Women in Combat? Why?

Please, a sloppily built house can last that long if it doesn't face a stiff wind in that time.

 

I am sure you have some sort empirical evidence to back your claims. Right? Stiff winds? I would say we have faced strong winds, sometimes hurricane-strength. Has the combat effectiveness of the Air Force suffered? I think not.

 

You continue to assiduously avoid the big picture. If women must be allowed into combat, they must also be allowed to command; and they are not natural leaders of men, any more than men are natural followers of women.

 

The only time I'd question a women's ability to lead men would be in ground combat where physical fitness and endurance is an important foundation and mark of leadership. In every other field I think you'll find them more than capable of leading men.

 

Honey , you've been watching too many 'GI Jane" re-runs , , , cause that don't happen in real life , ok . . . maybe in Hollywood .

 

So how would you feel about a woman general in the JCS, or even an all-female JCS?

Are you OK with women "wearing the pants" in a family?

 

While I'm slightly biased to a JCS with ground combat experience, I can't really find a reason why not. The JCS is more of a politician than a battle commander anyway. If you tried to put a non-infantry/armor/artillery General in charge of an infantry/armor/artillery regiment/division then I think you're asking for trouble.

As for the pants comment....it takes all types. There are some men out there who are quite happy having a wife who fills the more "dominant" role in the family. Do I think men tend to fill this role more often? Sure, but I've definitely met some families that are run by a wife or grandmother.

 

Quoting a female Brig. Gen.

"99 percent of Army women would probably support opening up the infantry,
and the same percentage would say they do not want to join the infantry themselves."

 

That's not what I asked.

 

If you couldn't figure it out from my response....yes.

 

And this is the difference my friend.

Because you see, to me these are not just words I write. They are my own personal experiences. I am in the military now, in a mixed gender unit. I also served as an infantryman for 10 years. So I know and understand both sides.

That picture I put up with that comment you quoted is not just a random picture. It is the picture of a friend of mine who was returning home. One of many I have lost over the years in the military.

 

This in many ways actually proves my point.

Yes, I am sure that there are women that can hump an 85 pound pack for 20 miles. However, those are the rare exceptions. Just look at how women do when graded equally against men on a firefighter entrance practical to see what I mean.

Heck, a lot of men can't even do that. And I know that for a fact, because I have done it recently.

The last few months, my Platoon Leader has been taking us on forced marches every Thursday. It is actually quite easy, a 45 pound pack, and marching only about 5 miles in an hour. Sounds like a piece of cake, right?

Well, we have been doing this for over 2 months now. And every single time, every single time, there is only one person that keeps up with him the entire time. Me.

The difference? Well, other then the two of us, everybody in my platoon is a 14T, Patriot Missile System Operator. Yes, it is a combat arm. No, it is not Infantry. We generally leave the entire platoon in the dust behind us.

The LT is a former 11B, reaches Staff Sergeant before getting a commission. Me, I am a broken-down Marine 0311 Infantry Rifleman. He is 28, I am 46. But we leave kids less then half my age in the dust behind us.

I know about women pulling more G forces. I know women serve in combat. But as I said already, Infantry is not the same as Combat. As we used to say, Other Marines play at Combat, we Live Combat.

If people really think that Women belong in the Infantry, then I say we do a real-life study. In fact, use the Marines, since they already have a system in place to test them out.

Take 3 Battalions. Leave one male only. Make the second male-female integrated. Then make the third all female. Let them operate stateside for 18 months.

Then have them all do a MCCRES. And I mean the entire evaluation. Forced march, inspection, and field exercises. And have them perform both against each other, and regular Marine units.

When this is all done, then compile and evaluate the results. And each of the Battalions must achieve a passing grade that is equal. No adjustments for females. No changes after the study starts. They all must pass the test as it was in effect in say 2010.

If the integrated unit performs within a few points of the all-male unit, then I will gladly tip my hat and admit I was wrong.

