• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Dozen female U.S. soldiers have died in Iraq combat

Spr.Earl

Army.ca Veteran
Inactive
Reaction score
1
Points
410
Dozen female U.S. soldiers have died in Iraq combat
By LISA HOFFMAN
Scripps Howard News Service
April 13, 2004

- "It was loud, there was shouting, my team leader‘s seat was on fire ... Okay, the door. Open the door. Just my luck, a 400-pound door is stuck ... More shouting. Seems so far way, like a voice at the end of a tunnel. Got to get the door open or we‘re going to die."

That is part of the e-mail account that Pfc. Rachel Bosveld, 19, sent to her brother, Craig, of a Sept. 12 ambush that struck her Humvee with a rocket-propelled grenade while she and her unit were on patrol in Baghdad, according to an internal Army news-service article.

Somehow, the Waupun, Wis., high school graduate known for her high spirits and artistic flair managed to escape with a few bruises and a dislocated shoulder from trying to unjam the door.

Forty-four days later, the Army military policewoman‘s luck ran out. Two weeks short of her 20th birthday, Bosveld died in a mortar attack on a Baghdad police station.

Bosveld is one of a dozen female U.S. troops who have died in combat in Iraq - the most who have fallen in action in the 55 years women have been officially part of the full armed forces. In all, women make up between 10,000 and 15,000 of the 130,000 troops now in Iraq, according to experts on women in the military.

While women have served - and died - in virtually every conflict since the inception of the United States, it was not until 1948 that Congress allowed them to be full-fledged members of all the military branches. Before that, they were largely limited to the Army and to auxiliary jobs as nurses or other medical personnel.

During the Korean War, the first conflict to occur after the admittance of women to all the regular ranks, about 14 female soldiers died in plane crashes. Eight women, predominantly nurses, died in the Vietnam War. In the Persian Gulf War, the toll was 15, but only five in action.

In the ongoing Iraq conflict, a total of 18 women, all Army soldiers, have perished so far in the year-old war.

The latest woman to die under fire was another young MP from Wisconsin - Army National Guard Spc. Michelle Witmer, 20, of New Berlin, Wis., killed last Friday (April 9) when her Humvee came under bomb and small-arms attack in a restive section of Baghdad. In what is believed to be a U.S. military first, two of Witmer‘s sisters - including her twin, Charity - are serving in Iraq as well.

Although women remain barred from duty in the front-line infantry, armor, special forces, submarines and other high-risk military specialties, they are serving - and dying - in the thick of hostile fire in Iraq.

That is generally because Operation Iraqi Freedom has become a protracted battle against a guerrilla insurgency, where even those serving in what traditionally would be considered support units can find themselves front-line fighters. In many incidents, female troops have laid down counterfire or otherwise fought back when their units came under attack. Several, including Army Spc. Karen Guckert and Pvt. Teresa Broadwell, have earned medals for valor under fire.

Of those killed in combat in Iraq, according to Army casualty reports, five died in hostile attacks on their convoys and four in helicopters shot down by the enemy. One died when a bomb she was trying to disarm detonated. Bosveld was killed in an enemy mortar attack, and Wittmer died in an attack on her Humvee while she was on patrol.

The average age of the dozen combat victims was 23. Nine were privates or other relatively low-ranking enlisted soldiers, one was a non-commissioned officer and one an officer.

Aside from the 12 battlefield deaths, six female soldiers have died in accidents, from medical causes or from what the Army described as a "non-combat gunshot wound."

By all accounts, the battlefield deaths have triggered little public debate or even notice, within the military or in the public at large. Those who study the issue of women in the military say that times have definitely changed since the 1990-1991 Persian Gulf War when the mere presence of female military truck drivers drew media note.

Since then, women have been welcomed as fighter-jet and attack-helicopter pilots. So prevalent are women in uniform now that the Pentagon says it could not field sufficient forces without them.

"I think the public has accepted that women are part of the military, and that even if they‘re in support roles they are at risk," said Mady Segal, associate director of the Center for Research on Military Organization at the University of Maryland. "The story here is a story of cultural acceptance."

