It's time for Women on the front-line of combat

[The_Dude 1,142]

ok thanks for confirming my suspicions. our ememies had warm fuzzy feelings towards the US & our military before gwb. you do know how woman are treated in certain parts of the world 'even before bush was president' aren't you?. imo- the additional risks involved are an immediate disqualifier. they gave up their right to decide what is & isn't an appropriate level of risk the day they enlisted.

now back to blaming bush for everything.

I have to ask, is this a real concern, or is it a perceived one. Is there any evidence that the taliban, or al-qaida have in the past done more to enemy combatants who were female? Dubya didn't invent torture, but I think that the perception is that if we use it, then it is a legitimate tactic, it's not. I think the use of torture also reflects the nature of violent conflicts that we face today. The Geneva convention and other agreements regarding enemy combatants and general rules of conduct during a war are a good idea, but they really only apply to traditional war. Threats of sanctions or war crimes tribunals aren't going to deter the taliban or al-qaida.

[SMOKE 1,426]

I have to ask, is this a real concern, or is it a perceived one. Is there any evidence that the taliban, or al-qaida have in the past done more to enemy combatants who were female? Dubya didn't invent torture, but I think that the perception is that if we use it, then it is a legitimate tactic, it's not. I think the use of torture also reflects the nature of violent conflicts that we face today. The Geneva convention and other agreements regarding enemy combatants and general rules of conduct during a war are a good idea, but they really only apply to traditional war. Threats of sanctions or war crimes tribunals aren't going to deter the taliban or al-qaida.

its a 'genuine' concern.

[james&olya 1,121]

ok thanks for confirming my suspicions. our ememies had warm fuzzy feelings towards the US & our military before gwb. you do know how woman are treated in certain parts of the world 'even before bush was president' aren't you?. imo- the additional risks involved are an immediate disqualifier. they gave up their right to decide what is & isn't an appropriate level of risk the day they enlisted.

now back to blaming bush for everything.

In the early days of the ground war with Iraq we did have a woman taken prisoner. Did her treatment tend to confirm or refute your opinion? And the fact remains, as many of our generals will tell you (of course, what do they know!) that our reputation for humane treatment of prisoners during wartime helps considerably to leesen the likelihood our adversaries will torture our soldiers if taken captive. Obviously it does not always help. But there is little, if anything to be gained by torture, and much, not least of all respect, to be lost by indulging in it! For this Bush is very rightly blamed!!!

[SMOKE 1,426]

In the early days of the ground war with Iraq we did have a woman taken prisoner. Did her treatment tend to confirm or refute your opinion? And the fact remains, as many of our generals will tell you (of course, what do they know!) that our reputation for humane treatment of prisoners during wartime helps considerably to leesen the likelihood our adversaries will torture our soldiers if taken captive. Obviously it does not always help. But there is little, if anything to be gained by torture, and much, not least of all respect, to be lost by indulging in it! For this Bush is very rightly blamed!!!

you're talking about a woman that was in a supply truck behind the front lines vs. a woman on the front line actually engaged in live fire fight combat. the generals don't allow woman on the front lines now do they? 'what do they know' right. seriously, think about what you're saying here. and no bush did not make the grass in your front yard turn brown this winter either.

[james&olya 1,121]

you're talking about a woman that was in a supply truck behind the front lines vs. a woman on the front line actually engaged in live fire fight combat. the generals don't allow woman on the front lines now do they? 'what do they know' right. seriously, think about what you're saying here. and no bush did not make the grass in your front yard turn brown this winter either.

The grass in my front yard is doing great! If your front yard has taken on a shade of brown I would suggest in the future not giving voice to your opinions there!!

[slim 1,533]

There are women firefighters and front line police officers. If women can do those jobs they can do them all. Anyone who says otherwise is a chauvinist.

Or they're based in reality since most women firefighters are only in their position because of affirmative action and women cops are there so someone can search the women without the department catching a lawsuit.

Am I a chauvinist or am I basing my viewpoint on biology and physics? Answer this question honestly - Your kids are trapped in a burning automobile on the side of the highway. An off-duty cop and firefighter - who are best buddies - happen to see what's going on and stop to help. Are you happier when you see two women get out of the car?

I will concede "this" babe can do a few pull ups and I doubt many marines would not be glad to have her tag along.

