Women in Combat? Why?

Once again you speak of quantity, when it is quality that counts. The average Iraqi soldier is facing a chance of death by enemy action every single day of his existence. That is NOT so for American troops, in fact, many American troops never see any enemy action. The attacks on Israel come on a daily basis, from single murders to terror attacks, to attacks by many nations. The Israeli soldier has to be prepared to defend him/herself all the time, day and night, on duty and off. This is NOT true for American Soldiers. YET, the women in the Israel military are some of the best soldiers in the world, as are their male soldiers. They have defeated armies 10 times their size and power. For more than 60 years they have defended their nation against all comers, ON A DAILY BASIS. In that 60 years they have shown that they can put their soldiers - man and woman -up against any!!! America has gotten Israeli military people to come train our soldiers in combat procedures for fighter planes, in tank warfare in bomb disposal, in anti-terror activities and DOZENS of other fields. In a lot of cases, these imported trainers were WOMEN.

6 months after the 6 day war in 1967, our battalion officers, NCO's and tank commanders were sent to a 3 day school put on by the Israeli MILITARY. The instructors were officers and NCO's from and Israeli tank unit that had destroyed over 100 Russian tanks including russian T-38's, T-54's, PT-76's, German panzers, and American M47's and M-48's (America at that time was still using M-48's in Vietnam. These combat veterans explained in great detail, how a smaller, and better prepared force could defeat a larger and more powerful force. They taught us some things that were NOT in any of out books and many things that none in America knew about fighting a modern tank war. Oh, 2 of the six tank commanders were women.
Their force lost 4 tanks while destroying 100 arab tanks and more than a thousand support vehicles.

 

Lets see, since 1948, israel has lost 123 tanks and the Arabs have lost 4500. The arab air forces have been repeatedly demolished and today, the reality is that Israel owns the air over the middle east. The only recent war including your "war of 06" has been nothing but minor skirmishes and terrorist action. Israel has never lost one inch of terroritory they have gained in war, except at the treaty tables when they gave a great deal, of what they had won by might of arms, back.

Sorry, you can wish on one hand and poop in the other, only one hand will contain anything. Wish that Israel loses, but don't bet on it. Actually do bet on it, but make sure I get some of the action.

(OH, and please do not get upset by my use of the word ARABS, I use it in it honest meaning. ARAB -A member of a Semitic people inhabiting much of the Middle East and North Africa.)

 

So what you are saying is that you have never been able to control yourself around women? I think I have figured out the root of all your problems without ever giving a (*)(*)(*)(*).

 

Didn't you have problems with a male Army officer while deployed...or is this a touchy
subject?

 

One out how many have I have personally worked with? It is going to happen. Some people are just mentally unstable and insanity is not gender specific. Also, why do you bring that up as if you are only curious about the details? How exactly does that one encounter support the argument that women should not be in fighter squadrons?

Anyways, Yguy is not a fan of anecdotes. I am waiting for him to provide empirical evidence that the military is less effective with women as combat pilots, in command positions, or in any job actually.

 

Calm down, I didn't project an anecdotal incident to imply anything beyond that.

 

If I become anymore calm, people will assume I am high.

I am not quite sure what your point was. IgnoranceIsBliss made a comment about how men and women always cave to sex, which is absolutely stupid and ludicrous. Yguy just hates me and the position I (and all women apparently) am (are) in. The incident with the Army officer was not even sexual in nature. He wanted to beat the ever living (*)(*)(*)(*) out of me.

 

Did you know that the Air Force was looking into a "gay" bomb that would, when
deployed, release female sex pheromones that might potentially create such a romantic mood
that the bad guys would be too busy making love and not war. Never made it past the drawing board however.

Fact.

More on point, fraternization while deployed probably does occur to some extent...
though as you well know the consequences, particularly for an officer, are severe.

Article 92 and 134 covers those type of unprofessional relationships.

 

Not my responsibility. As far as I'm concerned, it's the responsibility of advocates of a co-ed military to provide evidence that said military has faced opponents as determined and relatively capable as the Allies faced in WW2; or, since you're a pilot, evidence that any of your colleagues have faced such duress as was encountered by the 8th Air Force when B-17s were making bombing runs into Germany before P-51s were available to ride shotgun all the way to the target.

 

That is a figment of your imagination - and more than likely projection as well, seeing all the ad homs are coming from your end.

 

I do not want to start a third conversation here. I do not have that kind of time. Stick to the point. He said it always comes between men and women. That is not true and is incredibly dense to assume so. Yes, fraternization happens. Please link me to the post where I have specifically denied that. Does it always happen? No. Not at all.

