Women in Combat? Yes. Sex integrate units? No.

I'm aware. I was a reservist called to active duty after 9/11. However the Reserves are service support, not combat arms, so I was interested about the facts of your story, or if it was just something you made up.

I think I have my answer.

 

and as I have said before, integrated units worked among partisans against the Nazis and among Vietnamese liberators against American imperialist forces

 

I meant reservists.

 

Different type of combat. No one is saying women can't fight alongside men. It's what the OOC loads have been proven to do to most females due to their smaller and often more thin, bone structures over the course of a deployment. And as I've said on many occasions, it's not just females that have smaller bone structures. Many males do too and they are often either:
1. They wash out of 11B or 11C OSUT and must be reclassed (if they are in the Guard, they are often chaptered out as most leadership won't want to try and re-class you. Unless you have a cool company commander)
2. They are chaptered completely out of the Army. This isn't ideal, as we spend so much money to train them, but if they can't hack basic MOS quals, gotta cut them loose.

There are some women who can hit the male standard (which in my opinion, is a pretty easy standard), and I fully believe they should at the front of a patrol.

 

history shows that many believed racially integrated units could not succeed in combat - Truman proved this myth to be wrong

 

I don't agree at all. Its not male jealousy or envy, its anger at double standards. In the Army, a general demanded there be women Rangers, and 2 women who failed were given a lot of special treatment and then given the Ranger tab. Same with physical fitness. There is pressure to have women in the ranks, every male knows that if he criticizes a woman or fails her, then his action is going to come under heavy scrutiny, and so a lot of guys simply rubber stamp women. Some outfits get women who cant do the job, and its easier to just carry her rather than fail her, so some of the units carry her. Same problems in the Navy.

There are jobs that can be open to women, and there are other jobs that should not be open to women. The libs want them all open to women no matter what the job requires because they believe the BS that "women can do everything a man can do".

 

All jobs should be open to men and women. There just needs to be a universal standard that MUST be met. No exceptions like those two chicks who were 'accepted' into the regiment after all that special treatment.

There should never be a gender qualification. Only the needs of the job.

Most officers alike agree.

 

Why we serve and fight














Enemy in your pants

 

https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/736/1*YvEjs2ASYYtcjFnZ8OTzlg.jpeg


that's what many white segregationists said about blacks during the US Civil War

 

The segregationist were in the North not in the South during the American Civil War.

But I digress.

No war has ever been won by using political correctness or diversity.

The war in the Pacific theater during WW ll was a race war on both sides.

Both sides indoctrinated their soldiers and sailors and the civilian population demonizing the enemy.

It has been SOP for thousands of years to demonize the enemy.

Japanese troops were indoctrinated that U.S. Marines ate babies every morning for breakfast and prisoners were rarely taken in combat by both sides.







Lets win the greater East Asia war


This is the Empire of Japan poster showing how strong it is with its allies and how mighty the military is alone. As you can see it exaggerates how big their military is and how strong it is compared to the U.S. military.

 

The imperialistic French terrorists who invaded Algeria were under the illusion that the patriots who fought for their liberation against the invaders were strictly male. Because of this, the liberators employed female vanguards to infiltrate the French forces and they proceeded to kill many of the foreign terrorists.

Ditto for Vietnam whose heroic women joined the patriotic men in fighting off the American invaders.

Diversity doesn't work? Or you sure??

As historian Henry Wiencek wrote, Washington's troops were about 40% black - a fact dismissed by many historians despite all the evidence to support this claim. Hispanic troops saved Washington's butt in the Florida/Southern campaign.

During WW I, France honored American black troops who were still second class citizens in their own country.


Diversity is strength. Only the deluded and politically incorrect think otherwise.

 

Thank you for your history on the French Foreign Legion.