But I do not expect to be wrong. Because I have seen with my own eyes how Marine Artillery units with women in them did. They may do some parts just as good as the all-male infantry units. However, when it came to the "bread and butter" in the Infantry, that is Infantry Field Maneuvers and the 26 Mile Forced March With Pack, that is when you seperated "the men from the girls".

Because most women simply can't do that. In fact, most men can't do it either. That is why not everybody gets into the Infantry. You need to be a rather special kind of crazy Type A personality to even consider trying to handle that kind of job. I saw many try when I was in, and many fail. They found nice soft jobs, running the gym, or base stables, or working in the Orderly Room, bringing out hot chow to the real grunts in the field.

Sure, they were 0311 in their ERB, but we generally did not consider them real grunts. They were just holding down a job until their enlistment was up.

 

No, they were not.

If that was the case, then the war would have been over way earlier. Air power smashed Saddam flat, but he still did not quit.

Air Power smashed Hitler flat, he still did not give up.

The only way to win and end a war is with boots on the ground. And that means Infantry. Tanks sure serve their purpose, but their main job is to take out other tanks and to support the Infantry.

Infantry without Tanks have a harder job, but they can still do their job, if a bit slower. Tanks without Infantry are just so many pieves of scrap metal that will not last long. This was the case in every war from WWI until Gulf War II.Because it only takes a handfull of enemy Infantry with hand weapons (or laser designators) to totally ruin a tank drivers day.

 

In this we also have a lot in common.

People are often confused when i tell them I am a pacifist. I do not believe in the use of force or violence to solve a dissagreement.

However, I also do not believe in just "rolling over" and letting a bully do whatever they want. I am not a pacifist in the way of Ghandi, and I will fight back when I am forced to.

That may sound strange, comming from somebody with my background and current profession. However, I believe that if a conflict must be entered into, it should be done as forcefully and violently as possible, to try and bring it to an end as soon as possible. And that it should not be ended until the enemy has lost all will to fight, or is destroyed.

I have no issue with women in combat. I have no issue with women in the "Combat Arms" in general. I have said so in here over and over and over again. The only issue I have is with women in the Infantry, Armour, and 1 or 2 other select fields. And these are the ones where the strength and endurance factors make a huge difference between life and death.

 

It doesn't sound strange at all to me. I understand your point of view and I most certainly respect your entire point of view and not just what I quoted above. There is nothing wrong with being a pacifist and I agree with you wholeheartedly. Sometimes you do have to fight, but it's always better to "win without fighting" as Sun Tzu liked to put it, so I am with you, I am a pacifist to some degree as well but I will fight to stand up for myself and protect myself. It's easy to see you "been there done that." "It is only one who is thoroughly acquainted with the evils of war which can thoroughly understand the profitable way of carrying it on" and the most profitable way to carry it on is to "win without fighting."

I know what it's like to lose guys. It sucks. I don't like to talk much about it though, not to mention we still have a war going on. Hey, I hope things are going well for you. I sometimes read over some of the guys we lost overseas here recently. I had to pop a salute a few times to render respect to some of the guys coming home (I am honorably discharged now and have since started my own business since returning home, but I still pop a salute to render respect to servicemen and women coming home from overseas). Thanks for your service.

 

BTW Mushroom, my sympathies for your lost friend. I am sorry about the loss of your friend.

 

It doesn't sound strange at all, I'm the same way.

While deployed, you do what you have to do and do it with violence of action. When you return home, you don't want to have to feel that violent anger rise up inside you again, at least I don't. There is a time and place for that, and it's not here.

It takes a LOT to get me to fight, I'd rather talk it out, settle it with humor, or just swallow my pride and walk away. Back me into a corner and take those options away from me and I will come unglued, and wont stop until either him, myself, or both of us are leaving in an ambulance.

 

One doesn't need to be an infantry combat veteran to know the demands of MODERN US infantrymen. I served in a forerunner of your unit years ago, the I-Hawk, and didn't see any women in any of my units up to all the physical tasks.

