The brutal fate of women in uniform, in combat

I’m obliged to Solomon for highlighting a video from the current conflict in Syria between Turkish armed forces and their Syrian militia allies, and Kurdish forces of the PKK and YPG.  I’m not going to embed the video here, or link to it, because it’s graphic and brutal.  If you want to see it, click over to Solomon’s place and follow the link he provides.  Briefly, it shows the mutilated body of a young YPG female combatant.  According to one commenter at the video site (which may be propaganda – I’m not in a position to make an informed judgment):

Laughter is heard before #Syrian rebel pushes her chest with his boot, another says “No don’t do things like this guys”. The next fighter says “Bring the other one” referring to the female #Kurdish #YPG (YPJ) fighters corpse. #Turkey has not commented on rebel behavior yet … #Kurdish media associated with #YPG identifies Barîn Kobanê as a suicide bomber who used a grenade to blow herself up when #Turkish backed forces approached to avoid capture and inflict damage on them. ANF Media has since deleted their article in Kurdish and Turkish.

I suppose it’s only fair to add that other commenters (pro-Turkish) have accused the author of the post of spreading propaganda, and claimed that the deceased’s injuries were self-inflicted as the result of the explosion of her grenade.  Personally, having seen the results of grenade explosions rather too many times for comfort, I’ve never seen one that actually amputated breasts like that, so I’m inclined to believe the atrocity theory.

Solomon concludes:

The only question left is whether or not this is the future fate of our female Marines in the infantry.  Correction.  It’s not a matter of “if”…it’s a matter of when.

I absolutely, 100% agree with him.

I’ve seen what happened to female combatants in Africa, in more than one conflict.  They may have been wearing the same uniform as the men, but their treatment after capture was far different.  “Barbaric” would be one way to describe it.  Many of them did not survive captivity for long . . . they were raped until their captors tired of them, then shot out of hand.  Sometimes they were raped, vaginally and anally, with other things . . . bayonets, broken glass bottles, and so on.  I helped to bury enough of their bodies to be left in no doubt that, at least in a Third World environment, women combatants are considered fair game for anything and everything male soldiers want to do to them.  Often, that includes soldiers on their own side.  Women are seen as being there to be exploited, nothing more.

That’s a shocking, disgusting thing to say in a First World society where women are equal to men in every way . . . but they’re only equal in that First World society.  Take them outside it, put them down in a Third World hellhole, and they’ll be treated exactly the same as the women there.  They may even be treated worse, because the local women will despise them for “putting on airs” and thinking themselves superior to those who live there.  I’ve seen that happen, too, particularly to women volunteers with groups such as the Peace Corps.  They swan into a situation absolutely sure that they know what’s best, that they know what to do to solve the problems they encounter . . . and then they screw it up, until the situation is worse than it was before.  You can’t tell them anything.  They won’t learn, they won’t listen.  They know.

That will apply to women in the combat branches of the US armed forces, when they go into such situations.  There’s no doubt about it whatsoever.  If a US female soldier is captured by the Taliban in Afghanistan, or Al-Shabaab in Somalia, or Boko Haram in Nigeria, or Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines, or any of dozens of terrorist groups in Iraq or Syria . . . the outcome will be the same.  They’ll be raped, tortured, mutilated and murdered, because they’re sub-human in the eyes of their captors.  They don’t qualify to be treated as soldiers:  indeed, their presence in uniform, with weapons, is a direct insult to their captors, because women are possessions, not equals, in those societies.

That’ll probably happen to women soldiers even in more formal, military-against-military conflicts.  How many times have we seen, or heard, or read about, atrocities committed against, or indifference towards the suffering of, prisoners of war by their captors?  All sides were guilty of it, to a greater or lesser extent, during and after the Second World War (yes, even the Western Allies).  The USA did it to Viet Cong and North Vietnamese prisoners during the Vietnam War – remember the infamous “helicopter ride” stories?  I’ve been told, by people who served there, that those stories were true.  I have no reason to disbelieve them.  All that, and more, will happen to women POW’s – and their sex will be no protection at all.  It may even goad their captors to treat them worse.

I fully and firmly believe that it’s a grievous mistake to put women into combat forces.  Not only are they seldom able to meet the same physical standards required of male soldiers, but they face at least the possibility (in my opinion, the certainty) of being abused, tortured, raped and murdered by many opponents they may face, in the event that they’re captured.  To my mind, it’s unconscionable to expose them to this risk in the name of political correctness or equality between the sexes.  Others may differ with me . . . but I’ve seen at first hand, in ghastly and gory detail, the corpses of women wearing uniform.  I saw what was done to them.  Dammit, I helped bury them – I couldn’t help but see it, and I wish I hadn’t!  I don’t ever want anyone to have to go through that, much less American women.  They have no idea.



  1. I'd make an exception for any nation facing an existential threat. If the enemy is out for genocide, you must resist with all you have. I'd put Israel on the top of that list, and the Kurds a close second (especially as they are vulnerable to splintering into factions and internal betrayal).

  2. 1) What "female Marines in the infantry"?
    A couple enlisted and officer have been miraculously magically passed into barely qualifying, but none, AFAIK, are actually assigned to grunt units, unless something's changed.
    I would have expected the media to wet themselves.

    2) Women in combat anywhere is a dumb@$$ idea, but some people'
    s kids have to eat the paste or the Tide Pods themselves to learn the truth. And it won't be Red Patty Schroeder's or San Fran Nan Pelosi's non-military-serving spawn.

