Women in Combat? Why?

I don't see the problem. If they want to serve and they can then let them. What matters is the individual, not the sex, sexuality, or any of that crap. I'll goto war with fighting women and (*)(*)(*) over a bunch of couch-assed guys anyday. All I care about is that the person next to me can watch my ass while I watch theirs.

 

The MPs were in support roles. I'm talking about Combat Arms here. Is serving in SOCOM in a support role the same as serving on an ODA team? In the Marine Corps they're referred to as C.A.G.....never heard the abbreviation CA-that means California to me. I'm not very familiar with your Special Troops Battalion as I wasn't in the Army. As former enlisted I can't really claim to have led a patrol....other than the odd security patrol or sweep with higher eyes looking on. I have been on hundreds of them though.

I take it your a SNCO or Officer? Are you Infantry?

I think your misunderstanding me. I'm not trying to downplay women who have served in combat. I'm trying to argue that it won't be beneficial in any way to add women to Combat Arms (armor,infantry, SF, arty). If you are in fact combat arms/infantry I'd like to hear why you feel it would work.

 

It says men and women take the same test.....are they still graded the same? Do a man and a women recieve the exact same score for doing 40 Push Ups (or w/e the new events are). The Marine Corps recently instituted the Combat Fitness Test that was the same for both genders. The kicker was that women had much lower scoring requirements. Is this a pass or fail test? Is it a point driven test that contributes to promotion beyond just pass/fail?

 

No but there are many elements to an ODA team other than running and gunning. Psyops and CA are some examples. And the role of aviation depends on the mission. It can fall under maneuver, fires, protection, sustainment, intelligence, or even C2.

 

Of course ODA has a range of missions....but you STILL have to be able to do movement to contacts in 100 pounds of gear and hump like a mother-f. So even if you are the best at Psyops or CAG but can't do the physical stuff you have no business being in an ODA team. You can still be a valuable asset though.

I have no issue with women flying combat aircraft.

 

IgnoranceisBliss, Clausewitz, et al,

Maybe there is a compromise imbedded here.

(COMMENT)

I tend to agree that the role of women in the military can be expanded. I also see a need for some standardization.

First we have to decide the big question:

• Whether women should be limited or otherwise restricted from performing a combat role, in the general sense?

Once we determine this question, then --- we need to outline which roles are without objection.

There is also the need to determine if the Armed Forces is going to go through another major reorganization after the new experiences of the more recent conflicts are digested.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

They're already in combat roles, particularly combat aviation--they fly as aircrew members on everything except for some specops helos (and that restriction may have changed; don't fly with the 160th, so I don't this one for certain). They are also out there as security forces for the USAF, and I believe MPs for the Army. And no one in the AOR is immune to the occasional rocket, mortar, IED, or ambush.

Most of the services have already intergrated women. That's not a huge reorganization. It's the front-line trigger pulled (and more than a few scooting around on the other guy's side of the fence) that are facing this change.

I agree with the position stating their concern for political correctness forcing us to change (lower!) the fitness standard for women. I don't have a problem with them serving so long as they can reliably carry their end of the load. I'm not worried about how they handle the up-close-and-personal killing or how they handle the stress. They'll handle that the same as anyone else. I'm just concerned about the physical fitness side of the house. One weak link can cost you a lot.

 

"Up close and person killing" is one of the most physically demanding functions of being an Infantryman. Wrestling around on the ground with the enemy is probably the singe best example of females possible short comings as combat infantrymen.

 

Women in Combat Compendium

Report written in Jan. 2008 \
U.S. Army War College,Strategic Studies Institute
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA476126&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

Summarized as follows:

The Combat Exclusion Policy with its attendant “collocation” restriction is
incompatible with the nature of the war in which the U.S. Army is currently
engaged and the forms of conflict it is likely to be engaged in for the foreseeable
future;

The Combat Exclusion Policy and the associated “collocation” restriction is likewise
incompatible with the Army’s transformation to a modularized force;

The U.S. Army today cannot be manned adequately without the broad participation
of women;

While serious ambivalence remains toward the integration of women into infantry,
special operations, and armor/cavalry units, obstacles to career development
through other branches should be removed--ability should be the measure of
merit--period.

Perhaps the most important conclusion this effort brings to light is the almost
complete reversal of attitude by the American public toward women in military
service--the American public accepts female casualties as part of the price of war.

 

All me to clarify--I was referring to the mental stressors involved, not the physcial ones. The physcial requirements are the ones that can not be lowered. The mental stressors I don't worry about--they physical stresses are serious concerns.

 

So you have a problem with women having a different physical standard, but apparently no problem with allowing easier standards based on age or knee pain.

How does that make sense?

The physical standard represents a general fitness goal, and not a 1:1 correlation to a person's ability to do a given job. So they can let 46-year-olds with sore knees serve without serious harm to national security. And allow women to meet standards that make sense given female physiology.

When I was in the Army, I knew skinny guys who couldn't deadlift a lot of weight, but could carry a pack for days without sleep. I knew tankers who couldn't run very fast, but could lift an M-1's armored skirt plate. I knew tankers who were neither fast nor strong, but were very, very good gunners and drivers.

The APRT is not the determiner of combat ability.

 

I think that's a good point in that excelling at physical fitness is not
the sole determinant of what makes a good soldier, sailor, airman or Marine.

Physical fitness is important, however it is only one of the traits
necessary for good soldiering.

Anecdotally, in the latter part of my career I was decidedly not at my ideal
height/weight proportions, but in terms of my ability to aviate I believe
I was at my peak..having the advantage of both knowledge and experience.