Not everyone agrees. Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness and a longtime opponent of women serving in combat, warns that, due to physical differences, female soldiers "do not have an equal opportunity to survive, or to help fellow soldiers survive, in close combat environments."

Donnelly blames "feminist activists" and "Clinton-era social engineering policies" for allowing women to serve where they are at undue risk of capture and torture and where they lack "the strength to cope with physical burdens" of battle.

She has collected more than 20,000 signatures on a petition calling on President Bush to keep female troops away from "close combat units."


(E-mail Lisa Hoffman at HoffmanL(at)shns.com of visit www.shns.com.)

http://www.knoxstudio.com/shns/story.cfm?pk=IRAQ-WOMEN-04-13-04&cat=II
 
I firmly believe in equal rights, and that if a woman can complete the training on an equal basis with the men (for ANY branch or unit), then they should be allowed to serve in the exact same capacity as a man.

I don‘t belive equal rights means giving women a seperate set of standards because they are physicaly different.

The argument that "in close combat situations, the women don‘t have the same opportunity to survive or help their unit survive" is BS.
Any soldier who has been reduced to melee fighting has already lost his/her ability to effectively help their unit survive, and is in an extremely dire situation that is likely to end their life.

A woman can stab with a knife, or smash someone in the head with a rock with sufficient force to neutralise that person just the same as a man. She can gouge eyes, collapse a windpipe, bite through fingers, and on and on just the same as a man.

If people were so concerned that a smaller sized person was at undue risk on the battlefield, then there would be hight and weight restrictions in place for everyone (men too) who applied to combat units.
I‘ve seen pictures of American soldiers who have the body types of 13 years olds.
So obviously, it‘s not really that much of a concern.

Sure they can be tortured in a way that men (likely) won‘t be, and it could be very hard on the parents to think of that happening to their daughters.
However, torture is torture, having your manhood violated with electricty, or having body parts amputated, receiving merciless beatings, etc, is no less disturbing.
It‘s a risk you know going in, the same as a woman knows the risks going in.
Who are we as a society to tell women that they are not allowed to do something, just because they are women?

For anyone who argues any of those same tired reasons that a woman isn‘t strong enough, is putting her fellow soldiers at risk (because they will sacrifice above and beyond for a wounded woman), or she will be receive "extra" attention from captors.... well the answers are simple (at least to me)

While many women may lack sufficent strength to accomplish rigorous combat readiness training, there are also many who do not. Why should those who could do it be restricted?

While some men may try above and beyond to aid a wounded or dying/dead woman and therby put their own life in extreme danger, so will that same man do the same thing for his best buddy, or even another soldier he has never met.
A battlefield full of slain women with men crouching over them and dropping their weapons while weeping and losing all their will to fight is not realistic.
* A man who acts irresponsibly due to the addition of a woman in his unit, either in combat or during peacetime, is exposing his own weaknesses, not hers.
Personally I‘m not controlled by my testosterone, while I may have primal urges from time to time in emotional situations, I know I am evolved enough human being that I would not throw my life away on an impulse.
I would take a calculated risk to try and save anyone who I thought could be saved, even at risk of being killed, but I would not simply walk into a hail of bullets to prove that I was brave enough to die, just because some woman was hit. Anyone who would is more stupid than brave.

And as I pointed out before, you can‘t deny that a captured woman would be at risk for rape, however, anyone who has joined any army has made their bed, and one day they may have to lie in it (so to speak).
It‘s a womans perogative if she wants to put herself in such a position.

Imagine if the U.S. government tried to tell women they can‘t drive because they may be killed, and that they have some suspicion that women aren‘t as good of drivers as men, and that if heaven forbid they are ever carjacked, they might be at risk for being raped.

Really the whole debate is just about wether or not we are ready to really give up sexism. Because for all those old dinosaurs who still believe in the core of their soul that women are supposed to be inferior, it‘s a frightening thing.
Once it becomes accepted that everyone is just an induvidual with induvidual capabilities, strengths, weaknesses, and that we can‘t judge whole groups of people based on traditional stereotypes, then there will be no turning back.
History will look back and think that we were barbaric and simple minded.

