Women in Combat? Why?

At one point the average person in the military was white...why were exceptions made for blacks if the military operates on averages only?

The average person in the military is Christian...why are exceptions made for atheists and Jews and Muslims?

 

Training Jews, Muslims, Atheists, and minority males doesn't require an inordinate increase in training expenses and effort.

 

I'm all for this. People should be allowed to do things based on their individual. Some women could easily fight in the front lines. Because of biology many might not be able to but banning them all is ridiculous and just wrong and sexist.


While we're at it... let women be drafted.

Women are all for their rights but when it comes to the draft they say "nope, we don't want to be equal there!" TOO BAD!

 

No.

..............

 

Social justice fantasies like that of women serving as crack infantry forces don't seem to do well in reality. Why are NATO forces with women in infanty roles like Finland doing so little in A-Stan? I would guess the Finns don't want their social experiments getting killed.

As people "in the know" have said in this thread and elsewhere, if women are equal to men as frontline infantry troops, then there should be all-female units, humping the heavy gear and morter rounds and doing patrols in rugged terrain. Since women are so tough and equal, they should not suffer more casualties, right? Only in Fantasyland.

 

I was a grunt for eleven years, and I have mixed emotions on allowing women in a combat MOS. The army physical fitness standards are different for males and females, due to the fact that we are physically different. There's no getting around that fact. There are women that are in good shape and may be able to fulfill the role of a infantryman, but they are the exception.
On the other hand, I've seen female soldiers engaged in combat in Iraq, and they did what was expected of them. We also have female fighter pilots, and attack helicopter pilots.
I think time needs to be spent figuring out how unit cohesion might be affected before we start allowing women in combat arms.

 

It doesn't really matter what studies show or what the Pentagon wants or needs. The Diversity Panel has spoken - racial and gender quotas will be enforced:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/mar/17/diversity-panel-wants-military-to-look-like-us/

God help us if we don't have an "unprecedented level" of chubby little wise latinas defending us by 2040 or whatever.

 

This is not going to happen any time soon.

The new push for women in combat is based on .... women in combat. The problem is that the wars we are fighting now are not necessarily the wars that we will fight in the future.

There is a dangerous trend of focusing on the positive and ignoring the negative: call it is the Jessica Lynch syndrom.

The last study I saw was all justified by taking a look at female platoon leaders who lead combat mission (mostly convoys) in theater. Theire performance in battle was fine.

There was further evidence that women in female search teams were often attached to infantry units for missions. Also true.

What was left out is the reality of mixing men and women in combat zones, who live is close quarters and share ... everything.

The female platoon leader? Almost all of them live on giant FOB's, not small COP's. And what happens when you take 19 year old boys and girls and mix them in combat? Have we addressed issues of sexual harassment and sexua assault? Have we addressed the reality of having a cute 19 year old girl with half a platoon in love with her goes down? Or get stuck and half her would be lovers unable to leave her to the tactical realities go rushing stupidly to their own deaths as a result?

That (*)(*)(*)(*) will happen. Indeed, it HAS happened in every military force that has allowed women to serve. Most have subsequently removed them after involvement in high intensity conflicts.

Have we addressed pregnancy? It costs a million dollars a year to send soldiers into Afghanistan, and how much does it cost to recruit train and send over a replacement? And what happened when a General attempted to put a stop to women getting pregnant deliberately and the press got a hold of it? He was quickly muzzeled.

Have any of these 'committees' addressed these concerens? Or are we in a rush to pander to public opinion? A rush to repeat the Jessica Lynch story and ignore all the troubling questions it raises? Or should we deal with these policy issues BEFORE we risk the lives our soldier at the holy alter of political correctness?

There are no doubt women capable of doing a fine job in any combat role.

There is also no doubt that single gender formation offer distinct advantages in many cases.

Any study that does not openly address those points and very deliberately weigh the pros and cons of this POLICY change is worthless. It is nothing more than pandering.

 

All good points.

The way the media panders to women in combat is frankly disgusting and does all women in the military a disservice. I increasingly see women awarded medals for what frankly seems like doing their job...albeit bravely. Recently the media was in a frenzy over a female medic who was given a silver star for treating casualties underfire....something that hundreds of male medics are doing on a daily basis without media attention.

