Met a warrior woman yesterday

samzheresamzhere BannedPosts: 10,923 Senior Member
My girlfriend works occasionally with Make-a-Wish and she met a woman who's a staff member at MAW, and then, her daughter. The daughter is in her late 20s but she's a smart gal, and my girlfriend and she became pretty quick friends despite my gf being older.

I met the gal yesterday... She's a genuine warrior woman. She's a black woman, slender with a buzz haircut, her body is all muscle and sinew, total athletic type, runner physique. And pretty sexy, imo.

She just returned from 2 tours in Afghanistan in the regular Army and has seen about as much combat as a woman in the US military might experience. I didn't get to ask her about her general assignments but they weren't a back-marker (maintenance, etc) but pretty much front line.

She was asked to re-up as a sniper because she's apparently an excellent rifle shot, had a fairly large number of, ah, "hits" for a female, and the US wanted her to train for special ops, as a woman isn't as quickly recognized.

She said the main reason she let her enlistment run out and "retired" was that her mother increasingly needs help (her mom's got cancer) and so she wanted to be home to care for her. Otherwise, she said, she'd have probably stayed and gone to sniper school.

Anyway, she's about as gung ho as any military person I've met in ages. Very conservative, very pro-2A, very pro-USA. A black redneck? Kinda.

As a woman in a forward, non-support role, she'd of course be treated with skepticism, but aside from her not having the raw personal strength of a man, she'd be a great partner in crime and would likely win respect from men.

Genuine warrior women do exist. My old girlfriend in the 80s was one, and this gal is another.

Anyway, regarding Afghanistan, she said it's a cesspool and very few troops have the belief we're doing any good there. I talked with her a while about this. She's met plenty of soldiers who served recently in Iraq and they generally feel that it's a bit different there, that yeah, Iraq is nuts but that the everyday people are genuinely looking for peace and quiet and many of them appreciate the US presence and the current government there. It's therefore a modest success or at least many troops see it that way.

Contrast to Afghanistan, where it's almost impossible to find a pro-US presence there. Instead, the whole damn country is circling the drain. Morale of the troops is understandably low. And much of this is based on the ever-increasingly stupid ROE (rules of engagement) that tie the military to hazardous regs and put them in harm's way.

I got the impression that it was also this situation that led to her quitting.

Anyway, it was keen meeting a warrior woman.

What are your experiences regarding meeting and talking with recent troops from Iraq or Afghanistan?

Outside of a dog, a book is a man’s best friend. Inside of a dog, it’s too dark to read. - Groucho Marx

Replies

  • 5280 shooter II5280 shooter II Senior Member Posts: 3,923 Senior Member
    samzhere wrote: »
    What are your experiences regarding meeting and talking with recent troops from Iraq or Afghanistan?

    Remember that Iraq used to be the "cradle of civilization" a couple thousand years ago. To compare the two........Iraq is like fighting in New York City after an apocalypse........Afghanistan is like fighting clans in West Virginia. Which one do you think is "winnable"? One Soldier I talked with liked Affie better, 'cause he said "I get to blow the **** out of anything I want when we get fired upon!"
    God show's mercy on drunks and dumb animals.........two outa three ain't a bad score!
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,334 Senior Member
    Sam, lots of good military people give up and get out for the same reason- - - -leadership that has to squat to pee and politicians who don't have the balls to put on a uniform and do it themselves running the show by proxy through the female-orfice big brass. (think Colin Powell, for instance) In the mid-1970's when I made the "stay or go" decision, almost all the lifers I had to work with were drunks, and the young recruits coming into the service were mostly dopers. My family responsibilities were far more important than a continued military career at the time.

    It's a shame that such a small percentage of our citizens these days have any desire to stand and defend our way of life against those who would destroy us if given the chance. To betray the trust of those who do by sending them into "no-win" situations should be a capital crime!
    Jerry
    Hide and wail in terror, Eloi- - - -We Morlocks are on the hunt!
    ASK-HOLE Someone who asks for advice and always does something opposite
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    Teach, you touched on one of my main objections to commitment of ground troops these days: A no-win scenario. It's one thing to ask for sacrifice of life and limb to effect a victory, another entirely to ask this just for a stalling tactic.

