Let’s discuss the story of Private First Class Jessica Lynch. It’s a story of a 19 yr old girl who signed up for the military to get tuition money and ended up getting raped mercilessly by Saddam loyalists.

This story truly has to be one of the most bizarre, butchered, and hyped stories of all time. Lynch – an army clerk – was taken captive after a shoot down between Iraqis and Americans. She, and only she, was rescued by American soldiers in an Iraqi hospital. The whole thing was taped, the media went nuts over it, and liberals, conservatives, and feminists alike have not really been able to decide how they are going to take the whole story.

The only real set divide is between people who support the war and those who don’t. Anti-war advocates, from the very beginning of the Lynch story, were crying that the military was lying about certain things regarding the rescue. It turns out they were right. Anti-war protestors have complained, consistently, that the story was nothing more than hype to drum up support for the war. And, vice versa, pro-war and, in particular, pro-military people have seemed to embrace Lynch. The fact that her book is being released on Veteran’s Day is proof. Marketers know that military people support her and that sales will go up when pro-military, patriotic fever is high.

Some have been shrieking that Lynch is going to become the new poster girl for feminism. Frankly, I was and am suspicious of that. The Lynch story is one that drums up support for the war, and feminists hate the Iraqi War (and, knowing what I know about feminists, I know they hate the war more than they support women or even feminist causes). So I did a search among various feminist sites to see their reaction to the Lynch story.

Most sites had absolutely nothing. One site actually had an article complaining that Lynch was getting all the attention, but the woman who was bulldozed by an Israeli tank got none. On msmagazine.com, search results only yielded 3 results. The only story really pertaining to Lynch was one written when it was still thought that Lynch had gone down fighting. This, of course, was taken as proof that women can handle combat just fine (this was only given one paragraph though, and the rest of the 3 page article was dedicated to complaining about sexual harassment in the military). However, there were no articles about Lynch after it was known that she did not go down fighting and in fact was brutally raped.

Leave it to feminists to drop a girl when she doesn’t fit their agenda. Leave it to conservatives and soldiers to still remember her.

And, of course, it is in feminists’ interest to cover up the Lynch story. This story, originally spun to drum up support for the war and boost morale among military members, has turned, mainly, into a lesson in the harsh realities of women not only in combat but in the military altogether

We, as a nation, have completely lost touch of what the military or war are about. For almost 3 decades, with the exception of the first Iraq war, (which did not last long and was not part of a “war on terror”) America has enjoyed peace and prosperity.

The military, thus, became just another job. In order to recruit, the military pandered not to being all you can be, duty, or honor, but tuition money and medical benefits. Like Lynch, people signed up for their own rational self-interest reasons, expecting to serve their 2-8 years and get out.

This also allowed feminists to go wild with their lies, fanciful imaginations, and social engineering projects regarding women in the military. Although feminists hate war and the military, nothing excites them more than a woman in uniform – being as unfeminine as humanly possible. When I saw Gloria Steinem speak once, an audience member asked her, as a pacifist, if she supported women being in the armed forces. Steinem said yes, “to put women in a masculine role.”

Feminists want us to believe that women in the military is great – the hallmark of female independence – and all stories are like that of Demi Moore’s portrayal in GI Jane. All that comes crashing down with the Jessica Lynch story.

When you are thinking of women joining in the military – let’s say your own daughter who wants to join – I don’t want you to think of the tuition money, of the basic training that lies ahead, or even the stupid allegations that the military is ripe with sexual harassment. I want you to think of her in a real, live war.

Let’s imagine a situation like Jessica Lynch’s, which I am taking straight off the NBC movie about it. Your daughter – a supply clerk who signed up so she could get tuition money and become a teacher – is in Iraq. She may only be a supply clerk, but she still needs to travel. As she travels with her unit, a group of Saddam loyalists block off the road. They surround all the American soldiers. Your 18 yr old daughter is a sitting duck, waiting for one of their bullets to hit her head.

In the movie, it showed Lynch being taken off by the Iraqis to a hospital. It showed her being slapped. Indeed, this did not happen as Lynch herself said. Something worse happened: she was raped. Mercilessly, by Iraqis who were professional rapists - known for raping women and children under Saddam’s terrorist regime.

I know my mother had trouble going to sleep at night when I did not have health insurance. I’m not quite sure how she would have handled me in Lynch’s position – being raped in an Iraqi hospital with inadequate care.

Or, perhaps your daughter wouldn’t have met a fate as happy as Lynch’s was. She could have just easily ended up like Lynch’s buddy, Lori Piestewa, who was killed in the ambush that Lynch survived.

Some may complain that the public has overwhelming sadness when a woman dies but not a man. Well, first of all, I take offense to that as I spent the first nights especially of Iraq War II crying (especially as I watched Geraldo interview them on Fox News) because our male soldiers were about to go in and many were likely to die – especially since in this war, unlike the first Iraq War, the men were my age. The overwhelming sadness our country experienced after 9-11, also, in which 3000 people were killed, almost all of them men, is also proof against the claim that we don’t value male life.

But there is a reason why the public can’t handle a woman in this situation, and in fact, never will. It is because women are the child bearers. It is also the reason why women play many sports including volleyball, basketball, etc. but not football – because it’s too rough. We, intuitively, want to protect the female body, the carrier of life.

Well, just about everyone that is, except feminists, want to protect female life. If you want to find people who support sending women into combat, don’t look among female soldiers. Most will tell you they appreciate the protection of not going into combat zones. If you want to find people who support sending women into combat, look among radical feminists, who seem quite intent to send women off to die.

What exactly are we doing sending women off into combat zones? And, for the record, there is no such thing as a non-combat position. If you’re wearing a military uniform, you can and very possibly will be in a combat situation, as Lynch - a supply clerk - was.

I mean, what are we doing? What do we want women in the military for? To decrease military readiness? To fulfill a woman’s desire to fulfill her lifelong dream of being in a situation where she could get brutally raped and/or killed?

I can see no positive benefit to women joining the military. Besides the added benefit of letting our 19 yr olds go off to be raped by Saddam loyalists, letting women join has also decreased military effectiveness.

Some may argue if a woman is qualified for the job, she should be allowed to join the military. But this attitude adopts the notion that the military is like any other job – where one just does their individual task and goes home. This is not how the military operates. In the military, comradery and unit cohesiveness are key. A female’s presence – including qualified females – decreases these things significantly. From what I can tell, the only people who don’t fundamentally seem to understand how a female’s presence would effect cohesiveness are lesbian feminists.

I have been told before that women served men in the military greatly as nurses and combat medics. Sure anyone can see how this would happen. But women have always served the military in this role. They wore Red Cross uniforms not military uniforms. This is a logical solution and keeps women (largely although not completely) out of combat.

I believe the primary reason why they wanted women in the military is to decrease military readiness. Their goal is nothing except to destroy the United States. Decreasing our military might, by letting women join – which does nothing except tear down unit cohesiveness and effectiveness – was just one method in that.

It’s time to stop these stupid social engineering projects. Conservatives have largely sold out on this issue of women in the military because their overwhelming support for military people trumps politics. This means they support the women who are serving side by side by them and aren’t going to speak up on the issue for fear of hurting those female soldiers. Well, I also have no problem with the actual women in the military, including Lynch. Most are good, patriotic people. But the fact is the military would operate just fine as an all male institution. Allowing women in does nothing except needlessly put them in dangerous situations: much like Jessica Lynch's.