Women in Combat? Why?

The evidence is there is no evidence, because there have been no meaningful tests. If I have overlooked one of them, please let me know.

If you look at the people driving these changes, you will see that almost all of them----oh excuse me, I forgot that you don't care.

 

I doubt that many of the male critics of women serving in combat roles
could pass muster themselves with any combat unit. I've seen plenty of
out of shape tubbies walking around in uniform slinging rifles...the mere possession of a
penis does not make one suitable for combat either..anymore than having a vagina
automatically negates one as unsuitable for combat.

With less than 1% of the citizenry choosing to volunteer for the armed services,
if a woman wishes to serve her country and place herself in harm's way this
should be commended.

Even within the male ranks, the number of jobs which require carrying
60 lbs. of gear on your back for miles at a time are few and far between.

Not everyone is an 11bravo, and as neither Afghanistan nor Iraq have
clearly delineated battle space; therefore even those in combat support roles may find
themselves under mortar or small arms fire and may need to return fire.

Everyone who deploys should be ready, willing and able
to take on a combat role if the situation calls for it.

Man or Woman.

I believe most women serving in uniform are up to that challenge,

Combat is not limited to snake eaters in Special Forces...for those who think
that need to put down the video game controllers because asymmetrical
warfare does not distinguish between someone serving in a combat
or support role. The moment you set foot in country, it's a combat zone,

 

Actually, I have done none of those things. I am setting the record straight stating that not all women fit the mold convenient to your misguided and sexist beliefs. I am not saying there are not those who fall into that pitiful existence, but they are not the norm.

I have done none of those things and would like for you to stop projecting your irrational and reactionary beliefs onto me. Or is it that your mental capacity does not allow for you to process the information you read? Regardless of what your excuse is, it is the ignorant and sexist people that make a legitimate discussion about these issues impossible to carry out.

I am sorry you are forced to live in the twenty-first century, but wake up. Take your medications, educate yourself a little, and join the rest of society as we enjoy the lives made possible for us by the sacrifice of others more than a few decades ago.

 

Its true that Infantrymen make up only a tiny percentage of our total military force. It's important to remember though that they are where the rubber meets the road. Every member of the military ultimately supports that infantryman on the ground. They are the tip of the spear. We cannot sacrifice standards and reduce effectiveness to appease a tiny minority.

 

So true. From what I have always been told, it takes 100 support troops to support a single Infantryman in the field. And I fully believe it.

With me it has never been an issue of "do women belong in the military", no more then it is "do women belong in combat roles". I say yes to both of those without question. I have served with many fine women, including in combat roles in my current unit.

By only qualifier comes in the 2 or 3 military specialties where the differences would make a difference. Infantry, Armour, and Armored Reconnaissance (Cavalry Scout). I even think they should be in Artillery, but be able to prove they have the upper body strength needed for the job (no different then the requirement for women in fields like firefighter).

Those are the very few jobs where the differences can turn directly into life and death situations.

 

If you make the assertion women can only acheive 60% of what a man can, you need to provide evidence - not me, you. If you dont have evidence to back up such a claim dont make it.

I do care, but can you actually justify your position? I dont think so.

 

Speaking of average women and men---no,not the ones in the WWF and Hollywood---muscle mass is 24% of women and 40% of men...so women have 60% muscle mass, ie strength of men. (www.mesomorphosis.com/.../should women-train-like-men.htm)

But the test I am speaking about is taking groups of 12 to 50 soldiers loaded down in current gear and equipment as if they were doing an actual patrol in the mountains of A-stan. If women are so equal, then all women groups need to compete against all-male control groups. Then other groups with anywhere from 12 to 50% women should be tested against the men. Use of Simunitions as they fight against each other for 30 days will give the best data.

Unless you know how tough this work is digging, lugging heavy mortars and moving dead bodies under fire, you don't realize the brute force nessassary to do it with. The leftwing radicals in the White House and Joint Cheifs will never allow these tests to be run as anyone with half a brain can figure out what the test results would be.

 

In order for women to have equal privileges, they also have to be recognized as being just as responsible as men. If they're just as responsible as men, then they can also serve in combat.

 

1. Your link is dead
2. I disagree that women should be assigned to roles they are physically capable of.
3. They can however, still be in the army and still fight in combat.

 

Concur. So long as women meet the same requirement, they should be offered equal opporutnities. If they can meet the physical challenges required, infantry and any other combat MOS should be open to them.

 

Let me rewrite this (there's a typo)

1. Your link is dead
2. I agree that women should be assigned to roles they are physically capable of.
3. They can however, still be in the army and still fight in combat.

 

Its would be fiscally irresponsible to do so. It'd cost significantly more (seperate barracks/higher training attrition) to produce an on average less qualified combat arms soldier (physical fitness).

 

Beyond the initial outlays, how would it be more exspensive?

That would be why I say to not lower the requirements. Combat is not the place to play 'politcally correct' games. The woman must meet the same requirements as the men, in spite of physical differences, because the rigors of combat are the same no matter who you are. They meet the same requirements as the men or they do not play. "Less qualified" therefore is not an issue.

 

60 out of 100 men are physically capable of meeting infantry standards. 1 out of 60 women are. Can you not see the cost implications? I posted a link a few pages back.

Women are less qualified physically. Most infantrymen/units train to a standard significantly higher than the minimums. Women may be able to scrape by the minimum standards but they will never reach the higher standards of active units. The fact is that 100 random men will have a much higher physical ceiling than 100 random women. Theres no way around this. Women also attrite at a much rate from training right now with their lower standards. Push the male standards on them and the pass rate for women in regular infantry units will be similar to what it is for special forces units....EXPENSIVE.

Seperate barracks and other changes will have to be made to accomodate women....all cost money.

 

The strength of the American military doesn't lie in physical strength of male troops. There is absolutely no reason why women couldn't be in forward units. In fact, women serving as MPs, CA, and various logistics branches have been involved in some of the most intense combat Iraq and Afghanistan has to offer. I've rolled out with female gunners and trust them to do their job. I get frustrated when civilians seem to think that only light infantry units exist. Why couldn't women operate in Stryker or Heavy BDEs? I think the elite Female Engagement Teams have shown that women can hold there own with Spec Ops too.

 

A cost already paid for, for the most part. Not all of it . . . and ther ewill have to be certain supply and billeting changes arranged for infantry units that were not always there before . . . but are already in place for support units. Certainly, a cost increase, because it have to be pushed into line units, but nothing so dramatic as when women were first permitted into the military in general.

As for female physical fitness, there is no way around that one. You can not lower the standards for a woman. If she attrited, she would need to be made aware her standards were going to be higher than the average female requirement. Combat is not the place to be playing political correct games. A weak soldier gets himself and those around him killed. And anyone who believes the days of hand to hand combat are over are seriously deluding themselves. Any one of our enemies has the capability and the desire to go hand to hand with us because it negates our airpower advantage. So if only one in in a hundred makes it that's not the fault of the system, it's the fault of the chosen career field. As for those who wash out, put them in support units. In all likelihood, they'd be better support troops for the experience.

 

Simply stating men have greater physical ability than women is not a justification to say all women should not be allowed to enter military service and combat. I'm sure they can do most things, as some military experiences persons here have mentioned from direct observation. There is definitely a huge overtone of sexism in this thread.

 

I was a police officer for thirty years and I would say that women could do 90% of the tasks facing police officers. Unfortunately, the other 10% was, at times, critical. But, what's a life or permanently disabling injury suffered in the name of political correctness?

When we were faced with the fact that very, very few women could pass the physical tests we reacted as only a liberal lawyer-driven organization can react. We changed the test.

I have no problem with women in the military. In a combat role in the infantry or marines? Of course not.

 

Exactly. People on here see women doing the 90% (and doing it well) and think that means they can do the 10%. The fact is they can't. Just as you changed the test so too will the military. Politicans won't tolerate a test that fails 99% of women and will insist its biased....and change it.

 

Physical conditioning is an important part of combat arms. It has been since the dawn of time and will be for the foreseeable future. MPs, (what are CA?) and logistics branches have not been involved in the most intense combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have been involved in combat when combat finds them. They didn't push on Fallujah, Marjah, or close with and destroy the enemy time and time again in the intial invasion. At times, women have been caught up in fighting and have done well, but they have not served, en masse, in an infantry role engaged in offensive operations.

Your female gunner point is moot. A 10 year old child can pull back the charging handle on a 240. As for 50 Cals and 19s...I've seen times when men had to run up to the turret to rack the charging handle back for some of the convoys I saw. Being a gunner in no way translates to being an Infantryman. Stryker units serve as mechanized infantry. They close with and engage the enemy on foot and have the same physical requirements that straight leg infantry do. They are also frequently required to operate without their strykers given the terrain. Infantry is Infantry. Female Engagement Teams have proven that when they are protected by Infantry/Spec Ops teams they can hold their own. They have not proven that they can BE spec ops or infantry.

 

The one percent should have the opportunity because that one percent of women will be the eceptional rarity you would actually want out there. Don't permit them to lower the requirements--they clearly work, as the Army and Marines are very well respected on the field of battle. Change nothing other than allowing women to apply. Let the system determine who makes it and who does not. The woman that can meet or exceed those limits is going to be a driven individual. One that lasts long enough to lead in that enviroment will be exceptional. Whether or not she is any good at leading will be up to her mentors and peers. Whether or nor she has the respect of her peers will be up to her. If she can not meet the requirement, get rid of her, just like you would anyone else. Success through merit--isn't that what it's all supposed to be about? We all know there are plenty of political games played with these little social expeiments, but, at the end of the day, once the news wears off, isn't one exceptional leader worth the costs?

 

You must be a very blissful person...MPs were at Fallujah, Marjah, and any other operation that required a BDE size element or higher. I know you think of yourself as an expert in all things military, but perhaps you should've watched the military channel to learn that MPs are either in the Special Troops Battalion or the Brigade Support Battalions of BDEs. FET are a part of SOCOM, but women have served in the command prior to their creation. CA, Mr. Military Expert, means civil affairs. And before you monday quarterback the military, ask yourself how many combat patrols you've led...zero. I've LED over hundreds. You'd need a ladder to get on my level...

 

Cost Cost Cost. It would cost tens of milions of dollars to integrate women. It would also cause a significant amount of sexual harrassement issues. Is this women's fault? No, but it still doesn't justify the expense for little or no gain. Slightly more than 1% of women can pass infantry standards. Less than that posess the physical fitness neccessary to excel at infantry (physical fitness is a prerequisite to being a "good" infantryman). Whats the point? Millions of dollars and lots of ruined careers so that an exceptional few have the chance to join an underpaid, overworked, and incredibly dangerous profession?

 

Problem solved, new Army PT test to be gender neutral

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/11/army-pt-new-way-to-meaure-fitness-110610w/