 

This is the type things I’m hearing from females I know in or were in the military. Your message also points to a common theme in terms of those in roles that are combat/mission oriented. Those in the unit or squad themselves don’t care about the PCism. Instead, they interact in a cohesive way on both a personal and professional level in positive ways. For example, for one female we know for personal activities she goes along with male Marines (her not in the Marines) for activities like mountain climbing, shooting, hiking and other high physical activities because that is her interest as well.

What I hear from those who actual involve in combat missions, male or female, when it comes to combat missions themselves they don’t give a damn about PCism and will skirt any rules, regulations and even orders to complete the mission successfully and safely.

As example, for certain regions in certain theaters of combat in certain roles, women are prohibited from involvement unless there is specific approval. The reasoning is that if ISIS captured a female US service member they would use this for horrific PR, including videos of unthinkable torture and abuse. One female we know is an absolutely mission critical person for high priority missions that are highly opportunistic against non-fixed targets. The window of opportunity might be limited to hours at the most. Yet there literally is no one else. They had tried 2 men for this reason who were not fully qualified, and both were killed by the equipment as it is that complex, unforgiving and technical. State of the art prototype secret stuff. However, there can be no time to obtain the “female” permission from top brass and pencil pushers. For this, she went “off the books.” All involved know, but there is no documentation to tag the ranking officers and it is at her risk. For example, for a combat related injury it had to be claimed a non-combat injury because she wasn’t supposed to be there. But without her, there could be no mission.

I have heard accounts of lower ranking male personnel such as master sergeants getting into the face of higher ranking officers giving a female a hard time because the master sergeant, like the woman, are MISSIONS people who only care about 1.) the mission and 2.) each other. Generally, those in a combat unit or squad actually in combat form bonds that surpass rank, orders and rules – and those bonds are strong and remain then outside of combat too.

Another thing I hear is what you tell from those in combat. They all agree that women are not suited for loading artillery or moving fast with a large amount of weight. But those actually in combat otherwise – those who have literally been in fire frights – also do not have the distain for women in combat you tend to see on these threads. REAL combat is as real as real can possibly be and there is no room for platitudes and generalities. Rather, to deal with the actual reality in which everyone’s life is on the line – and in both their own hands and everyone else in their combat unit – whatever form of combat that is – on the ground or in the air.

While the debate always seems to center only around women and heavy rucksacks and heavy equipment or material. But that is NOT all that combat is. There will be some women who want traditional infantry and Marine roles.I see that as a big plus, though I agree most are not suited for some roles. The debate on that will continue.

But it is far more than just that issue and it is none so simplistic as debated on this forum. Nor is about maximum ability, since for males the standards are based upon the genetically weakest ethnicity, not the strongest. If the strongest it would be blacks. Nor on the smartest. If so, it would be Asians. It is only for women is the claim of absolutely no compromise be made – excluding literally over half the population. Nor is it easy to gain support for the military when over half the voters are told “you are inferior to us men and therefore are ineligible for the benefits and status we men get to have.”

In general, women will still tend to fill traditional female roles in the military – secretaries, office work, nurses and etc. But they also increasingly will be in combat roles and particularly such as in air force divisions of all branches of the military and in technical roles, including technical roles that can have them within combat zones and even in the heart of combat itself. Not all technological means of combat can be done at distance. Not all combat involves rifles, tanks and artillery. Nor are such units stand-alone needing no support – including in combat zones support.

 

Some times I post detailed accounts to make whatever point I am trying to make of actual events, but then quickly delete them. I can't prove any of it, it is 2nd hand info told to me, and might be too much detail and could get someone in trouble who is still in.

Whether male or female who talk to me, there are common themes. These are two of them:

1. When in actual combat or going into potential combat, to the extent they can get away with it they will disregard orders or rules that are counter productive or endangering.

2. After being in actual combat together the bound between those in the squad or unit is TIGHT and stronger than protocol, orders or rank.

