Robert A. Lynn

Despite claims to the contrary by the author and his publisher, Brassey’s, Inc., David E. Jones proves his book to be devoid of expertise in the book’s military subject matter—his hobby of the non-offensive "Ueshiba Ryu Aikido" martial art hardly constitutes military knowledge—and comes off as an intellectual seeking to turn some aberrant but timely ideas into profit.

Notwithstanding his pacifist bias revealed in the preface, Dr. Jones—an associate professor of anthropology at the University of Central Florida and a former Fulbright Scholar—still professes to understand the mindset of the practitioner of the profession of arms.

His political agenda to advance social engineering within the nation’s military, moreover, leads him to use numerous fictitious and mythological examples to support his main premise, even if he did include "sources considered legitimate by western historians"—whatever that means.

Seven cases, chosen at random, are examples of this revisionist history. On page 34, Dr. Jones cites a powerful woman warrior known as Madame Dinh. According to Jones, after the death of her husband, Dinh raised "an army of rebellion in her home province of Ben Tre and drove out 13,000 of Republic of Vietnam President Diem’s troops. Further, she successfully defended the province against a massive counterattack launched by the French." Truly an inspiring example of a "woman warrior."

One is hesitant to point out that there were no French troops in the Republic of Vietnam under President Diem. To learn 35 years later that 13,000 AVRN troops were forced out of Ben Tre probably came as something of a surprise to the American advisors who lived and worked there.

Additionally, we are informed that Ho Te Que "led Vietnamese Army raids with her trademark .45 automatic strapped to her hip." The facts show that her husband commanded a Vietnamese Ranger unit, not she, and that the .45 caliber pistol she wore was semi-automatic. She was not "killed in action," but rather was merely killed accompanying her husband’s battalion during a military operation.

Still, we are informed: "The Hue women’s self-defense unit defeated a U.S. marine battalion during the Tet Offensive." Tell that to the Marines, Dr. Jones. The Americans won the1968 Battle of Tet, contrary to the history being taught by some university professors. As a historical fact, the Viet Cong were destroyed as a fighting force in this offensive, never again to appear as a military factor of influence on a Vietnam battlefield.

Another example is where the "first lady" Marine, Lucy Brewer, is mentioned. Dr. Jones writes that for three years she disguised herself as a Marine abroad the famous frigate U.S.S. Constitution during the War of 1812. What he fails to inform readers is that this claim is made on faith alone.

Dr. Jones fails to answer an obvious question: How did she manage to hide her sex aboard a cramped frigate for three years with no toilet facilities or private quarters for enlisted Marines? Regulations at the time required all Marines to strip, bathe, and don a Marine uniform in the presence of their commander—a commander who would have been derelict in his duties not to ascertain the physical condition of the men in his charge.

Marine Corps historians have found that Brewer’s published accounts of her wartime exploits are false. This myth, which was popularized in the early 1970s, has been pushed by Martin Binkin and Shirley Bach, both of the Brookings Institute, and Jeanne Holm, an outspoken proponent of placing women in combat.

Dr. Jones also mentions the female Soviet pilots of World War II. While it is true that they did fly and fight, it was in the quiet sectors that they were assigned as the better German pilots were chewing up Soviet aircraft at an alarming rate. Further, veteran male Soviet pilots to this day remain critical of female pilot performance during World War II.

Mary Hays McCauley and Margaret Corbin just had to be included in Women Warriors, and there they are on pages 221-223 as "Molly Pitcher" and "Captain Molly," respectively. The author asserts that "Molly Pitcher" fought for seven years in the Pennsylvania State Regiment of Artillery. This is just not true. She was a camp follower, nothing more, as was Margaret Corbin, in point of fact. McCauley is a historical figure, but her actions at Fort Monmouth, as described by Dr. Jones, are labeled as historical fiction by reputable military historians. "Molly," by the way, was a Revolutionary War slang-term applied to female camp followers.

What the next two examples of Mrs. S.E. Ballard, who captained a Mississippi steamboat, and Carrie Hunter, who was the master of a Chesapeake Bay schooner, have to do with war and the "warrior" culture is a little difficult to grasp. Even I know that they belong to a different culture entirely, and I'm not a cultural anthropologist or associate professor at the University of Central Florida.

It may surprise some World War II Army Air Corps and Army Air Force veterans to know "the Women’s Air Force possessed some of America’s most experienced pilots, male or female, in 1942," but that is just what Dr. Jones informs us. It is interesting to remember that the CAP Coastal Patrol pilots, who flew antisubmarine missions during those dangerous days of early 1942 (when we as a nation were losing a ship a day and these brave men were dropping depth charges from Piper Cubs) were later denied World War II veteran status. In contrast, the women who ferried planes and flew only non-combatant missions are now "World War II veterans" and entitled to full Veterans Administration benefits.

Perhaps those who can explain this injustice can also explain why the recruiting of Women Auxiliary Service Pilots was in any manner a military necessity. The Army had more pilots than they did planes during that period, and these pilots could have used the flying hours wasted on these women to enhance their flying experience and, thus, increase their chances of survival in the air combat from which women were banned.

Dr. Jones’ assertion that "Captain Linda Bray became the first modern-day American military woman to engage hostile troops in face-to-face combat" during Operation JUST CAUSE, the 1989 Panama conflict, is just a lie. It never happened.

Furthermore, not one of the "woman warriors" of Operation DESERT STORM, as described by the author, was fulfilling a warrior role against Iraq in 1991. It is clear from his description of the actions portrayed that he has little or no understanding of the "warrior role," or indeed of the very meaning and nature of combat.

Of special note is his portrayal of Gulf War Veteran Specialist Melissa Rathburn-Nealy. She may have had "the distinction of being the first American woman prisoner of war since World War II," but if so, it was due to her ineptness as a soldier, and it didn’t occur as the author describes.

Nor does he mention that Major Rhonda Cornum’s actions were contrary to Army policy, violated U.S. law, and probably would have resulted in her court-martial if she had been held to the same standard as her male peers. Without the permission of her commanding officer, Cornum, a field surgeon, left her post and ordered a medic off of a helicopter flight so that she could take his place. The helicopter was scheduled to venture into a combat area—an area forbidden to women—and was subsequently shot down.

Women Warriors is typical of countless books that purport to be endeavors in scholarly research but are in fact fairly obvious attempts to promote a policy objective.

The level of scholarship demonstrated in this book raises serious questions about academic standards in the field of cultural anthropology and of the veracity of the information being used to support the argument in favor of women in combat roles. Though a cultural anthropologist, the author displays an abysmal ignorance of the very culture of which he purports to be writing—the warrior culture.