I also constantly see stories about the Marine Corps lioness program where a small team of females are attached to an infantry unit to help search and engage with women. The media portrays these women as living and fighting side by side with infantry. From what I've heard from friends who've directly served with these lioness teams they live seperately from the men on the COP and only come out to do patrols (i.e. no guard, react, working parties etc.). When the women do go out on patrol they aren't integrated into the grunt units, they're put in the middle of the patrol and basically told to sit tight during firefights while the grunts take care of business....just as a chaplain or PRT team would. The media ensures the public thinks that the women are serving as infantrymen. This only keeps women from being taken seriously by their male counterparts.

I'm not putting down the women who do their jobs well in combat. I'm simply pointing out that the media/politicans, and even some military are all too willing to seriously bend the truth to advance their social agenda.

 

Oh for god's sake, this is as ridiculous as the "gays will affect unit cohesion" argument. There is no practical reason not to let women on the front lines.

 

Reread the last two pages. Unit cohesion is incredibly important and openly gay men will, certainly in the begining, put unit cohesion under strain. There are multiple reasons not to put women in the frontlines, the biggest of which is their physical shortcomings.

 

Have you ever been inside a infantry platoon or company?

Have you ever been in an environment where young men and women are mixed together in close quarters 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, month after month after month?

And what happens when we mix 18-19 year old boys and girls? They date. They screw. They break up. The spread rumors about one another. Etc. etc. etc. The introduction of women into an all male envirnoment like an office is one thing it is quite another when it involves front line combat.

The introduction of sexual tension into an environment that requires discipline and trust is not something we should be done on the whim of .... well, that is just rediculous .... from those that have not served there.

There is another option: seperate all female infrantry units. Israel is one such country that does this. The problem, after an Israeli officer got pissed at me for pointing this out, is that these all female combat formations are NOT committed to battle. The female battalion in Israel is not rotated through duty on the West Bank, it was NOT a part of the Gaza War.

Given our high OPTEMPO and the cost of infantry battalions and there support structure does it make sense to toss this out there and spend billions training, equiping .... and then not employing an all female battalion?

Not really.

So that brings it back to intergration.

What are the benefits of an all male environment devoid of sexual tension, unplanned preganancies, sexual harassment, etc.?

What are the benefits to allowing women to serve, those few who are capable?

"Well, that is just rediculous?"

Is it?

 

What are the benefits? It's a moral one - shouldn't a woman be allowed to serve her country in the same capacity as men? And if there's sexual harassment and screwing going on that's the fault of the administration for not cracking down on it.

 

It's actually quite simple once you put away your male bias. They want to do it. That's it. Who has the right to tell anyone they cannot defend their country? You?

Their strength matters not as there are women who are stronger than a lot of men. So that argument is invalid.

Plus you need to think about roles in combat. Not everyone has to carry all that equipment. Some drive vehicles, tanks, medical vehicles and there's nothing to prevent a woman being a sniper is there?

Why don't you create all female units? Because it's not life. Life involves both men and women, always, working and socialising together. The male only thing is one of society's problems as these troops carry that attitude for life.

It's simply equality of choice.

You don't know much about women in war do you? Heard of Israel? Go back far enough and you come across Queen Boadicea of England I believe. Leading into war.

Amazons?

And, don't forget the roller derby too!!!!! Now that's real war, isn't it?

 

Sounds like the military needs to rethink its training program.

These men are supposedly capable of confronting armed enemies in the battlefield, yet they're unable to handle a little 'sexual tension' in the barracks?

These boys need to harden the (*)(*)(*)(*) up.

 

Frankly, you have no idea what your talking about. Serving isn't a right. Where in the constitution does it say that everyone has the right to serve? The military is about fielding the most effective fighting force possible. Its about getting the most bang for the buck. Allowing the tiny minority of women who are capable to join an infantry unit isn't economically feasible.

"There are women who are stronger than men"......that's a terrible statement. The average man is significantly bigger and stronger and possess greater cardiovascular endurance than the average women. The difference is SIGNIFICANT, look at my earlier posts to get the actual numbers/link. If you really can't see this difference go to a local gym and see what the men and women are lifting. It will be clear as day.