Granted I was combat service support and this
discussion is in regarding the combat arms...nevertheless if the sole determinant of my abilities was based on AFPT tests,
then by those standards alone; it could be stated
I was not as fit as younger airman...however ability wise, I excelled much better
than those more physically fit.

 

I almost laugh at the "wisdom" and "facts" so many are posting here. So far none have be able to overcome the fact that women have a non-deployment rate 4 times higher than men. Would a wise general wish to have a tank that breaks-down 4 times as much with no advantages in strength? Would any of you who would actually own or use a gun for self defence or offence use a gun that failed to fire 4 times as often?

Just because there are 12% of women in the military doesn't mean they are needed in combat infantry and so many other MOS's that require men.

 

Your thread does not delineate between infantry or armor or combat support...
I quote the title of your thread...

Women in Combat? Why?

I have stated, as others have stated, why the exclusionary
policy is outdated given the current asymmetrical conflicts.

You want to dedicate a thread specifically to one MOS...11 Bravo...then that's
another discussion.

The report I cited addresses this issue if you bothered to read it...

"While serious ambivalence remains toward the integration of women into infantry,
special operations, and armor/cavalry units, obstacles to career development
through other branches should be removed--ability should be the measure of
merit--period."

No one here is advocating the integration of women into spec ops or infantry units
solely on the basis of filling a politically correct agenda rooted in equalizing the gender roles...

I am merely defending the value that women serving in the military do have and they are indeed capable
of performing well in combat situations.

 

Many posters have been saying just that.

 

A 46 year old is a high ranking officer or SNCO that is valued for his leadership and experience. These individuals are also not the ones kicking in the door. Expecting a 46 year old First Sergeant who rides a desk most of the time to be just as fit as the 20 year old door kicker doesn't make sense. The First Sergeant has been there, done that, and now helps differently. I will tell you though that most of these First Sergeants are JUST as fit and even the "old man" requirements, at least in the Marine Corps, are pretty stringent. A 45 year old male Marine has higher fitness requirements than a 20 year old female Marine...for example.

Physical Fitness is not the determinant of combat ability...but theres DEFINITELY a threshold that if you cannot reach your a liability. What if the tank gets knocked out and the fatty has to run with the grunts? He's a detriment to the mission. A PT stud doesn't equal a combat stud, but a fat out of shape slob does not equal a combat stud either.

 

Nope, I think those guys should get thrown out. The Marine Corps in the last few years got very strict on weight requirments. The Army...particularly the National Guard, needs to follow suit.

 

Now THAT'S funny. These guys can join the other non-hackers in some stateside office.

 

And there was plenty of that when women were integrated in to combat aviation and into the military in general. That's just part of the social adjustment required. My concern would be the impact on moral when little Susie decides to start banging little Billy to (*)(*)(*)(*) off little Johnny while all three are working in a FOB somewhere.

I agree with all your statistics. It will not be a huge field for women to move into, and those that do move into it and succeed will be the rare exception to the rule. I share your concern with regards to lawsuits, but I think the rules will stand up under scrutiny so long as they are evenly and consistently followed. That is a must--we can not dilute the force purely for social actions' sake.

There are things out there that men are simply better at and there are things out there that women are better at. Different designs for different tasks. No argument there. But, in spite of the costs (which, BTW, I believe the limited numbers of females will mitigate) this is something that should be done. This change is coming, whether we like it or not. Better to control it sensibly than permit someone with an agenda based on political correctness forces the change on us.

 

Women were/are completely physically capable of flying combat aircraft. Integrating them didn't involve a higher attrition rate then men (in the long term) because having a vagina didn't somehow make them less capable. On the other hand they don't (on average) have close to the physical skills required for infantry. The attrition is where much of the cost is. Also, the sexual harrassement issue and barracks comes into play too.

 

This isn't a question of whether women should be in combat roles. They are in combat roles and have been for nearly a decade. They have been killed and maimed in combat. They have fought and they have died.

Women should be allowed equal access in the military to any and all roles which they are qualified to fulfill. This means that women wishing access to infantry and special ops roles must pass the same physical tests that men face. The same. No more, no less, but the opportunity must still be available to them on an equal basis.

Will there be a vast number of females able to pass infantry muster? No, there will not. But those that can should be treated exactly the same as males who pass the same muster.

Women have been fighting and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan, heroically sacrificing for the same patriotic tenants as the male soldiers beside whom they serve. They deserve equal respect, equal opportunity and equal treatment.

And those who whine about pregnancy, PMS and "uncontrolled emotion" are just misogynistic weenie-waggers who can't even fathom the possibility that a mere female might be just as good at a military job as a male. Meh to them.

 

What about the significantly higher cost of fielding women infantrymen?

 

The cost of sending one soldier to war in Afghanistan is
$1,000,000.00 per year.

Just one soldier.
Factoring in all the support elements, training and equipment etc.

You're not going to tell me that there is going to be a huge difference
whether this one soldier is male or female in terms of the cost of training them,
equipping them, sending them there,
and supporting them while they are there.

If we're going to be arguing costs, than maybe we should begin to get the costs
under control of sending just one male soldier to war...for a year.

A million dollars seems a little pricey to me.

 

In order to integrate women into Infantry the military will devot millions of dollars to studying/organizing/planning the move. They will then have to restructure their training pipeline, write new regulations, and deal with the significantly higher attrition rate of females.

 

Equality between women and men is just your fantasy. Just because congress has allowed women to be around combat areas does not mean it is a good idea. Another fantasy you have is that once women are allowed to be an 11-B, Navy Seal or combat engineer that they will still have to meet the same standards. Utter Bull. The sandards are lower now, and will be lower then. Political correctness is the goal. Keeping the bar high is not.