The puritan warriors of New York Times

New York Times is up in arms over female American soldiers getting down with prisoners to help the cause:

There are countless reasons to be outraged about the abuses of detainees at American military prisons. But there is one abuse about which there can surely be no debate, even among the die-hard supporters of President Bush: the exploitation and debasement of women serving in the United States military. This practice must come to an immediate end, and the Pentagon must make it clear that such things will never be tolerated again.

Surely no one can approve turning an American soldier into a pseudo-lap-dancer or having another smear fake menstrual blood on an Arab man. These practices are as degrading to the women as they are to the prisoners. They violate American moral values – and they seem pointless.

There were several instances when female soldiers rubbed up against prisoners and touched them inappropriately. In April 2003, a soldier did that in a T-shirt after removing her uniform blouse. Following up on an F.B.I. officer’s allegation that a female soldier had done a “lap dance” on a prisoner, the report described this scene from the interrogation of the so-called 20th hijacker from the 9/11 attacks: A female soldier straddled his lap, massaged his neck and shoulders, “began to enter the personal space of the subject,” touched him and whispered in his ear.

To us, that sounds a lot like what Mayor Rudolph Giuliani tried to ban from Times Square. But the Pentagon seemed utterly unconcerned with the fact that women in uniform had been turned into sex workers at Guantánamo. The report’s only conclusion was that whatever the female soldier might have done, it wasn’t really a lap dance.

I would approve of female American soldiers doing a whole lot more than pseudo-lap-dances if it could help us defeat the Muslim terrorists. And surely there are female American soldiers who are willing to put their bodies on the line, so to speak, for their country. This may come as a total shock to the Times male editorial writers, but females have these mysterious powers to manipulate men into doing things they weren’t relly planning on doing.

Do such tactics debase the women that carry them out? No, of course not. Using female charms to manipulate the enemy is an age-old practice. Even if they did, why would the Times care? It’s not as if the paper cares whether or not its coverage of the war demoralizes our troops.

(HT: Michelle Malkin)