 

Actually, it is given that it has worked well thus far. Why would we go back in time to assert a point that is only relevant now and for the future? You are really grasping at straws here.

As far as ad homs, if telling you that your off-the-mark argument is born of frustration with women is ad hominem, then I am guilty as charged. However, it is hardly a fallacy since it is very relevant to this discussion.

 

There's already mixed sex units, and opportunities exist for that to occur.

That cat has already been out let out of the bag. There are codes of conduct
and enforced regulations and policies that ensure that the behavior does not go
un-checked. At some point, we all have to be adults and go beyond sophomoric
concepts that women and men can't share living space without humping one another
like rabbits. We're supposed to be professionals afterall. Instill that into the troops.

 

And there is no reason to believe enlisted personnel are any less capable of adhering to standards and professionalism as us officers. If people cannot live within the parameters, maybe they should check back into civilian life where they can sleep with whomever they please. The military life is not for those unable to live within strict regulations.

 

According to the enlisted in here, it's asking an impossibility.

I can't speak for them, but most definitely the officer corps is held to a higher standard
and professionalism is expected...on or off duty.

 

I cannot argue with this assertion, because it is meaningless.

Obviously you didn't understand the point, or are pretending not to.

Of course it is.

You know perfectly well that exactly the opposite is true.

 

Then we are posting with some real headcases serving in the enlisted ranks.

 

I understand you better than you would like me to. Let me know when you get a point. I have work to do.

And for the record, your views are archaic, ignorant, sexist, and irrelevant to the military, but I do not hate you. So you can lose that thought so your brain does not get too task-saturated.

 

here's the BLUF on that...

The expectation is that troops should behave professionally and responsibly at all times. That sort of behavior is still going to occur,
and if it results in any chargeable offenses, appropriate actions will be pursued.

 

I'm sure many readers are impressed, but that is irrelevant to the discussion.

Hardly necessary, since you know perfectly well that I've made several patently legitimate points which you have failed to address - which of course is why you're trying to make this abut me.

I should hope not, since I can't imagine what legitimate grievance you could possibly have against yours truly.

 

Lets see, since 1948, israel has lost 123 tanks and the Arabs have lost 4500. The arab air forces have been repeatedly demolished and today, the reality is that Israel owns the air over the middle east. The only recent war including your "war of 06" has been nothing but minor skirmishes and terrorist action. Israel has never lost one inch of terroritory they have gained in war, except at the treaty tables when they gave a great deal, of what they had won by might of arms, back.

Sorry, you can wish on one hand and poop in the other, only one hand will contain anything. Wish that Israel loses, but don't bet on it. Actually do bet on it, but make sure I get some of the action.

(OH, and please do not get upset by my use of the word ARABS, I use it in it honest meaning. ARAB -A member of a Semitic people inhabiting much of the Middle East and North Africa.)

 

Misogyny is everywhere, including the military and political forums. While you and I do not agree on everything, I honestly believe that anyone, male, female, gay, straight, Christian, Muslim, or anything else deserves the opportunity to perform any job, in the military or out. To that, I believe we can both agree.

 

I would agree that Israel did very well in it's past wars, but the war of 06, it didn't seem like anybody accomplished much of anything, except for a lot of death and destruction. Israel's lackluster performance was because it depended and relied too much on air power and not enough on it's infantry. Israel's goal should be the destruction of Hezbollah, but the only way to defeat this Iranian proxy is to work with the US and pursue a strategy to cut Hezbollah off from it's strategic assets. If Israel and the US are able to cut Hezbollah off from it's strategic assets, then Hezbollah will be defeated.

Sure, the Israelis inflicted a lot of casualties, no doubt, but did Israel complete it's objectives? You can inflict more casualties on your enemy than he does on you and you can win all or most of the battles, but it doesn't matter in the end if you still lose the war or fail to complete your objectives.

And that was one of the lessons of Vietnam. We won all the battles and inflicted more casualties on our enemy, the NVA and Viet Cong, yet, in the end we still lost the war. In that war too, we depended too heavily on overwhelming firepower, firepower and a strategy of attrition ("the body count" and measuring progress by the number of casualties we inflicted upon the enemy, which was not an accurate measure of progress for the war) and in my view, we should have used our infantry much more effectively in Vietnam rather than relying on overwhelming bombing raids and firepower. Again, having firepower is good, but it is a trap to depend too much on overwhelming firepower.

 

I'm going to take that as sarcasm....

 

You're completely wrong. For the vast majority of history Infantry has BEEN THE VAST MAJORITY of the military. Any General who viewed his infantry as cannon fodder was an idiot. You sound like an Air Force General here....or rather an Air Force armchair General.