www.cnn.com/2004/US/Northeast/04/13/sister.soldiers.ap/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Northeast/04/13/sister.soldiers.ap/index.html)

While the debate of women's role in the armed forces is its own debate (I'm all for letting them do whatever they want, including be in the infantry- the Russians had some really deadly female snipers in WWII) this whole storyline irritates me.

In my opinion, the only reason this is making headlines is that the soldiers in question are women.

If it were a group of males debating their own return to Iraq, it would probably not get the ongoing media coverage this has. Indeed, they might even be called cowards.

Thoughts?

We have a volunteer armed military. We didn't force them to sign up, nor did we force them to make an oath to God and country to serve and protect. They made an oath and commitment, they should stick to it.

But this is all a publicity stunt, stirred up to make some kind of political point. The family has written Congress, the Pentagon, and all the news agencies to bring this to the point it is now, but all they had to do was have either/both sisters ASK their commander for a transfer. No publicity, no media stunt, and they would have most likely been transfered, end of story.

Congrats to the sisters, now whatever they decide people are going to condemn them for it.

Dear Esbat:

The policy (of allowing siblings of a slain soldier to be excused from the same theatre of operations that their brother/sister was slain in) was put in place immediately after World War II, because of an incident where all four sons in one family were placed in the same unit (which they don't do now anymore, either :) ) and all four were slain. The intent is to minimize the chance of a family losing multiple members...

I'm guessing that gender is playing a big role in this being reported, as this is the first case that I'm aware of where all three siblings involved were female. What is interesting is that the request (for the two women not to return to Iraq) is being made by the parents in this case, and so has no weight unless the soldiers themselves ask to be excused - something they may be loath to do for the very reason you mentioned (that it would feel like/be perceived as cowardice).

I'm a bit 'suspicious' (or perhaps 'queasy' would be a better word) of the motives behind this story, myself... We have a volunteer military in the U.S. at the present time, and so, male or female, our soldiers sign up willingly, knowing that they could be deployed, and knowing that they may, at some point, end up having to make the ultimate sacrifice in the performance of their duty. Why should the deaths of female soldiers be treated any differently than that of males? The presence of females in the combat theatre is hardly anything new in any case, as women have been present (in noncombat positions, but certainly in harm's way) as far back as the Civil War.

Regards,
Nydia Ywalmoriel
Autonomous Collective

Obviously a leftwing media story.

Amhorach,

I don't think they have said anything of what they want to do. The mother and father are pushing for them to stay home and not return to Iraq into a so called "hot zone". Like Nydia said its a right given to soliders in the military in the US during war time due to actually 5 brothers (I believe) all dieing on a ship during world war 2. I wouldn't condemn them for it and I am interested on how this plays out considering this family is virtually 15 miles from my home here in Wisconsin. They would still and I hope want to be in the military..just not in the "hot zone".

These girls are in the National Gaurd keep that in mind..they didn't sign up for the Marines. My neice just returned home from Iraq last week..she did her year.

If they want out because they lost one of their siblings in the war, that's their perogative. Now if they're any kind of good soldier they're going to take a serious look at what would be best for their units, and their obligations.
If I were their CO, I'd suggest one stay home (if they wanted), just in case to "carry on" the family, but otherwise as Soldiers, they know their duty and their obligations. Both to their family, and to their unit, I personally wouldn't look down on one of them staying back to comfort their family, both though, and they need to take a hard look at their motives.
The part of this that pisses me off, though, is I'm sure somewhere out there, there is a set of brothers both deployed, or all deployed to Iraq, and you don't hear shit about it.

Fuck CNN

Odd, I would have sworn that there was indeed some sort of act implemented after WWII as a result of the Sullivan brothers. After doing a little (read as very little) research, it seems that this "Sullivan policy/act/law" does not exist.

There is a "Sullivan Law", but it is a Law in regards to firearms in New York.

There are some policies (http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq72-5.htm) in regards to Navy ship assignments, and family members, but there is no direct reference to the Sullivan brothers. It also seems that these policies are only in effect for the Navy, Marines, and the Coast Guard. It said in the article linked in the first post, correct me if I'm wrong, that the sisters were in the National Guard, which I believe is Army.