    A NSFW warning I posted in 2014:

  3. Sorry, BRM, but that ship has sailed. As a nation, America has drunk the Kool-Aid of "equality" at any cost.
    The few token women who pass the (faked) standards for combat arms qualifications are not likely to serve in combat anyway, and they represent a tiny fraction of the minority fraction (women) of persons serving in the U.S. military anyway. This is the non-story of the century.
    Besides, when the lead starts flying, the Rambo-ettes will suddenly be nowhere around. If a few manage to suffer and/or die horribly, oh well, too bad, thanks for being a martyr to the cause of female empowerment propaganda. Military men will always die horribly in far greater numbers, but you don't see women "White Knighting" to prevent that from happening. Welcome to modern "equality", BRM, and stop trying to White Knight on their behalf.
    GI Jane gets killed? That's the price of "progress" in modern America.
    You go gurl!!!

    And the obligatory note to calm the butthurt: Yes, I served 20 years in the U.S. military.

  4. Hey Peter;

    I served in the 80's and I had female soldiers in my second unit and most of them were really good but they can't do the physical requirements and when we went into the field, they had to by regulations arrange a shower point every 4 days for hygiene issues. Yes that ship has sailed, the Women are here to stay, I have commented that the people pushing for all this "Equality", if they have any daughters, they would not be serving, however Middle America Sons and daughters will be serving. I remembered a few things, first off in the Pacific war when some American Nurses were captured off Corrigidor in the Philippines , their treatment by the Japanese was brutal and in my war I remembered that a female truck driver was captured at the beginning of Desert Storm and I heard rumors of her treatment and I saw the pictures when she was repatriated after the war, she had the 1000 yard stare real bad. I have had feminist tell me that the Israeli's do it, and my response is that the Israeli's have a female hold a slot in the military until the male reserves are called up then they are moved. the Israeli's know what will happen to their female soldiers of the Arabs capture them. Don't get me wrong, the females will fight, but they are not used initially for their protection.

  5. Female troops can serve well defensively, but they must understand that when, not if, they get infiltrated or run over, that their life is worthless and they just need to do what the 'Young British Soldier' does at the end of Kipling's poem of the same name.

    All one has to remember is the fate of Russian mortar and artillery crews under the hands of 'civilized' German soldiers during WWII. What happened to females, military or civilian, under the Imperial Japanese was much worse. And that was during a time when the 'Geneva Conventions' were somewhat followed. Somewhat.

    Against today's illegal combatants (Thank you, President Trump, for actually calling these terrorists 'illegal combatants,' thank you, thank you, thank you) the concept of civilized behavior basically breaks down to 'do I wipe the blood off the machete before using it on my next victim or not?'

    Hell, I don't want our male soldiers to be captured by these savages. It gives me nightmares to think what these social cretins will do once they get their hands on, well, to be sexist, our women.

  6. Would you then, in the name of protecting your combatants, forbid male troops to enter a warzone where men are treated this way while women are not? Or would you pass it off as the reality of war, or make some excuse about not having an option?

  7. That's a silly hypothetical, m4. Were women truly the equal of male troops in combat roles, you might have a point. Of course, they're not the equal of men in combat roles. Mental toughness, perhaps, but not in physical strength or endurance. I've known a couple of guys who were tankers in the the Army. The very last thing they want is a woman on the crew because of the very heavy labor involved with field maintenance on tanks. Same with artillery. Same with infantry (think about entrenching and constructing covered emplacements in a minimum of time to meet an oncoming attack. Women and men aren't equal in physical capabilities. I can't have babies, and no, I don't want to be called Loretta like the character in the Life of Brian because that's silly whining and a struggle against reality. In emergencies, women may be pressed into combat. Emergencies are by their definition rare, and you don't run everyday life based on emergency conditions, do you, m4?

  8. The main problem with female soldiers in frontline units is that if captured, the enemy will use them against the men to get any and all information out of the men. That has been proven in training exercises where both male and females were put together. The " captors" would strip them naked, take them outside in sub freezing weather, and pour ice cold water on the men. The females would clam up and divulge nothing. But when the captors went to pour the icy water onto the females in the freezing wind, the men would fall all over themselves to stop the mistreatment of the women, even if it meant giving up the " secrets" that they had been given and were to keep to themselves. So I don't think that you will see females in front line troops in the near future. And if you do, it won't be for long. The first pictures, or body bags, or flag draped coffin that the American people see of a female soldier, and along side it, the picture of the pretty young girl from her high school graduation, and you can damn sure bet that every single phone in D.C. will be ringing off the hook, demanding that they get those women the hell out of combat, and like right the hell now.

    I have 2 sons and 3 daughters. One of my sons is already in the military, but I would also send my other son to fight and would also join him, if need be. But there is no way that I would allow any of my daughters to go, nor to even register for the draft. I don't give a damn if that is politically correct or not. that is just the way it is.

  9. Existential threat to the nation, I can see the involvement of women in combat. It is the same principle as self defense at that point.
    Otherwise, in infantry combat no.
    Of course, I don't exactly see why we have decided we must have a deployed military that is constantly involving itself in things. Men or women. We need a strong military yes, absolutely. But frankly, I see no reason why we are sending our citizens to get killed (and a lot of our tax dollars) because two equally reprehensible tribes can't get along. Better to spend all that money on our own borders.

  10. @Larry: Quite right, it's a silly hypothetical, but your response was citing a number of other reasons not to put women into combat. I think it's much healthier to discuss/debate/consider those reasons rather than "because they might get hurt", because that is a rather lame excuse.

  11. Pete, you're wrong about showing that vid. It's something that every chitlib feminist should have xer nose rubbed in. There is no equality on the battlefield…

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *