Women in combat (but not really) Vol. III

Yeah, why would anyone want to denegrade themselves to being a meer mortal infantrymen? It's much more important to sip martinis at the O-club, suck in the AC, and eat up huge chunks of the defense budget.

I think we can all agree that those poor regressed Infantryman have done one hell of a lot more in these last two wars than any billion dollar stealth bomber.

 

i don't think combat is a French word...in fact i don't think the French even have a word for it?

 

I'm aware of that. What I'm missing is why that army should be considered formidable relative to, e.g., WW2 German or Japanese forces.

Sure, but you know very well that that is completely beside the point.

Funny you should say that, because I remember a report just after the end of Desert Storm of one of our generals claiming that if the Iraqis had had our gear and we'd had theirs, the outcome wouldn't have been any different. I also remember an interview on a local NPR station with a former general who, asked how long the ground phase would take, replied, in such a tone as a contractor might use when asked how long it would take him to put siding on a house, "Coupla weeks". He also said the Germans were better soldiers than the Iraqis ever thought of being. To "balance things out", they interviewed a guy who assured the listeners that the airborne sand would eat our equipment alive and that it was gonna end up being a big clusterpuck. Of course now we know the general had it nailed, so from my perspective the capability of the Iraqi military was grossly inflated by the leftist media who were spoiling for another Viet Nam.

All that aside, you're ignoring the more fundamental danger of an increasingly feminized military, which is that its membership is increasingly susceptible to anti-American influences, and thus increasingly unable to perceive enemies within its own ranks, wherefore the average service member is increasingly unable to remain true to his or her constitutional oath.

 

Not at all. Where did you prove me wrong?

I can read. That didnt change my point in the slightest.

1. You gave a report, not West Point's physical fitness standards.
2. Yes, you need to provide a source
3. Even if it is 90%, the other 10% make the cut and thus get in. Therefore...
4. You havent refuted let alone challenged my point at all.

That's no the fault of women, nor should it bar women. You simply need to improve the process of selection. By your logic, we should not allow men because some of them will also drop out.

If the army finds a women stays behind to often they can simply kick her out. I suspect they might and at the very least should, do the same for men with the same difficulty.

Ok, but it should be done. The efficiency of such testing is not the responsibility of women but of the army.

So you think we should get rid of one group of people based on the idea they may be sexually harassed? Ok, so basically anyone who is relatively good looking.

You should have read my point. In the case where there are more volunteers than positions, you simply take the best, this means women wont get in. Simple.

No, you made the assertion, so you need to prove it.

Perhaps you need to realize its the army that pays and sets up the processes of testing and recruitment thus it is the army's responsibility to make them better. Unless there are extenuating circumstances, which there certainly can be such as low number of placements for recruiting etc, then the recruitment of men would take priority. This once again, however, does not change a single thing I said earlier, that women should be allowed to pursue all forms of employment and only be rejected where they cannot perform the task. You have shown yourself that there are women who qualify.

 

Umm... how is that the case?

 

Get back to me when you're older...and an American citizen...

...and not a raving loon.

 

So basically, you're talking out your ass and cant substantiate anything you are whining about it. Typical.

 

AQ in Iraq were no stiffs.

 

The B-2 is a strategic weapon...not tactical. Asymmetrical wars will always be tactical in nature....

The expensive toys are what give the major players in the geo-political game of chess...pause...before acting.

The military learned this in WW2, with the atomic bomb...the atomic bomb probably saved 200-300,000 infantryman's lives... a rough estimate of the cost in casualties had the planned operation to invade Japan actually taken place.

The expensive toys kept the Cold War from escalating into an actual war...with the Soviet Union.

The expensive toys keep the military all-voluntary...because without them, we would need warm bodies and little else...

So you're welcome.

People choose the infantry...they choose to play in the mud...sleep in their holes...and carry the heavy load outs....there hasn't been a draft since '73.

what's their motto? Embrace the suck or something along those lines....

Nobody held a gun to their heads to sign the contract and become grunts...they chose it.

Just like someone who chooses to go to college, earn a degree and either through OTS, ROTC or the Academies...get commissioned as an officer...
they chose it.

The "silver spoon" routine is getting a bit old.

What prevents any enlisted from taking the officer path?

Nothing.

They choose to be enlisted...they choose the combat arms...they choose to be an infantryman...

so embrace the suck.

 

it's way over your head.

Good luck with the rest of your life, kid. You're sure as Hell gonna need it.

I suppose they weren't, from the perspective of those who had to engage them directly; but the fact remains that our KIA total in Iraq is dwarfed by that in the Battle of the Bulge, which only lasted 40 days.

 

I don't dispute that. Obviously the battles of the past were far more devastating due to the nature of conventional warfare but the AQ in Iraq were some deadly enemies and WIAs are something to consider in that regard.

 

You may not be aware, but there are Infantry officers. In the Marine Corps and Army, Infantry officer slots are typically the most coveted.

This has nothing to do with the enlisted/officer debate, it has to do with your arrogant comments on Infantry. You have this incredibly demeaning manner. I also don't see how Infantry relates to volunteering. By your logic anyone who volunteers for Infantry has no right to complain about the incredible danger and hardship? That's like saying we should ignore the dangers, poor pay, and stresses of firefighters and policemen because they volunteered to do the job. That's rather silly. Infantry is the core around which wars are ultimately won, it's a job that HAS to be done and will always exist. Most of us took pride in volunteering to do the most dangerous job with the greatest degree of hardship; someone has to do it.

Strategic bombers obviously have their role in the defense of the country. But saying that women shouldn't care about Infantry because Infantry is a regression from the all mighty B-2 bomber pilot. It makes you come off as very immature. Even Gov., who by all rights should be the cockiest and most demeaning AF representative on the board (and usually is), never goes out of her way to disparage other aspects of the war machine.

 

Avoiding wars is how they are ultimately won. Convincing the other side that starting a war would be foolish. It's called deterrence.
If all the U.S. was fielding during the Cold War was ground troops, what would have prevented the Soviet Union from expanding further or threatenting the United States...you younger folks didn't live through that time of a genuine nuclear threat...all you know are these asymmetrical conflicts in the Middle East...and I'll say again it was the atomic bomb that prevented a ground war with Japan saving the lives of an estimated 200-300,000 infantry.

Infantry isn't the only "dangerous job."

Historically, look at WWII.

The 8th Army Air Force suffered heavy casualties in the European theater...47,000 with more than 26,000 dead.

The Marines in the Pacific.. 19,733 dead.

Army Air Force in the Pacific...15,694 dead

One decade of GWOT fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq...4,683 dead.

and I'll say again, my Dad was in the infantry...and I'm more apt to believe his stories than a stranger on the internet accusing me of arrogance.

You have no idea...no clue what flying entails, what it takes to earn one's wings...none....
or the inherent dangers flying presents in a hazardous duty area...yet it's dismissed as in your words "sipping cognac at the O'club enjoying the A/C."

You want to argue that a rifleman on an infantry squad is given equivalent responsibilites to a stealth bomber pilot...is beyond ludicrous.

This was my core argument...women in the service have made great strides in being given and assuming command level responsibilites...and yes...
being a rifleman, though an essential job, would be a regression in comparison to this.

All I'm reading on this thread is the disparaging of females in the service...they could never keep up with males in training, standards would be lowered, battle readiness would be effected...it wouldn't be "cost effective," to allow what few women could actually qualify for the infantry to make it worthwhile...therefore the conlcusion is drawn, maintain the ban on women serving in direct ground combat units. As it is, females are already attached to driect combat units....I don't see that big of a stretch giving them the opportunity
to serve units. Certainly there are some ground combat jobs they would qualify for, if not infantry, and not be so easily dismissed by the misogynists and their "frat" mentality thinking the miltiary should only be a "boys club."

 

Is there so great a superfluity of men fit for high duties, that society can afford to reject the services of any competent person? Are we certain of always finding a man . .. for any duty or function of social importance which falls vacant, that we lose nothing by putting a ban upon half of mankind and refusing beforehand to make their faculties available, however distinguished they may be. ~ John Stuart Mill

 

"The supreme act of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting ..." This saying is the
epitome of war.~Sun Tsu

War's purpose is not to fulfill the juvenile male's "fantasy" of risking life and limb, in some extreme adrenaline rush...as some sort of perverted contest to qualify for manhood.
War's purpose is peace.

Killing a person does not define manhood either...this whole philosophy...if you aren't combat you aren't (*)(*)(*)(*)...is what initiates armed conflicts to begin with...
the rush to war...the hurried rush to prove one's "manhood"...mano y mano...fist against fist.

Proving what ulitimately?

making widows, mother's without sons...children without fathers

heed Sun Tsu' advice...

"The supreme act of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting ..."

Allow infantry be the last male bastion of the Armed Forces, I'm fine with that...the lesser testosterone infused women are better saved usiing their guiles to avoid war in the first place.

This is the higher calling.

 

Between sipping brandy at the O'club, hot food and daily showers...a good night's rest in a real bed...you wonder how those zoomies ever accomplished anything substantial
to the war effort.

TESTIMONY

THE REICH'S EX-LEADERS EXPLAIN WHY THEY WERE BEATEN

Dr. Hjalmar Horace Greeley Schacht, former German finance minister: "Germany lost the war the day it started. Your bombers destroyed German production, and Allied production made the defeat of Germany certain."

Generaleutnant Adolf Galland, Chief of Fighters, GAF: "In my opinion, it was the Allied bombing of our oil industries that had the greatest effect on the German war potential.

General Jahn, Commander in Lombardy: "The attacks on the German transport system, coordinated with the serious losses in the fuel industry, had a paralyzing effect not only on the industries attacked but on all other German industries as well."

Generalmajor Albrecht von Massow, A.O.C. Training, GAF: "The attack on German oil production opened in 1944 was the largest factor of all in reducing Germany's war potential."

Generalmajor Kolb, formerly in charge of technical training at the Air Ministry: "From the middle of 1940 onward, Germany was forced into major revision of its strategic plans of operation. The power of Allied day and night strategic bombing forced Germany on the defensive from that time on."

General Ingenieur Spies, Chief Engineer of Luftflotte 10: "Without air superiority, the Allied invasion would not have been successful

General Feldmarschall Karl Gerd von Rundstedt, Commander-in-Chief in the West before German surrender: "Three factors defeated us in the West where I was in command. First, the unheard-of superiority of your air force, which made all movement in daytime impossible.

General der Infanterie Georg Thomas, military chief of the German Office of Production: "Bombing alone could not have beaten Germany, but without bombing the war would have lasted for years longer

Fritz Thyssen, formerly first producer of steel in Germany: "I knew what British and American production could do, and I knew that German production would be bombed and destroyed -- as it was."

Generaleutnant Karl Jacob Veith, A.O.C. Flak Training: "The Allied breakthrough would have been utterly impossible without strategic as well as tactical bombing.

Generalmajor Ibel, Commander of 2nd Fighter Division: "Without air superiority, the Allied invasion of Europe would not have been possible

Oscar Henschel, leading German industrialist, sole builder of Tiger Tanks: "Bombing caused our production figures to drop considerably.
"The virtual flattening of the great steel city of Dusseldorf, Germany's Pittsburgh, contributed at least 50 percent of the collapse of the German war effort."

General Feldmarschall Hugo Sperrle, Commander-in-Chief of Luftflotte 3 until the fall of Paris: "Allied bombing was the dominant factor in the success of the invasion. I believe the initial landing could have been made without assistance from the air forces

General der Flieger Karl Bodenschatz, Chief of "Ministeramt," Air Forces High Command: "The invasion could not have been made without the overwhelming superiority of Allied air power

Hermann Goering,The Allies owe the success of the invasion to the air forces. They prepared the invasion; they made it possible; they carried it through.

 

This is nothing but feminist propaganda.

First of all, combat vets are not held in such high esteem by decent Americans because they kill people, but because they put their lives at risk defending their fellow citizens. Second, even granting the dubious underlined premise arguendo, the purpose of the military is not to avoid war, but to MAKE war with unrelenting ferocity when called upon to do so, and to be ready to do so the rest of the time; so as prudent as it may be in any particular set of circumstances to avoid war, anyone whose highest aspiration is to do so belongs, if anywhere, in the State Department rather than the Armed Forces.

 

Unrelenting ferocity? If only that were true...troops are part combat, part diplomat, part bankers these days.
We've been in Afghanistan for 11 years....troops hand out money, candy bars and soccer balls as much as engaging bad guys....so much for "unrelenting ferocity"

besides...
A quote from 2009~
“The purpose of the Navy,” Vice Admiral John Bird, commander of the Seventh Fleet, tells me, “is not to fight.” The mere presence of the Navy should suffice, he argues, to dissuade any attack or attempt to destabilize the region.

 

Have I not said already that their most formidable ememy by far is their civilian bosses? And is it your opinion that said bosses have seen fit to lay on them such burdens due to excessive testosterone levels?

History assures us that WW2 era German and Japanese military commanders would not have found this argument compelling; and neither, I suspect, will the Chinese find it so in not very many years.

