The Fighting Future is Female?

A lady soldier is grievously abused by people we rescued.

The Army Times brings us saddening news:

Officials at Fort Bliss confirmed Monday that the FBI is investigating the alleged assault of a female soldier at Fort Bliss, Texas, by several male Afghan refugees.

"The investigation is currently with the FBI and have since provided acknowledgement that they received the case from Fort Bliss," said Lt. Col. Allie Payne, 1st Armored Division spokeswoman, in a statement emailed to Military Times.

According to Payne, the incident occurred on Sept. 19 when a "small group of male evacuees" at the Doña Ana Complex in New Mexico allegedly assaulted a female servicemember.

While Payne declined to comment on specific details of the assault, she did say that the soldier received medical care and counseling in the wake of the attack.

The perpetrators are, of course, Afghan "refugees" that the United States rescued from the medieval tyranny of the Taliban, at vast expense and bother, when we abruptly decided to stop supporting their existing corrupt and incompetent but not particularly bloodthirsty government.  Whether or not that was a good idea, it's certainly the case that they are spreading both crime and disease, having been neither medically tested nor effectively vetted or even searched.

But that's a topic for a different article, and a problem for another day.  Today, let's consider the strange events reported above: This trained member of our military was attacked on her own military base while she was deployed on active duty defending our country.

Think about this for a moment: Somehow, criminals are - what, just wandering around a U.S. military base in wolfpacks looking for people to attack?  What sort of security do we have there?

Payne told Military Times that the installation "took an in-depth review" of protocols after the report was made.

"Since that date, we reiterated the established buddy-system, installed security cameras and monitoring systems with staff, increased lighting, and increased our health and safety patrols in the village," Payne said.

Somehow we do not find this reassuring.  The Lt. Col. is now instructing his soldiers to travel in pairs for their own safety on their own military base under his command?   Dare we wonder what other sort of things might be found on that base that we wouldn't want the bad guys to have access to - yet, our own soldiers are not safe in the same space?

Do we need to remove our tanks, guns, planes, and nukes from this base for their safety?  Or, just possibly, we should remove the bad guys or, at least, non-Americans?

But there's an even more scandalous problem: The purpose of soldiers is specifically to be dangerous to the enemy.  Our warfighters are reputed to be the best-trained and equipped military force in all of human history; for sure, they are overwhelmingly the most expensive.

At present, they are led by, at best, an utterly incompetent and feckless pack of buffoons, at worst by profoundly corrupt traitors - but that needn't affect their own personal dangerousness.  And as far as motivation to take violent acton to ward off serious bodily harm, being sexually assaulted is pretty much at the top of the list.

Yet, the article tells us, the lady soldier received "medical care and counseling" - as well she should.  What about the attackers?  Did they receive medical care?  Or were their dismembered corpses carefully scraped up with spoons and loaded into closed caskets?

The article doesn't say, but we'd imagine that the sort of bloodbath we'd expect from the spiritual descendants of, say, Sergeant York or General Patton would have scandalized lily-livered reporters the world around.  But, nothing.

No, we can only conclude that, while the lady soldier required hospitalization, her attackers needed nothing in particular.

Now, in no way are we suggesting that any woman deserves to be sexually assaulted - nothing could be further from the truth.  Similarly, we ought not to live in a world in which women must routinely defend their virtue by force.  Clearly, Fort Bliss has been permitted to become that sort of world - and yet, one of history's most highly-trained dealers of deadly violence, presented with the ultimate motivation to do so, dealt... nothing at all.

Let's be fair: as is typical these days, the news reports only what they want to see, without regard to the truth, to say nothing of the whole picture.  It's possible the numberless "several" male Afghans snuck up behind her with catlike tread and coshed her from behind; that could happen to Rambo or even James Bond.  Such a sneak-attack would make for an irresistibly newsworthy tidbit, though, and there's no sign of that in any report we've seen.

No, what seems to be the case is this: the lady soldier was involved in an altercation with the Afghans, who overpowered her and abused her without her even doing any noticeable damage to them before, during, or afterwards.

What, then do we expect her to do to an enemy?  What kind of soldiers are we training, honoring, and counting on for our national defense

Can it possibly be that, contrary to every dogma of leftist wokeism, that women simply are smaller and weaker than men and inherently less capable of inflicting personal damage no matter how well-trained or highly motivated?

We can't help but notice that our ruling Democrats are all-in, with the cooperation of a fair number of Republicans, for extending the draft to the weaker sex. Maybe they actively want us to be conquered and humiliated as this unfortunate young woman was, in the very place where she should be safest of all?