    I made sure to thank this gal for her service several times. Her mom (divorced when the gal was just a preteen) did a great job, raising a very patriotic and sensible young woman.

    5280, you may be right about the difference between Iraq and Afghanistan, but the problem might be due to the Afghan conflict occurring later, after the ROE have been tweaked so much that the troops feel they can't really fight effectively. And a lot of the new more restrictive ROE weren't in effect during the height of the Iraq war.

    But this gal was pretty emphatic about the general morale in Afghanistan, how the troops don't see any genuine progress and the people really don't care, are simply happy to live in that sort of environment. Whereas in Iraq, it seems -- and I do emphasize seems -- that real advances were made and that a somewhat responsive and reasonable (for the Middle East) government is doing its best, and is actually knocking the hell out of jihadists, for the most part.

    But as I often say, I could be wrong. Good topic, anyway. Thanks.

    Outside of a dog, a book is a man’s best friend. Inside of a dog, it’s too dark to read. - Groucho Marx
  • 5280 shooter II5280 shooter II Senior Member Posts: 3,923 Senior Member
    Sam, you (people in general), have to realize the cultural and infrastructural differences as well as the mission objectives. The problems lie with the military balancing being ambassadors with firepower, and protecting themselves and the locals while not laying a city or village to waste. The other problem is with the population themselves not being able to take control and/or apathy of the futility of such efforts. There is so much "enemy" infiltration into the infrastructure and tribal retaliations that control only comes with the face of dictatorship and heavy handed rule. The bullies prevail.

    In Iraq, we fight Al Queda.....in Afghanistan we fight Taliban......both are intermixed fanatical factions.....so there's really not much difference. Both are "nut-jobs" Both are really "religious" wars that certain Muslims hold against us. Certain Muslims who want control of their own societies, but the majority of the people either don't have the means or the backbone to stand up to the thugs.....it's like gangland warfare, there will be retaliation if you rat them out.

    If you remember a Vietnam-based movie Gardens of Stone......Tom Hulce says how can we lose against someone who fights helicopters with bows and arrows.......to which James Caan says, how can we win against someone who fights helicopters with bows and arrows?

    Iraqi insurgents have mastered the booby-trap.......they've figured out how to beat seemingly indomitable M-1 tanks with IEDs, nothing new, just progressive guerrilla warfare. Like Russians with Molotov cocktails. Every superior force has a weakness. Afghans and Pakis have figured out how to recreate and/or fix firearms with basic blacksmith methods. If you are a study of warfare, you'd think, "damn, that's pretty smart!"

    What is troubling is their method of indiscriminate terror-induction though suicide bombing upon the general populace, but it's really no different than indiscriminate park shootings like in Chicago lately. What is different about fanatical's is their willingness to die to achieve their objective by making a dumb-bomb a smart-bomb by installing a human guidance control system like the Japanese pilots of Kamikaze......or flying a fuel laden airliner into a building.

    To say we never saw that coming is to say that we don't remember history like WWII or Greeks that used to set fire to their own ships and sail them into opposing armadas.

    If we wanted to make it easy......we'd just declare total war on the entire populace and carpet-bomb them to total annihilation.....forget bombing back to the stone-age......I'm talking total genocide. Hitler and Stalin tried that, and to say it's definitely not a politically correct solution these days is a bit of an understatement.....we don't want to be "that guy".

    The way the we see it......why kill the entire bushel for a few bad apples? There are people aplenty who will say.....kill 'em all like cockroaches while we play Metallica on our MP3 players. However, there are millions of innocent people VS the thousands of insurgents, and we can't DDT the whole lot because we'd kill the good bugs as well as the bad ones. So we have to go house to house to stomp on the bad guys but it's impossible to get the support of the populace because of the fear of local retaliation.