I still wouldn't want her in my combat unit. She could support my unit anytime, though!

Is it any more acceptable for a man to be treated inhumanely by a captor than a woman?

Are women inherently the inferior of men and thus needing special consideration even when serving in the military?

It's OK to use it one way... but not the other.

"We need to protect them from getting gang raped... but we should give them the opportunity to serve if they can do enough pullups." Who are these people?

I would assume that anyone with a BMI of 30+ would not be able to do a pull up, period.

20 college women were put through a training regiment.

After training for 12 weeks, 6 out of the 19 (31.6%) women could do at least one, with the original 2 who were able to at the beginning raising their total from 1 and 2 respectively to 11 each.

So from my reading I guess 1/3 would be a fair estimate.

I'm obese and I have ZERO problems knocking out pullups.

20 college women, I'll agree doesn't necessarily make a definitive study, but it does take women in the same age range as 20 "combat troops." 12 weeks of training is like Basic and a little AIT so it is quite possible 1/3 of women that age can become strong enough to carry the load required for today's combat missions (often it's over 100 lbs.) albeit they're still not able to perform to the same standard as men, carrying that same load over rough terrain through unforgiving weather for several days on end while eating reduced rations.

Can some women do it? Sure. With enough drive and training, anyone can do anything.

But, for me, the whole "they're not strong enough" issue is not why I'm against women in combat. I think they could do it. Women in the FSU served in droves during WWII and fought very well. The poster who used the women of the IDF as an example is proof positive that even in the modern world, it can be done. But, does that mean it should be done?

I'm against it because they change the entire dynamic of unit cohesiveness. From day one we're taught to interact a certain way with members of the opposite sex. We're biologically hard-wired to do certain things around them, with them, and to them. When you get into extremely stressful and delicate situations (modern combat.... with women around) that biological behavior sometimes overrides the mission. In combat, that can be deadly. At the very least it degrades the efficiency of the unit. "Can I help you with that ammo, sweety?" (And I'm not even going to touch the issue of the pack of wild dogs fighting over who peed on the b!tch while simultaneously trying to stay within the rank structure.)

For the record, this is why I'm NOT against gays in the military. I'd much rather have openly gay dudes in the military than women. At the end of the day, the gay dude can still carry his own weight, literally.

Women can certainly learn and do tactics quite well in but very few females could handle the Pack-mule aspect which is a basic part of infantry training.

Sounds like someone's actually trained for combat. - With females around, too!

In the early days of the ground war with Iraq we did have a woman taken prisoner. Did her treatment

Don't forget the black one! (Oprah just sh!t herself over your ommission and confirmation that in fact the media in general, despite her best efforts, is actually racist.)

The white one (PFC Lynch) was taken to a hospital and treated quite well before being rescued by Special Ops about a week later. The black one (SPC Johnson) was taken to several different safe houses and paraded around a bit, but overall, treated quite well too.

So that whole gang rape thing just went out the window, didn't it?

Edited January 22, 2011 by slim

[james&olya 1,121]

Don't forget the black one! (Oprah just sh!t herself over your ommission and confirmation that in fact the media in general, despite her best efforts, is actually racist.)

I know, I will tell Oprah it was SPC Johnson I was thinking of!

You make many good points and I am surprised to find myself agreeing with many of them.

[slim 1,533]

I know, I will tell Oprah it was SPC Johnson I was thinking of!

Well, unless you're black too she could care less.

You make many good points and I am surprised to find myself agreeing with many of them.

Surprising what can happen when someone bases their opinions on first-hand experience in the real world, isn't it?

Believe it or not, my other posts are done in the same way. You may not agree with them... but they're based on that same first-hand experience.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Or they're based in reality since most women firefighters are only in their position because of affirmative action and women cops are there so someone can search the women without the department catching a lawsuit.

Am I a chauvinist or am I basing my viewpoint on biology and physics? Answer this question honestly - Your kids are trapped in a burning automobile on the side of the highway. An off-duty cop and firefighter - who are best buddies - happen to see what's going on and stop to help. Are you happier when you see two women get out of the car?

I still wouldn't want her in my combat unit. She could support my unit anytime, though!

It's OK to use it one way... but not the other.

"We need to protect them from getting gang raped... but we should give them the opportunity to serve if they can do enough pullups." Who are these people?

I'm obese and I have ZERO problems knocking out pullups.

