Something about this article really bothers me.
Guard to Announce Witmer Sisters' Decision
By Associated Press
Published April 27, 2004, 5:31 AM CDT
NEW BERLIN, Wis. -- Two sisters of a woman soldier killed in Iraq were offered a choice -- return to their National Guard units in Iraq or seek reassignment from the war zone -- after her death in a Baghdad ambush.
The Guard said it would hold a news conference at its state headquarters in Madison at 1:30 p.m. Tuesday to "provide an update on the military status" of sisters Rachel and Charity Witmer, including a joint statement from them.
But the Guard did not disclose what the two had decided.
Spc. Michelle Witmer, 20, who was killed April 9, served with the 32nd Military Police Company -- the same unit as her 24-year-old sister, Spc. Rachel Witmer.
Soon after the death, members of the unit received word that its tour of duty was being extended 120 days. They had expected to return home by early May, a year after being sent overseas.
Sgt. Charity Witmer, Michelle's twin sister, has served as a medic with the 118th Medical Battalion in Iraq since late last year.
The sisters' parents, John and Lori Witmer, appealed to the military in the days after Michelle's death to allow the surviving sisters to be reassigned rather than return to Iraq.
The parents declined comment when contacted by The Associated Press Monday evening, referring all questions to the National Guard.
The Guard posted its announcement of the news conference on its Web site without indicating what decision had been made.
In case you missed it, the three soldiers in question are sisters. They're women. Female. Just so we're all on the same page.
Thing one: it bears noting that none of the three sisters served in "front-line combat" units. One is a medic. The other two are MPs, whose job during war consists of maintaining security inside an area held by combat troops. (If the "keep women off the front line" rhetoric is to be believed, then MPs, by definition, wouldn't be on the front lines, they'd be behind the infantry. But, as ginmar so clearly illustrates, there's no such thing as a front line in Iraq.)
Thing two: the article mentions in passing that the soldier's father, not her sisters, begged the National Guard to send them stateside. If you go poking around the Tribune website, you'll find one article saying that pretty clearly, and another, more ambiguous article.
I'm seeing a set-up here, one by which detractors can say, "See, women don't belong in combat! They'll just whine until the National Guard Bureau lets them go home!"
I wonder how many of those detractors have been shot at. And, given the chance to stay with the family rather than dive back out into the gunfire, I wonder how many people--detractors or no--would volunteer for combat.
There must be a few. After all, there are soldiers who did multiple tours in Vietnam. My stepfather was a National Guardsman--from Wisconsin, coincidentally--who ended his tour in Vietnam, then turned around, joined the Marines, and did it again. (On the other hand, those labels warning you not to drink bleach are there for a reason.)
A poll on the Tribune website asks the readers what they would do in the same situation. Seventy percent--not all of whom are women, I would assume--said they'd stay home.
Let's pretend for a second that these soldiers weren't female. Three brothers--and let's call them two MPs and a medic again--are deployed to Iraq. One dies, and the other two are permitted to come home to Wisconsin to attend the funeral in the Milwaukee suburbs. While they're home their father contacts the National Guard Bureau and asks that his two surviving sons not be sent back into combat. What would the reaction be? Would it even be newsworthy, outside of the Milwaukee area? Maybe if they went back and were killed. Otherwise, I seriously doubt it.
My point is, this story is about a father who lost one child and is terrified of losing his other two, not about two girls who can't play with the boys. It offends me that this story would be twisted around to further an outdated political agenda.
Y'know what else pisses me off? The fact that the Pentagon can tell soldiers something, even have it on a signed contract, and go back on that agreement whenever it suits them. Motivating yourself to spend a year getting shot at is hard; getting told, "April Fools! It's really 15 months!" has got to be shattering.
Personal background: my enlistment was set to end in August of 1999. Just before the end of that, however, President Clinton ordered a missile strike on al-Qaeda training camps. I can't put into words the feeling of being almost out from under the shadow of the Pentagon, but it's significant. In Vietnam, GIs were most likely to die during the first month or last month of their tours. The tension is almost tangible.
So imagine being told, "Yeah, your contract says you're out in a month...but we've changed our minds. You're in until we say you're out." In the end, of course, nothing happened. The media and the Republican party dismissed the attack as a blatant attempt to distract Americans from Clinton's impeachment hearings, and so the missile strikes weren't followed up by any sort of military action.
And people wonder why I chose not to reenlist.
When the Department of Defense demonstrates its ability to disregard any contractual obligations to its soldiers, and promptly thereafter Michelle Witmer is killed in action, is it surprising that her father wants his daughters to stay in Wisconsin?