Petrarch is a contributing editor for Scragged.  Read other Scragged.com articles by Petrarch or other articles on Society.
Reader Comments

Our military in general, regardless of sex or sexual preference, has been demilitaraized. Except for a few MPs, nobody on base is armed. Security around the refugees was probably minimal because we wanted them to feel "welcome." It's part of the same mentality that didn't vet any of them before they got on the airplanes to come here. There were no announced consequences for the offenders because that would be bad optics for the Biden Administration, calling more attention to their previous blunders in Afghanistan.

The bottom line is that nobody cares about individual soldiers, sailors and airmen. Big Wigs really haven't cared since before the Vietnam War. General officers don't pay for any of their mistakes. Colonels and below pay for the mistakes instead.

It's even possible that the rules of engagement for refugees require that soldiers suffer assault and not retaliate. Yes, we've come that far in ridiculous.

September 29, 2021 8:02 PM

What's vital to know is what's missing. Sorta sounds like the soldier was just wandering by and got jumped by some horny 3rd worlders. But it happened in NM and Ft Bliss is in TX. So I assume she was on duty. Probably some sort of administrative or guard duty. Either way, she should be armed. We spend a lot of $ to train soldiers to handle fire arms. If her superiors disarmed her to placate the Bidenites, they should be held accountable. If she was armed, but didn't react as a soldier, its on her.
The gender angle is less relevant since a female soldier should be weapons trained as well as male ones. And a 5'5" woman with a 12 shot 9mm sidearm should have no problem subduing horny 3rd worlders. Just threaten to shot them in the crotch.

September 29, 2021 10:13 PM

@bsinn:

the lady was NOT armed; donald atwood, daddy bush's deputy secretary of defense, issued DoD directive 5210.56 in february of 1992 (mr. bush's last year in office). mr. clinton's folks modified this directive so heavily that it bears almost no resemblance to the original, and issued it as army regulation 190-14 in march of 1993. finally, mr obama's administration made it even more restrictive in 2011.

from what i have found (i have never been in the military), before daddy bush's initial directive, the decision as to whether soldiers could carry weapons while on-base stateside was up to the base commander. with daddy bush's directive and mr. clinton's regulation, the number of base shootings began to go up. as with civilians being prevented from bearing arms, there were fewer armed soldiers, resulting in the ridiculous situation of troops stationed in countries with active combat being safer than those stateside (proven by fewer on-base deaths in the combat bases).

lest any lefties seeing this post think that i am pushing for all soldiers to be armed at all times, let me remind all that most soldiers are young men, and most young men are at least somewhat interested in guns (especially today's FPS gamers, most of whom enter the military already knowing a *lot* about the M4 and its derivatives). furthermore, idle young men (most soldiers - whether in combat or not - spend most of their time just waiting around for orders) who like guns can be counted upon to PLAY with guns, and therefore can be counted upon to discharge their weapons "accidentally." as a young man, i had 3 idiot friends who accidentally discharged firearms indoors (2 were playing with a 12-gauge shotgun one day, and the third, even more stupid, discharged his pistol inside TWICE, the second time a few YEARS after the first, in spite of supposedly knowing better). i also had a friend who was an army MP; he handed his pistol to his sergeant (not much older than he was, BTW) so that he could do some manual labor while they were on maneuvers, and the sergeant "accidentally" discharged my friend's pistol while playing with it. had any of these young men been handling their weapons responsibly, or not had them in their hands at all, none of the "accidents" would have happened. military commanders have known this for centuries, if not millennia, and thus usually limit the access of their troops to their weapons by keeping them in the armory.

that said, there is no reason that we could not go back to letting base commanders decide how to handle their own situation. apparently, commanders at one time could have, in principle, let their troops carry concealed *personal* weapons, so long as the carriers were licensed locally to do so; i have read of several such situations. as is usual when concealed weapons are allowed, shootings tend to go down, not up.

as for WHY the female "soldier" was raped, the obvious reason to anybody who knows even a little about the pirate death cult of islam is that non-muslim females are considered even lower than female muslims, who are considered as having only half the intellect of a male, and are essentially the chattel property of either their fathers or their husbands. non-muslim females, simply because they are non-muslim, are worth LESS than muslim women, and so are available to be raped. the hard-core leftist thought leaders most likely know about islam, but the 99.999% of leftists who believe the leftist claptrap on CNN, ABC, and other fascist propaganda outlets don't. since most westerners know NOTHING about islam, they think it is just like other religions; not wanting to convert, and too uneducated to think to check for themselves, they simply accept what lying leftist thought leaders say.

finally, don't take MY word for ANY of this; i'm just a voice on the internet. think critically and LOOK AT ISLAM FOR YOURSELF.

September 30, 2021 5:53 AM
Add Your Comment...
4000 characters remaining
Loading question...