20 college women, I'll agree doesn't necessarily make a definitive study, but it does take women in the same age range as 20 "combat troops." 12 weeks of training is like Basic and a little AIT so it is quite possible 1/3 of women that age can become strong enough to carry the load required for today's combat missions (often it's over 100 lbs.) albeit they're still not able to perform to the same standard as men, carrying that same load over rough terrain through unforgiving weather for several days on end while eating reduced rations.

Can some women do it? Sure. With enough drive and training, anyone can do anything.

But, for me, the whole "they're not strong enough" issue is not why I'm against women in combat. I think they could do it. Women in the FSU served in droves during WWII and fought very well. The poster who used the women of the IDF as an example is proof positive that even in the modern world, it can be done. But, does that mean it should be done?

I'm against it because they change the entire dynamic of unit cohesiveness. From day one we're taught to interact a certain way with members of the opposite sex. We're biologically hard-wired to do certain things around them, with them, and to them. When you get into extremely stressful and delicate situations (modern combat.... with women around) that biological behavior sometimes overrides the mission. In combat, that can be deadly. At the very least it degrades the efficiency of the unit. "Can I help you with that ammo, sweety?" (And I'm not even going to touch the issue of the pack of wild dogs fighting over who peed on the b!tch while simultaneously trying to stay within the rank structure.)

For the record, this is why I'm NOT against gays in the military. I'd much rather have openly gay dudes in the military than women. At the end of the day, the gay dude can still carry his own weight, literally.

Sounds like someone's actually trained for combat. - With females around, too!

Don't forget the black one! (Oprah just sh!t herself over your ommission and confirmation that in fact the media in general, despite her best efforts, is actually racist.)

The white one (PFC Lynch) was taken to a hospital and treated quite well before being rescued by Special Ops about a week later. The black one (SPC Johnson) was taken to several different safe houses and paraded around a bit, but overall, treated quite well too.

So that whole gang rape thing just went out the window, didn't it?

Actually slim, the whole premise behind Danno's question is irrelevant. How many men or women are physically fit enough for duty at the beginning of training camp versus at the end, that is what matters. I don't think that antiquated gender roles should preclude women from serving. I'm not saying that we should just wave some magic wand and shove all the women into those roles, but give them the opportunity to do so. If they are physically and mentally capable of performing their duties, and are fully apprised of the dangers that lurk, then why not? This is 2011, not 1951, we as a society have evolved, so should the military. Those same reasons were used 50 years ago to exclude women from the workforce, but we got over that, and I think we are fine today.

[slim 1,533]

Actually slim, the whole premise behind Danno's question is irrelevant. How many men or women are physically fit enough for duty at the beginning of training camp versus at the end, that is what matters.

That matters not at all. Even I can take the sloppiest, laziest, most pitiful excuse of an american (little A on purpose) and turn them into a war hero under the right circumstances. It's not rocket surgery. Look at Africa.

I don't think that antiquated gender roles should preclude women from serving.

Then tell them to overcome several million years of evolution and grow some balls already because until they do, they're women, and will be treated as such by the men in combat with them.

I'm not saying that we should just wave some magic wand and shove all the women into those roles, but give them the opportunity to do so. If they are physically and mentally capable of performing their duties, and are fully apprised of the dangers that lurk, then why not?

It's going to happen anyway. As the politicians devolve our military from the greatest @$$-kicking behemoth ever known to man into Team America World Police, we'll start to see women on the front lines more and more. For the same reason you see "lady in blue, coming through" on the streets of every town in the US, you'll also see women accompanying the men on house-to-house raids in urban areas and attached to command sections to search and "interview" EPWs and various other detainees.

This is 2011, not 1951, we as a society have evolved, so should the military. Those same reasons were used 50 years ago to exclude women from the workforce, but we got over that, and I think we are fine today.

The workforce is not combat.

Society has "evolved" the military into humanizing our enemies. We now care about their race, religion, color or creed. Since that's happened, we haven't been too successful at kicking @$$ around the world. On a unit level, we have. The US military wins every single campaign they partake in. The overall war, however, is lost at home.

Compare WWII and Korea to Vietnam and Desert Storm. Hands down, we kicked the everlovin' snot out of our enemies in those first two conflicts... we turned back in the latter two because we lacked the resolve - back home - to allow the military to do their job.