The only thing I've found from the Army:
Sole Surviving Son/Daughter.
Except during times of war, or national emergency, one can request a discharge if they are a "sole surviving son or daughter." This does not mean that they are an "only child," or that they are "sole surviving" because someone died in a traffic accident. In the military, a "sole surviving son or daughter" is one who is any son or daughter in a family whose parent or one or more sons or daughters served in the Armed Forces of the United States and—

Was killed in action.
Died as a result of wounds, accident, or disease while serving in the U.S. Armed Forces.
Is in a captured or missing-in-action status.
Is permanently 100 percent physically disabled or 100 percent mentally disabled due to service connection.

This does not seem to apply directly to these sisters. /shrug

As to my thoughts on what's going on...it's hard to say given the limited amount of info I've read on it so far. Should they go back, yes. If they don't, I believe that they may be looked upon poorly. They are certainly not the first person in the history of war to loose a sibling.

Yea the funny thing is the news had flashed the article containing the law up on the screen written in due to the brothers dieing in war but I'll be damned if I could find it on the internet too.

They had a man on TV last night who had 3 sons in Iraq at the start of the war. All 3 did there 1 year and are home but he supported the parents of the daughters decisions and actions especially once they have lost one.


More info on this story (http://www.jsonline.com/news/wauk/apr04/222102.asp)


U.S. military rules state that whenever a soldier is killed while on active duty, any family member serving in the military may request assignment to a non-combat role.
-Take from the above, linked story.

This is about 5 miles from my house, and my unit is going to the funeral.

saving private ryan number two ?!?!

They want to get on Oprah

Obviously a leftwing media story.

:rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin

whatever..

They want to get on Oprah

But will settle for Springer... :D

The policy (of allowing siblings of a slain soldier to be excused from the same theatre of operations that their brother/sister was slain in)

I was aware of this policy (and the others listed in subsequent posts), but that wasn't my point.

If it were three brothers, would it get the same attention from the media? I doubt it.

As stated above, all they have to do is request a transfer. Granted, if a unit has been mobilized, it is pretty hard to get out of the unit until the deployment has been completed.

Obviously a leftwing media story.

Or a rightwing ploy to try to remove women from the armed forces.


Esbat
who might very well vote Republican if it were not for the fact that that party has its chin on the balls of the religious right.

It gets attention because someone in the media turns a spotlight on it, or because someone encourages the media to do so. So it could either be political, or just a simple agenda. Things take a life of their own once they're written, so at this point it's both.

Do I agree with you, not having bothered to read the article? It certainly seems reasonable to assume; women in the military is a somewhat controversial subject. It doesn't matter if most people shrug apathetically, there's always enough of the partisan that will cause a stir at every opportunity. But seeing as how Saving Private Ryan was a big-budget hollywood movie based on the story of those five brothers that lost their lives, I disagree that the media is totally gender-biased.

But seeing as how Saving Private Ryan was a big-budget hollywood movie based on the story of those five brothers that lost their lives, I disagree that the media is totally gender-biased.

Lets not confuse the entertainment industry with a news source. The agendas of the two are *supposed* to be different, and our expectations of the two should likewise be different.

Left Wing , Right Wing. Why is people always jump on the conspiracy wagon. Did it ever occur to you guys that maybe these poor girls lost thier sister in Iraq and just want to keep the remaining siblings alive and spare their parents the loss of another child?

Why is this thread not dead? The Army told them, without being petitioned, to stay here in the States.

End of story, end of thread.

Because the thread was never about the sisters themselves- It was about the media. And somebody bumped it.

The presence of females in the combat theatre is hardly anything new in any case, as women have been present (in noncombat positions, but certainly in harm's way) as far back as the Civil War.


Farther than that, there were women who dressed as men to fight in the Revolutionary War for example.

More power to them, imo women should be allowed into combat with the only stipulation being that both genders must adhere to the same standards. No more of the whole "men have to do x but women only have to do y".