this fighting generation is already making moot, to include the issue of gays, though I still think *no one* has given me an adequate answer on why we keep boys and girls separate because it oft-times makes the women uncomfortable to be around the men in very personal situations the same sensitivity is blown aside for men made uncomfortable by the implicit sexual questions underlying the tension over gays. Somehow, that just makes the men homophobic, but it's okay for the girls. I'd just like someone to tackle that one head-on without pretty much having to come to a "unisex" conclusion. As I said, the younger generation may well be leading us down that path, regardless. Given that it's a volunteer Army, I don't think we're going to see huge numbers of women applying for the infantry, and if we set (and uphold for men, too) serious physical standards that are relevant to high-intensity infantry combat requirements, then I say let's test it. But thus far, every major Army that has tested it hasn't really been very satisfied with it, which says something. Damian, CAPT H - I know the women have pretty thoroughly spread themselves through the Canadian artillery community - how do they fare in the Armor and Infantry communities? I believe the Israelis have fewer restrictions on where women serve than we do - but are there significant numbers of women serving in line infantry units?
 
By BillT on May 1, 2008 4:14 PM
why does it "make sense"? Why should they have to pull her out? First, because women are excluded from serving in positions that *require* them to engage in direct combat, i.e., as line infantry or tankers or artillery crews -- which we all know is Congress' sop to the feminists, pure and simple. Second, because John's right. She's now a prime target, not for any military advantage the terrs would get, but from the propaganda value they'd derive from killing her: "See? The Americans can't even protect the women they honor as heroes from us." Don't overlook the caveat I added, Lady Kat -- if they *don't* have a replacement medic, I want to see their Risk Assessment and the level of approval.
 
By kat-missouri on May 1, 2008 4:19 PM
such as if we had 1/4 female-manned (heh) leg platoons doing the fighting in Fallujah how would that have gone?
Not good for the jihadists? The marines have the "lioness" program. How about the Army Amazon program?
Given that it's a volunteer Army, I don't think we're going to see huge numbers of women applying for the infantry,
Actually, I agree with you there. This isn't exactly the business world where a 50% female work force is going to translate into 50% female military force (though, it is at 30%, so...?) and on the other point about being a different kind of war, per se, but it has been this kind of war since 1960 something. Patrolling out, coming back to base, etc.
 
By John of Argghhh! on May 1, 2008 4:45 PM
Heh. The guys who fought at Hue or Hamburger Hill might have some disagreement with you on that. I haven't looked lately - but the special programs that were designed to get the women to equivalent strength status, IIRC (and I could be wrong) took a lot of specialized training and extra effort/time, and didn't integrate well with what the boys were doing. But I admit my knowledge on that is old and weak - whyncha look into that and see what's up? But, as I see it, you are essentially positing that there is no difference, it doesn't matter, and we should bull ahead. Even though, thus far, every army that's tried it as far as I know, has pulled back from putting the women into the line infantry units. But that doesn't matter, it's different somehow now. All I see is that this war thus far has validated the Israeli and Canadian models of women integrated into the units less likely to spend their time "in the assault" such as artillery and armor, and yes, women assignable to infantry units... but I don't think we've answered the question on the issue of sustained infantry combat. I think there is utility to studying that issue rather than just waving your hand saying "all we do is patrol anymore and they're good at that..." Except we haven't really been putting women into those roles in a sustained fashion, have we? Outside of mounted units doing convoy escort (like Sergeant Hester) and the elements integral to the convoys the bulk of the patrolling activity you describe is being undertaken by all male artillery, Engineer, armor and infantry units. I could be wrong, feel free to school me on that. We've clearly shown women can defend themselves, and with the examples of Sergeant Hester, can take the fight to the enemy when attacked. That doesn't lend itself to saying that infantry companies should throw open the doors. I say let's test it, rather than just say, lookit Leigh Ann Hester! That settles the question!
 
By Damian on May 1, 2008 5:12 PM
That doesn't lend itself to saying that infantry companies should throw open the doors. Sure it does. They should throw the doors open wide. But only the women who can hack the requirements - mental, emotional, and physical - should be allowed to walk through. Of course, you could say the same thing about the guys: only those who meet the standard should be allowed. Which is pretty much what I was trying to say with my shorter comment above. As far as the CF is concerned, it's not easy for the women in the Combat Arms, but those who can truly hack it are accepted. Look at the tributes Capt Nic Goddard got from her peers, from the soldiers she fought and ultimately died with - they said she was the best FOO around. The problems come when somebody - usually not somebody in uniform, mind you - decides that just because we've opened things up so that women can be in front-line positions, that some arbitrary quota should be in those positions. That's a recipe for disaster. Because those who can hack it are automatically tarred with the "quota" brush, and those who can't hack it don't get washed out like they should be. The key is setting and enforcing standards - realistic and functional standards.
 