The military's job is unique. It is special. And it is done more efficiently in the absence of women and "modern" men.

[The_Dude 1,142]

That matters not at all. Even I can take the sloppiest, laziest, most pitiful excuse of an american (little A on purpose) and turn them into a war hero under the right circumstances. It's not rocket surgery. Look at Africa.

Then tell them to overcome several million years of evolution and grow some balls already because until they do, they're women, and will be treated as such by the men in combat with them.

It's going to happen anyway. As the politicians devolve our military from the greatest @$$-kicking behemoth ever known to man into Team America World Police, we'll start to see women on the front lines more and more. For the same reason you see "lady in blue, coming through" on the streets of every town in the US, you'll also see women accompanying the men on house-to-house raids in urban areas and attached to command sections to search and "interview" EPWs and various other detainees.

The workforce is not combat.

Society has "evolved" the military into humanizing our enemies. We now care about their race, religion, color or creed. Since that's happened, we haven't been too successful at kicking @$$ around the world. On a unit level, we have. The US military wins every single campaign they partake in. The overall war, however, is lost at home.

Compare WWII and Korea to Vietnam and Desert Storm. Hands down, we kicked the everlovin' snot out of our enemies in those first two conflicts... we turned back in the latter two because we lacked the resolve - back home - to allow the military to do their job.

The military's job is unique. It is special. And it is done more efficiently in the absence of women and "modern" men.

If the military made standards for ALL soldiers for front line units, no exceptions, no quotas, would you support it then?

I just spoke to my brother in law, who until 2 months ago was a drill sergeant in the marines. He said that under the current system, many would not support it simply because women are not put to the same level as men. There are women who would be great soldiers, but not all. His complaint is that men who are deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan are sent over for a tour, then they get 10 months rotation out before being re-deployed. Women on the other hand are given the option to go back. Another issue that he has is with maternity/paternity leave. If a woman gets pregnant, she is given the option to leave the military with an honorable discharge, predicated on them not breaching any rules. Men on the other hand, get 10 days for paternity, that's it. If for some reason, the male soldier is widowed and is the sole caregiver for the child, the best that he can hope for is to be removed from the list to be deployed. During his time out of rotation, he will not promote in rank, nor will he ever really advance. So i'm saying, make it equal, for all. Hold them all to the same performance, moral and conduct standards.

He said that a vast majority of women who would sign up for combat units are physically and mentally fit enough to do their job. If they opened it up to women, it's not like every woman in the military is going to sign up for it.

[slim 1,533]

If the military made standards for ALL soldiers for front line units, no exceptions, no quotas, would you support it then?

Absolutely.

I just spoke to my brother in law, who until 2 months ago was a drill sergeant in the marines. He said that under the current system, many would not support it simply because women are not put to the same level as men. There are women who would be great soldiers, but not all. His complaint is that men who are deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan are sent over for a tour, then they get 10 months rotation out before being re-deployed. Women on the other hand are given the option to go back. Another issue that he has is with maternity/paternity leave. If a woman gets pregnant, she is given the option to leave the military with an honorable discharge, predicated on them not breaching any rules. Men on the other hand, get 10 days for paternity, that's it. If for some reason, the male soldier is widowed and is the sole caregiver for the child, the best that he can hope for is to be removed from the list to be deployed. During his time out of rotation, he will not promote in rank, nor will he ever really advance. So i'm saying, make it equal, for all. Hold them all to the same performance, moral and conduct standards.

Among other things. There's a lot more to it than just pullups.

He said that a vast majority of women who would sign up for combat units are physically and mentally fit enough to do their job. If they opened it up to women, it's not like every woman in the military is going to sign up for it.

I'm a firm believer in requiring women to register for Selective Service along with this change. Not only are they now eligible to serve in combat units (volunteering within the volunteer military) but they'll be called up in times of war.

Wonder how much support that would get.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Absolutely.

Among other things. There's a lot more to it than just pullups.

I'm a firm believer in requiring women to register for Selective Service along with this change. Not only are they now eligible to serve in combat units (volunteering within the volunteer military) but they'll be called up in times of war.

Wonder how much support that would get.

I'm actually in favor of a required national service for all.

[slim 1,533]

I'm actually in favor of a required national service for all.

IDF.

[The_Dude 1,142]

IDF.

Yup.