You don't seem to have the slightest idea about military issues yet talk as though you do. Women can currently occupy every position in the military minus ground combat units. Every single ground combat unit requires carrying heavy equipment. Every single ground combat unit requires being able to lift heavy things and move long distances over terrain. Every single ground combat unit requires being able to move casualties. Every single ground combat unit requires at least an adequate infantry capabiltiy..artillery and tankers are often expected to serve as provisional infantry, especially today.

Snipers are light infantry. Employed as they are in the U.S. military they are among the most physically demanding positions in the military.

Ironically, your argument against women serving in seperate units proves how stupid it is. Young Men and Women naturally socialize together....because of sex. Walk into any college classroom and you can smell the sexual tension.

You don't know much about war, period. Women have been used very infrequently throughout history as infantry and have done so only during times of dire circumstances...i.e the USSR during WW2. Even there they were trained as marksmen (very different from the modern sniper) and didn't serve with traditional frontline military units.

 

So you associate toughness with the repression of sexual desire? I think most physcologists would laugh at you.

 

Such an apt user name.

 

Admit it, your boys need to harden the (*)(*)(*)(*) up or get out of the military.

They can't handle sexual tension, but are expected to handle combat.

LOL Give me a break.

Get those (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) out of there and put some real (mature) men in the barracks.

 

Great well-thought out reasoned response.

 

>>>Because if men are about to lose a war and be overrun by the hordes from the east, anybody who can fire a rifle or load an artillery piece is a valuable asset. You simply wouldn't be so frigging picky if the enemy was at the gate.

 

If you haven't noticed the U.S. is no where near that position. We have and need a small professional highly trained group of Infantrymen/combat arms. We're not hurting for people in these specialties.

 

What is moral about potentially murdering our own sodliers?

Women can serve.

The question is whether we should ignore the benefits of single gender combat formations for the sake of political correctness.

If women are allowed to serve in the infantry, will you join?

I lead these men into battle, and I am telling you, as will most of my peers, that this is not a deicsion that should be made based emotion or PC desire.

The military is not a democracy, it protects democracy. And when we do things that may potentially harm that ability to protect? We should do so very carefully and with great care.

By all means, instead of telling me that I am immoral to not want my soldiers to be murdered - and that is what happened in the 1940 when Israel, fighting to stand itself up, allowed mixed gender units. Men would not allow trapped females to be left, it became a vulnerability where the enemy, once they pinned down the females, knew that the men would not leave them, that they would take insanely stupid risks to save them .... and died in droves as a result. Israel removed women from the front lines after that experince as a result. It has reinstated them by building an all female BN it never uses - which is of ZERO help against those hoard from the East is it not?

Any evidence that this problem has been alleviated?

I see 19 year old soldiers every day, and I am telling you that it is still a very real risk.

I am also telling you that women get pregnant in combat, and that replacing them is difficult and expensive. I am further telling you that policies that are attempted to put in place to halt this practice have been lampooned to the point where they are not even mentioned in the 'studies' that are being published.

There is also sexual assault and sexual harassment. In an office environment, that is easy to control through leadership and effective standards. 24/7, close quarters, a heavily machismo environment of combat, and our soldiers in these environments often already live like monks.

Have you addressed the problems that will arise from mixed gender formations in these close quarters environments? In an environment where moral norms are already under severe assult? Where the use of violence is an everyday occurance? In a heavily decentralized environment like today?

And do you know what the great fear is of many infantrymen? Standards.

That is we allow women to serve, already fully aware of the PC demands and the resulting hand waves, is that standards will be dropped to allow women to serve in the infantry. And lower standards? That is murder.

You think pandering to 'morality' should be enough to hand wave away legitimate concerns? If you are argueing about anything other than the effects of this policy in battle, your concerns are noted and totally irrelevant. I would rather you be alive, that my soldiers remain alive, to be hated by you, then to sacrifice their lives to the mantel of political correctness.

 

Posts like this demonstrate that some people need to be drafted and made to clear mine fields, equipped with nothing but a ball peen hammer.

 

>>>If you haven't noticed, the enemy is already at the gates (has been for 20+ years) and we have no way of stopping them. We don't need a few good men. We need a swarm of people with horses and lassos.