Comments on: 100 American Women Dead in Iraq

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 18:20:47 +0000

I'm not persuaded that there's something inherently more tragic about the combat death of a woman than a man based just on their respective sexes. Do you disagree?

I might have once but, no, not really. I merely find the milestone noteworthy.

By: Triumph

Triumph — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 18:20:12 +0000

Sixty one women killed from enemy action almost certainly exceeds that of all our previous wars combined, despite the relatively low number of American KIAs in this conflict.

How about the number of lady soldiers who have been sexually assaulted? According to the liberal media, there have been 1000 reports by chicks of sexual assault since 2002 in CentCom.

By: Beldar

Beldar — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 17:41:45 +0000

Dr. Joyner: Does this trouble you?

I'm certainly not suggesting anyone's death ought to be celebrated. But I'm not persuaded that there's something inherently more tragic about the combat death of a woman than a man based just on their respective sexes. Do you disagree?

By: Wayne

Wayne — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 15:49:02 +0000

Most of it is probably due to their roles. Support roles like Mp’s and truck drivers who drive through hostile territory are more likely to get hit then nurses station at a rear base. If they ever are allowed in combat roles that number will greatly increase.

By: Russell Newquist

Russell Newquist — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 15:24:19 +0000

Ah, this is indeed a case of me not reading the original post closely enough. However, we had no female "soldiers", but there plenty of women in roles that are filled by soldiers now, notably nurses, but also logistical and support roles. The difference may seem one of splitting hairs, but I actually think it matters in this case, if you want to do a fair comparison. Technically, we still have no women soldiers in "combat roles", so it's all a name game.

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 14:58:46 +0000

Russell: We had no female soldiers to speak of in those wars. But, yes, we'd almost certainly have higher numbers if we included civilian casualties.

By: Russell Newquist

Russell Newquist — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 14:22:46 +0000

"Sixty one women killed from enemy action almost certainly exceeds that of all our previous wars combined," Qualify that, James: all other wars of the 20th century combined. I don't have statistics handy, but you've left off the American Revolution and the American Civil War (both of which almost had to have had higher female casualty rates than any other wars we've ever fought), the war of 1812, the Mexican War, and the Spanish American War.

By: yetanotherjohn

yetanotherjohn — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 14:07:25 +0000

James, Please read this about a female US army sergeant who let her squad of MPs against an ambush of a truck convoy they were escorting. She and her squad where on the short end of 7-1 odds and decisively defeated the enemy. Perhaps the difference in casualty rates is based 1) on the increased number of women in the military and 2) the increased chance of women in combat due to the 'no front line' form of war in Iraq. It may help you put the 61 who fell in combat in perspective.