You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Afghanistan
Women Marines in Helmand Walking the Edge of Bans on Combat Roles
2010-10-03
Original headline in NYT was "For Female Marines, Tea Comes With Bullets", the suckiest headline I've ever read.
3 female Marines and the patrol they were attached to recently came under fire near Marja. In their sights they could see the source of the blast: an Afghan man who had shot aimlessly from behind a mud wall, shielded by a half-dozen children. The women held their fire with the rest of the patrol so as not to hit a child, waited for the all-clear, then headed back to the base. Six months ago an experiment began with sending full-time "female engagement teams" out with all-male infantry patrols in Helmand Province to try to win over the rural Afghan women who are culturally off limits to outside men. the female Marines have daily skirted the Pentagon rules restricting women in combat. They have shot back in firefights and ambushes, been hit by homemade bombs and lived on bases hit by mortar attacks. None of the 40 women have been killed or seriously injured. Some have seen friends die. One lady Marine said she would not volunteer for the female engagement teams again.

"It's not the living conditions, it's not the mission, it's this," she said, gesturing toward a memorial display of boots, rifles and dog tags belonging to the dead Marines [one of whom she had given first aid to just before he died]. She was, she said quietly, "too much of a girl to deal with these guys getting killed."
Posted by:Anguper Hupomosing9418

#14  Many of the points of the GC were to inhibit such behavior by stripping combatants of its protections if they engage in such behaviors. However, Justice Kennedy et al of the usual suspects in extending 'civilian law' protection to illegal combatants has undermined that entire intent of the work. However, in the classical lefty mantra, the same lawyers play 'one set of rules for us and another set of rules for you' when it comes to actions by our own people.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2010-10-03 18:41  

#13  Actually the GC HAS rules about this sort of situation, the problem is everyone IGNORES those. What they say is that those in violation in the manner that occurs with terrorists, using human shields, etc, isn't protected by the conventions and subject to summary execution.
Posted by: Silentbrick   2010-10-03 18:18  

#12  the Geneva Convention was signed for conventional wars. That said the rules don't apply too this situation.
Posted by: chris   2010-10-03 17:24  

#11  u don't need a sniuper just a a good shot! shoot him in the bchest and the human shield afctor goes out the window
Posted by: chris   2010-10-03 17:22  

#10  Then Arm them with Video Camera's. Holding these brave Cowards Lions of Islam up to public ridicule and international exposure might turn some minds.

I doubt the MSM will show any - it'll be declared 'Ismaophobic' or hate-speech.
Posted by: CrazyFool   2010-10-03 16:42  

#9   She was, she said quietly, "too much of a girl to deal with these guys getting killed."
Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418

And I am "too much" of a guy to condone women going into combat to face a similar, or potentially worse fate. But that's just me.
Posted by: Besoeker   2010-10-03 14:56  

#8  It's also "illegal" under the Geneva Convention. Of course, the Jihadis didn't sign the GC, so are not bound by it.

The US and NATO are bound by parts of it - the parts that restrict our guys from doing their job.
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia   2010-10-03 14:01  

#7  It's very Islamic.
Posted by: Frank G   2010-10-03 13:27  

#6  Using women and children as shields is a long tested method of Jihad.
Posted by: 49 Pan   2010-10-03 13:18  

#5  OldSpook: That's what I was thinking: "Them gals need sniper rifles."

And while it would be unfortunate for one of the kids to get hurt when capping the bad guy, it shouldn't be punished--instead, they should give a commendation to the sniper who takes out the bad guy without killing any kids.

Because, in effect, they have performed a hostage rescue.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2010-10-03 12:31  

#4  Where's a good sniper when you need one?
Posted by: OldSpook   2010-10-03 11:28  

#3  "an Afghan man who had shot aimlessly from behind a mud wall, shielded by a half-dozen children."

That's the video that needs to get on youtube.
Posted by: Penguin   2010-10-03 11:22  

#2  ...serious enough to realize he has to use children as shields otherwise he'd been pieces all over the landscape. Obviously, he wasn't looking for 72 virgins that day because he did use shields. The gamble they all play is that one day the ROEs don't change or discipline starts to break down or the officer corps makes known that they won't convict in such circumstance no matter what the JAG people want.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2010-10-03 10:46  

#1  This is what stands out to me.

"... a burst of Kalashnikov rifle fire came from a nearby compound. ... they could see the source of the blast: an Afghan man who had shot [aimlessly] from behind a mud wall, shielded by a half-dozen children. The women held their fire with the rest of the patrol so as not to hit a child... "

With our troops being held to ROEs like these no wonder the enemy doesn't seem take us seriously.
Posted by: Guillibaldo Wheang6921   2010-10-03 10:27  

00:00