Like you said also, let's do some tests---or "show me the beef!" So many of these die-hard progressives just don't get it. They don't understand the rigors of carrying all the heavy weight required these days, while fighting in difficult terrain.

Yes, a few super-female chromosone types could carry the extra morter rounds and fight uphill, but the problems of having co-ed units hiders moral and combat effectiveness.

Liberal progessives should demand their great master Pres. Obama to run at least some small force on force tests to prove their point. But they know he won't do them because, as any fool would know, they would fail.

 

Guts and glory and all that aside...

Most infantry skills are not readily transferable to civilian employment.

Considering the average military career is 4 years or less, not including IRR status...
an enlistee is better served learning a skill that has some transferable elements to civilian jobs.

Reality is, that a large number of those with a combat MOS, after
getting out of the service have a difficult time finding work. The adjustment back to civilian life is not easy and made even more difficult in an economic recession. Unemployment rate for those Post 9/11 veterans between
18 - 24 is something in the neighborhood of 27%. There is the G.I. bill of course and this does provide an opportunity to learn a skill or obtain a degree that is more readily employable.

I therefore, among other reasons also, don't envision a large influx of women seeking infantry or another direct combat MOS,
even if the door is opened to them...

 

I learned some intangible skills in the Infantry that I'd never learn in a support MOS. These skills may not transfer directly to the civilain work force, but once I get my degree I KNOW they'll be invaluable to me in the work force.

 

"Intangible" may or may not transfer to a resume'.

 

Depends on where you want to go in the civilian side.

I picked up very valuable leadership skills in the Infantry that I don't know if I would of picked up (to the degree I did) in a support MOS as well.

You also learn to deal with copious amounts of stress in a reasonable manner.

 

I was in combat service support for my military career. I would hold up that experience,
as it relates to civilian employment, to anything comparable with direct combat.

Your experiences would be better suited in law enforcement and security perhaps...
but as they relate to a business...I see no advantage to hiring someone with
combat experience, leadership or otherwise as it applies to running a business.

Say I need someone to run a warehouse for me.

Someone who ran a warehouse in the Army, someone with experience in logistics vs. an infantryman...

Glancing at a resume' who do you think an employer is going to hire first?

Just being honest here...I was a Reservist.
A part-time military airlift pilot and flew full-time, freight for a civilian part 135 air carrier.

I don't do either occupation any longer...however

Do you think under contract with FedEx, that their management gave a rat's patoot if I could perform corkscrew tactical/combat landings
as a small arms fire avoidance procedure? or did they care about someone who can get stuff from point A to point B, in as safe and timely manner
as possible?

If nothing else I played down the military angle on my civilian resume'.

 

What youre saying does hold true, but I do expect to go into the LEO side, and am currently majoring in Criminal Justice.

Of course on a resume I wouldn't say "I have great leadership skills because of combat", and I've never put what I did in the military on a resume. I just put that I have good leadership skills.

I guess what I'm saying is that being in the Military has put a lot of things in perspective for me, and things that some people freak out, or stress out about, I don't. If you're stressed, or freaking out, it can affect your judgment and decision making skills. It can hold value in whatever job you want to get into on the civilian side, it just makes you that much calmer when/if people panic, stress, or freak out over something.

 

I understand, if I ran a business...I would hire someone else who's been in the military
because I understand and know the intangibles associated with that.

Discipline, ability to think under pressure, ability to listen and follow orders ...
all very tangible qualities that may not shine through on a resume' or cover letter...
if every civilian manager responsible for hiring had military experience they'd know this...

What we have is a relatively small percentage of the population who are veterans of any
sort..combat or otherwise. They may see even the word "Army" or "Marine" on a resume'
and not coincide that with transferable skills to help run their business.

Of course with law enforcement, security, a mulititude of civilian and government jobs,
military experience is not only a plus...it's preferred.

Your experience as an infantryman, coinciding with a degree in Criminal Justice will serve
you well in that endeavor.