By kat-missouri on May 1, 2008 5:23 PM
the elements integral to the convoys the bulk of the patrolling activity you describe is being undertaken by all male artillery, Engineer, armor and infantry units. I could be wrong, feel free to school me on that.
First, I'll look up the PT thing, but, as far as I know from last reading (about 1 1/2 years ago) the training and final testing were the same. for instance, the Marine female boots have to do the three day crucible, just like their male counter parts and complete it in the same time frame, etc, etc, etc in order to earn their globe and anchor. That's what I recall off the top of my head, but I'll look up the rest. In regards to "are there anymore out there?" and am I pointing to anomalies? I think there are a huge number of anomalies like this. I did the book review on "BAnd of Sisters". I didn't list out every woman, but two female marines, essentially part of the long patrol to "search women" during cordon and searches, were kicking doors, clearing rooms, etc like the male counter parts. There are many women medics who are part of PSDs and combat units, etc. In the case of Cpl Priscilla (don't call her "prissy") K..., they ended up being tasked to find someone and stayed on patrol for five days. Eating and sleeping and...well, you know, everything, with the men. There are so many "one here", "one there" reports of women going with the patrols. I think the way the stories are written and the way the stories are released lets people think that these ARE anomalies, that these women are going out on an hour long patrol and get to come back to base to wash their hair and paint their toe nails. Somewhere out in Afghanistan last year, a woman Captain was leading her unit on patrols. Let me repeat - Leading. On long patrols in hostile territory. I'll go and link these stories, but they exist to the degree that, to believe they are anomalies that add up to hester or brown seems, well, kind of purposefully blind. then again, part of me thinks "quiet, quiet" because, if we make too big a stink, congress or the army will go on some sort of hunt and a bunch of women will be yanked from where they are which is not what is wanted or needed. On a final note, I am always interested in the "be able to do what men do" aspect of this argument. Have you seen our army lately? Seriously...
 
By John of Argghhh! on May 1, 2008 6:58 PM
Clearly, I can't communicate. And apparently I don't understand. I give up. Do what ya want. To hell with it. I surrender. Women everywhere, all the time! No more studies, nothing. Just throw it open wide. What the hell. Because clearly I cannot communicate my ideas, and I keep getting shuffled into the "doesn't get it" corner.
 
By Foxfier on May 1, 2008 7:35 PM
It's not a good idea to have women in combat where they can be seen for the same reason that you don't wear the shiny rank emblems there-- draws attention, of a violent sort. That would be basic tactics-- you KNOW women are hugely more likely to be weak, so it's *logical* to attack them first. Given who we're fighting right now, you can be sure they'd aim for the "weak" and "evil" women. Unless you can totally disguise the fact that they're women-- ie, Navy pilots, maybe tank operators?-- frankly, John of Argghhh is right. This *should* be studied, preferably by people who are NOT trying to "Equalize" things. It's the military; it's supposed to be effective, not fair.
 
By ry on May 1, 2008 9:04 PM
Hence, why I used the 11' pole to escape, Kimosabe. ;)
 
By AFSister on May 1, 2008 9:40 PM
What a load of bull... Why in the HELL would the Army train women to be MEDICS, put them in a Cav unit... and NOT expect them to come under fire??? This is just plain stupid, like you said John. The US Army has gone STUPID. My cousin is a Blackhawk pilot who has been under fire. Are they going to pull her out of her slot just because she's a woman who, in the line of duty, got involved in a firefight? EVERY position in the Army has the potential of coming under fire with the way the current regs read. Pulling women from their slots just because they actually DID come under fire is a train wreck, and completely shuns the admirable performance of our women in uniform.
 
By Herschel Smith on May 1, 2008 11:59 PM
Full disclosure. My son is a Marine, combat veteran of Fallujah, MOS 0311. While women in certain roles is okay with me, for them to be in combat infantry roles is a line too far for me. My views are colored by my son's experiences as he has been Marine infantry, but based on what I know, women would have a hard time doing what he did. Um, let's see: four days without sleep or food, 120 degree days, 35 lbs body armor with full SAPI plates, full backpack and hydration system, three SAW drums hanging on his body, a SAW, etc., etc. More than 100 pounds when fully outfitted, and then to take this on satellite patrols, jump off of house roofs, etc. Sorry folks. If you want to put women in combat, you are going to have to address this little thing called testosterone. God made it, not man. It ain't my fault. We're different by design. Celebrate it. Also, if you want women in combat infantry, then make them do the same quals as men at Parris Island. There is still a HUGE difference. Facts is facts. Now, as I say this, my daugher is going to go into Navy nursing, and so I will have two serving. But they are serving where God gave them the skills, gifts and physical capabilities. One more thing. The Russians used women in infantry in Afghanistan in their campaign, and found a disproportionate high number of lower extremity injuries: feet, ankles, knees. Out of commission for protracted periods, affecting the unit. Best, HPS http://www.captainsjournal.com/2007/09/01/mos-0311-a-young-mans-work/
 
By Herschel Smith on May 2, 2008 12:16 AM
Sorry, but as a followup to my previous comment, don't rely on stupid, whitewashed, glossed over published comments about boot camp at Parris Island. My son was there. There is, and forever will be, a difference in the PT requirements to pass. Again, testosterone.
 