Personally, I feel embarrassed for my generation already. I have guys telling me that since I‘m a white male I might not get in, "it depends on the quotas".
People will spew crap like that out at you and even try to validate it by saying they know someone who works (somewhere) where they‘re in the know.
It‘s always a conspiracy.
 
"Aside from the 12 battlefield deaths, six female soldiers have died in accidents, from medical causes or from what the Army described as a "non-combat gunshot wound."

Uh, this doesn‘t ring any alarms?
Non combat gunshot wounds?
Is this people shooting each other by accident or something else? So who has the fastest quit draw with an M9?
 
either that, or possible NDs that resulted in wounding a nearby soldier or they shot themselves with the ND
 
Women in combat fine- same standards as men. When they reach that and acheive it we have no right to keep them out of the trade. Not a seperate catagory however. Meet the same standard or choose a different trade.
 
The problem is that we‘re talking about all sorts of categories, for men as well as women.

The Army has to do a better job of training all its soldiers, not just women. As Iraq shows and as Vietnam showed, anyone can become involved in combat, even if only for the duration of an ambush. I knew lots of REMFs who got caught up in a few hours or a few days of combat, especially during Tet of ‘68.

Some women can meet the requirements of combat assignments. I see no reason to keep them out of those jobs, if they want them.

Audie Murphy was a skinny runt who never weighed over 150 pounds during his active service. A good combat soldier combines the attributes of physical ability (not just strength), agility, a positive mindset, the ability to think and act under stress and plain stubborness. No rule I know of says a woman can‘t be all those things. Child birth and child raising would seem to require all that and more. Not to mention dealing with a husband. :)

I look back on my Vietnam tour and marvel at my survival. The Army gave me minimal weapons and tactics training and I never familiarized myself with the range of weapons I might have had the occasion to use, if I‘d been in an ambush or been on bunker guard during an attack on the perimeter.

The Army is doing a better job in that way then they did in the past, but not yet good enough.

Note: Non-combat firearms deaths include suicides, assaults and accidents -- the sort of things one expects when everyone is armed to the teeth. We had the same stuff in Vietnam.

Jim
 
Considering there were 8 US women killed in the Viet Nam war from 1960-1975 (mainly nurses), and about 59,000 men, 12 out of about 600 from this new war, within a year goes to show you the time are a changing. As far as I am concerned one Allied soldier lost is too many regardless of what sex they are.

Regards,

Wes
 
I find it interesting how the Canadian military is the only ‘western‘ nation I know of that allows women to serve in combat roles - at least for English speaking countries, and this includes Australia (what about New Zealand, I couldn‘t find an answer?)

Definitely not trying to start a p***ing contest here, but why did the Canadian military differ in this respect, having more job oppertunities for women?
 
because we dont have enough men willing to step up to the plate.
 
because we dont have enough men willing to step up to the plate.

ya thats obviously the reason.
*shakes head*
 
you have a better reason? Its totally a population to overseas commitment ratio thing. The same reason our standards for PT have been falling. "Men" wont step up so our numbers are going down so we lower standards. Constant lowering the bar. For men and women and it insults both genders really.
 
I believe it has more to do with imagine which is more important than performance in the CF.
 
We‘re an Equal Opportunity military

anyways, if somone can do the job(man or woman) why not let them?
 
No arguement with that, I support equal oppertunity in the military, I just am not sure why not many other nations do. :confused:
 
it‘s not just about doing the job.
If you can physically do the job but your not accepted by your peers (whatever the reason be it your attitude or theirs) it effects your performance.
Not saying it‘s right but it does happen.
 
I can see how that would make an impact. An amazing example of brilliant filmmaking was on tv yesterday, GI Jane - I was watching it for basic training nostalgia - not for the movie training, I watched it during basic on a weekend off :) )

Anyway, it shows how much flak Demi Moore‘s character went through from her male coworkers, and even gave reasons for their thinking - The Master Chief‘s example of Israeli soldiers who couldn‘t stand seeing women killed in battle.
 
You bring up GI JAne? Thats the worst military movie EVER made. Every man in that movie is a monster plotting against women!! Hardly indicative of what Ive seen in the forces. Im insulted!! But I agree with you Ghost about "that certain thing" the CF loves more than performance.
 
Back
Top