 

Also, you're purposely twisting my words...I addressed the purpose of war...the purpose of the military is of course to wage war...I've never said otherwise...the crux
of my post dealt with the purpose of war. Peace is the purpose of war...attribute that post to St. Augustine...
if one's goal in waging war is not peace...it can't really be justified.

The purpose of war is not to aggrandize the participants, or glorify the participants...it's to obtain a peace. This is why civilians ultimately control when and where to use
the military...the military is just another tool of diplomacy wherein peace is the desired result...A peace obtained without going to war is the ultimate goal...war is and always should be a last resort..the last tool in the toolbox of diplomacy.

The Cold War is a prime example of wearing down an enemy without an actual conflict...
""The supreme act of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting ..." ~ Sun Tsu

Rushing to an armed conflict has not served as well in this post 9/11 geo-policital World...a destabilized Iraq has brought Iran to the forefront...and now yet another potential armed conflict is looming....it's the dominoe effect of poor decision making...and not keeping PEACE as the only reason to ever wage a war...
We invaded Iraq to rebuild a nation more friendly to the West...not to establish a peace.

We're better served as defenders and not aggressors...but certainly the purpose of any military is to wage a war when necessary...that is it's primary function, minimally be prepared to do so when called upon so as to be a deterrent to aggression.

I was addressing what is the purpose of war.

It is not, I'll say again..to aggrandize the participants...to nobilize the participants...to immortalize the participants...the purpose is to obtain a peace.

 

Please, everyone who read it can see that your object was to justify the presence of women in the military, and in the process you appealed to a quality in women which contributes less than nothing to military readiness.

We did not rush to armed conflict, it rushed to us.

 

who won?

 

Maybe someone should enlighten you...
women make up about 20% of today's military.

1 in 5 active/reserve is female.

In the Navy about 95% of billets are available to women, in the Air Force about 96%...however direct ground combat units ban women from serving...which
limits women from serving in the largest section of ground combat..the infantry.

Which I have agreed with, as physical strength is an imperative in the infantry....

Women are serving in other combat related jobs, just not direct ground combat. for example women are serving as attack helicopter pilots in the Army....
or fighter pilots in the Air Force and Navy.

Women are already an integral part of the services...the fact they willingly volunteer to serve their country keeps the military functioning as all-voluntary.

The door is shut for women in the infantry, and I've never argued it should be open...my contention remains...that the infantry is not the be all and end all of military service...
and I don't know what kind of sunshine they pump under the skirts of the Marine and Army infantry...to think they are the Sun while the other service branches are mere planets
revolving around them...that's news to me.

Infantry is only one facet of the tip of the spear.

Apparently, Ignorance is Bliss took offense at my comment that infantry would be a regression compared to other opportunities for women in the services...but I attrubute
his "offense" at my comment more to Marine Corps brain washing into their subordinates.

Is Infantry vital?

of course...

Wars are ultimately fought over dirt...however most infantry skills are not readily transferable to the civilian work force...aside from police and security work...therefore
a female is better served learning transferable work skills...because service does end eventually...not everyone puts in 20 - 30 years...most serve 3 - 5 years and are out
of the active force.

The infantry typically is the largest combat facet of any military..it wouldn't be the case if it wasn't important...but they are the not sole reason wars are won...
either presently...or historically. they are also not the only units that face direct combat. They typically bear the brunt of casualties because they typically have the most
personnel in combat...

 

Looky here, pilgrim: you said something really stupid, and now you're trying to trying to shift the focus away from that by pretending I've displayed ignorance WRT the presence of women in the military - which, even if it were true, wouldn't have a damm thing to do with the absurdity of your contention.

 

The conversation has been reduced to Ad Hominem attacks and not much else...therefore it's a waste of my time...

A simple question is asked.

Should women be allowed in direct ground combat units?

My answer is no. Due to the unique nature of ground combat, the physical strength and stamina required...those units are better served...by women not serving in driect combat
ground units.

The "cost effectiveness," argument...or "esprit de corps will suffer as women will be a distraction"...are complete b.s., but that's just me.

BLUF..bottom line up front.
Can they do the job...yes or no?
Can they carry heavy load outs, long distances, keep up equally with a male infantryman without any lowering of the standards essential to the job?

Not fully.
Strength and stamina are more legitimate arguments against it, and I support that with my two cents.
Every MOS description I could find relating to ground combat jobs required heavy lifting as integral to performing the job up to standards.