By Damian on May 2, 2008 9:15 AM
Hey John, it sounds like you're frustrated, but not convinced. Maybe we're just not listening well enough. Care to have another go explaining your concerns to us?
 
By Blake Kirk on May 2, 2008 9:40 AM
I've been an infantry squad leader, and a TOW section leader, and a tank commander and platoon sergeant in an armored unit. After thirty years of being around soldiers, it's my considered opinion that some women can successfully serve in front-line combat assignments. Not all women are suited to be infantry, but then not all men are, either. If they can't move out and march carrying 90+ pounds of gear, they shouldn't be there. A woman in an M1 tank crew had damned well better be able to load that 68-lb HEAT round in the same seven seconds that her male counterpart is given, or she shouldn't be there. A woman crewing on a 155mm howitzer had better be able to hump rounds with the boys, or she shouldn't be there. We need to norm the PT standard to MOS, not to gender. Or simply make the whole Army meet the infantry standard... Not all women can do that. But some of them can. Or they could, if they were given the opportunity. A lot of the guys I knew who were loaders on M1's spent a lot of time pumping iron to build upper-body strength, so that they could beat that seven-second standard by a significant margin. Some of the guys loading during 73 Easting were doing it in rather less than five seconds. Somewomen could learn to do that. But a more serious problem is that the current society in the US does a lousy job of preparing young men and women to live together in the conditions of forced intimacy that one finds in an infantry fire team or a tank crew. We can learn to solve that one, too. But it's entirely possible that many people won't be happy with what we have to do to do so.
 
By BillT on May 2, 2008 12:33 PM
It just might be time to remind everybody *how* this whole kerfluffle started -- remember the Department of the Army's Commission On Women In The Service? DACOWITS was formed, in good part, in answer to the feminista outrage (both in and out of the Howls of Congers) over the fact that *male* ossifers had a considerable promotion advantage over *female* ossifers because men could serve in the Combat Arms and women *couldn't*. None of the parties involved had a clue that rapid promotions occur in the Combat Arms because that's where most of the *casualties* occur...
 
By John Luntz on May 2, 2008 9:16 PM
It may not be commonly known, but women have been in combat areas for some time. Consider these decorations recieved by my mother, Cora Defibaugh. From her seperation certificate information:Classification-Flight Nurse3434. Battles and campaigns: LuzonWDGO 58-45, Southern Phillipines WDGO 58-45,New Guinea WDGO 58-45, Western Pacific WDGO 48-45,Bismark Archipelago WDGO 33-45. Decorations: AP Campaign Medal with 1 Silver Service Star and one Bronze Service Star. Philippine Liberation Campaign Medal, Air Medal with Oak Leaf Cluster Per GO"266 Hq13 AF22 Dec 44& GO FEAF 3 May 45, 3 Overseas Service Bars, American Campaign Medal, World War II Victory Medal. During her service she was in a C-47 with wounded which was forced to ditch at sea, Flew into airfields where Japanese fire was a very real risk,came under fire and was in harms way many times. She was just one of numerous women who served in USAAF air evacuation. She has never talked much about her service period, probably because when they shipped out to return to the States they were told not to talk about what they had done. To those women in service today who may go in harms way, I say this. God bless you and keep you. You are serving in the tradition of those who have gone before you. You are all a part of what makes up the American Spirit, and a part of what makes the future of our country.
 
By Justthisguy on May 3, 2008 12:07 AM
There was a female Marine who commented here a time or two, and then left and didn't come back. I took the trouble to look up her blog and found that she was invalided out of the Corps, against her wishes, for stress fractures in her leg bones. She struck me as a rather tough and earnest person, capable of ignoring pain (she claimed to have run a mile or so in training with a cracked pelvis) but, ah, sometimes the spirit is willing and the flesh is weak.
 
By Dave in Texas on May 3, 2008 12:57 PM
Thought this was how it was. Spc. Brown aquitted herself admirably. God bless her, and well done soldier. She should never have been placed in that situation.
 
By Dave in Texas on May 3, 2008 12:59 PM
who put the "c" filter on?
 
By Grumpy on May 3, 2008 1:59 PM
As I have read this whole story, there has been this one glaring omission. There seems to be this fixation on the sexuality of those who are serving this Nation in the Military. I will not argue there are differences, just like their are differences in personality. I believe as we move forward in time, we will hopefully, learn a great deal. This question about sexuality is not central. What is getting lost is the "actual-mission", we need to be "mission-centered." Then we find the best people, regardless of their sex, to fulfill the "mission". The U.S. Constitution states if we are going to put our troops in harm's way, we need a formal Congressional Declaration of War. The War Power Act, which allows our leaders to circumvent the Constitution, should be repealed, as bad law. It is at this point, the "mission" is stated in writing and verbally to the Nation. Then, the whole Nation goes to war, not just the Military. Every American finds his/her place in the mission. This is my two cents on this issue. As always, Grumpy