    Think of it like trying to stomp out gang warfare in cities like Los Angeles, Chicago, and Detroit......or in a country like Mexico.

    There are quite a bit more Iraqis that want to stop the violence. They truly care about their autonomy and their families. Afghans wish the world powers would butt out and let them fight each other as they have been for thousands of years. Remember where the reign of Alexander the Great got stopped? Remember where the British Empire eventually gave up trying to dominate it? Remember the Soviets in the 80's? Yep, same country......

    So in a military where you are indoctrinated to fight against all odds and to win with better planning and firepower. Many are rightfully disenchanted with the slow process of diplomacy when they ascertain that the locals don't seem to want it. A Military is not a nation-building force.......we are called upon to go in and kill the enemy because diplomacy failed, pure and simple. Asking common ground troops to accomplish what is a Special Forces mission (win hearts and minds for force multiplication) does not compute. It takes years of training for SF to even attempt that level of battle-field diplomacy.....that is why they are "Special". An army is called upon to go exterminate the enemy force. They take a sledgehammer to a horsefly....not to try and talk it out of not biting the horse because it's what the horsefly does for a meal.

    The Romans used to dominate by being the most technologically superior force, then they learned how to sustain peace in conquered lands and supplement army movement by building infrastructure like roads and viaducts. Guess what......the Gauls, Visigoths, Carthaginians, Mongols and Tartars didn't care, they just wanted the Romans out.

    Going back to your warrior woman, I salute her and her warrior ethos to believe in making a difference in the world through her contributions through service. I also support her decision to give it up not only to take care of her home-front, but realizing that enough is enough for one person. It seems like an easy choice to make, but those who have served know it's hard to walk away from a fight even when it's the right thing to do.
    God show's mercy on drunks and dumb animals.........two outa three ain't a bad score!
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    52, thanks for a superb, well considered posting! I urge others to read what he has to say here, it's very cogent and contains excellent truths.

    Regarding our fighting in Afghanistan, my general concern is not that the US needs to perform some sort of total carpet-bomb extermination program (pogrom, actually) but only that our field troops be given the normal leeway that they need to complete simply door to door operations.

    Right now the ROE (rules of engagement) are far too restrictive. If for example you are fired upon by a building full of jihadists, you cannot return general fire any more. You've got to surround the building, set up loudspeakers, and try to talk them out like cops to bank robbers. In other words, applying everyday (and reasonable for the situation) police tactics to warfare situations (unreasonable).

    Although there are certainly US troops who are brutal and who abuse Geneva Conventions, the vast percentage of our soldiers are moral and right-acting. They don't want to (and won't) engage in wholesale slaughter. But they DO want to get on with the "red business" (as Stephen Crane termed it) against the enemy without unreasonable restrictions that play into the hands of the jihadists.

    We've already got one hand tied behind because the jihad doesn't follow rules of war. They gladly shelter behind children in schools for example. What our soldiers in the field want is to not have the other hand tied with stupid ROE as well, and that's what my new soldier friend was so frustrated about, telling me that this is how so many of her colleagues also feel.

    I greatly value your comments, 52, and in the main agree with you. We cannot go "whole hog" in the towns and villages like some WW2 campaign against the Germans. I understand this.

    I also wish there were a better solution. If we (the US) had huge allies in this, like the Marshall Plan in postwar Europe, we could maybe effect a genuine victory over the jihad. Right now I don't think it's possible, and we certainly don't have the "hearts and minds" of the populace there, either. And yeah, I know what Patton said about hearts and minds but that's not possible either. I could only wish.

    What irritates me is the amount of US troops who are being murdered and injured there, for apparently nothing. If it were for a goal, yes. But for naught? I don't want another US soldier to stub his toe there, in that god-forsaken country. Those people want to live in the 4th century (unlike, for example, most Iraqis), so let 'em.

    Thanks again for your comments, bro.

    Outside of a dog, a book is a man’s best friend. Inside of a dog, it’s too dark to read. - Groucho Marx
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.