For one, a female, that loyalty is intense after against seemingly impossible odds she saved the lives of her entire squad in the most imminent seconds-count ways, and as panic to defeat (the choice between being killed or worse - captured - meaning the choice of capture or suicide) kept a cool head, instantly came up with a very unique plan and took command though not the highest rank. They didn't just escape. They 100% killed those attackers. This not only made the squad perfectly loyal to her, but the word of it created real authority across the base. On another occasion was the lone voice blocking a mission, with investigation revealing had it proceeded the results would have been catastrophic lose of life and material. This created loyalty so great that she could veto a base commander with the others agreeing (essentially a mutiny), with the formal inquiry agreeing with her and removing the CO. Reportedly, the new base CO jokingly told her "I was informed you run this show. Would you mind if I share command with you?" Joking of course.

The prior CO, who openly declared to her that he never had a woman under his command and won't have one for long - with other male opposition as well - was replaced with cohesion irrelevant to anyone's sex by the bonding effect of actual combat. If someone saves your life or the life of your friends-in-arms, you'll even risk court martial to back that person up in the future.

I could give somewhat similar defiance of COs by males in combat units and missions. Their successes and the loyalties it creates equates to power, to put it in simple terms. Such as a Marine squad leader who outright refused to carry out an attack mission the way his CO ordered because it needlessly risked the lives of his squad. This brought in a higher ranking CO who told the Marine to do the mission how he thought it should be done. The mission was extremely successful. No American casualties, lots of enemy killed. Overall, the Marine won the power struggle, though a much lower rank. Combat - real combat - is far different than strict structure and pencil-pusher orders. The military continues to evolve.

Again, I have heard many combat accounts including males and females that have as an undercurrent the respect, dedication and bonding that occurs between those who were in true, intense, life threatening combat together. The personal bonding has real - and generally very positive - effects on morale and military effectiveness. Anything that was divisive - personal conflicts, race, ethnicity, sex, whatever it is - turns all who were in that intense life-death situation to instead seeing each other as all "us" on a deep, personal level. In this, such units become profoundly more effective and successful - one of the many reasons "combat seasoned" troops are vastly more effective than green newbies.

In REAL combat, often not only are the troops killing the enemy, but the enemy is trying to kill them. On the land, in the air, or on the sea. This means they are not just fighting the enemy, they are fighting for their own lives and each other's lives. The BOND that creates from what I hear over and over is unbreakable and surpasses any otherwise differences or any authority.

This is why after WW2 VFW and American Foreign Legion posts sprung up by the hundreds, maybe thousands, across the USA. While from all walks of life, all ages, all races and maybe otherwise would have nothing to do with each other or even bigotries involved, this all vanished because they all shared the sense of "us" of WW2 combat.

 

Particularly in a democratic political system, but even in a dictatorship, there is an inherent relationship between the "social" aspect and "war machine" aspect of the military. A military that runs contrary to the society will neither be efficient or effective.

There is NO legitimacy in the military having compromised standards for men to avoid any men being disadvantaged due to race/ethnicity or age, while ranting there can be no compromised standards for over half the population based upon sex. ("Gender" is ALWAYS the wrong word and is just how the left replaced "sex" with "gender" on behalf of the trans-rights movement).

 

I was told that the US military intensely studied German military combat practices in WW2, with it recognized that generally the Germans were far more effective per size. One clear difference was how German squad and unit leaders had far greater authority to make independent decisions and act upon them, while American military command was top-down and everything to be done by - and restricted by - orders.

After the surrender of the Philippines, American prisoners (80,000+ prisoners of all nationalities) were put on a death march and treated horrifically. Many who survived the death march died/were murdered in captivity. (If I remember correctly, upon surrender the Japanese commander told the American prisoners "now we can be friends." In response, they threw him down a well. I hope that is what they did anyway. Sadistic B*stard.)

I seem to remember the Marines absolutely did NOT want to surrender. Back then, defying orders was unthinkable and inherently a MAJOR court martial offense. In WW1, insane and pointless orders were given to charge machine guns across open ground and even on major battle after the date of surrender already set. But in that era, refusal was never allowed.

Now? Orders that recklessly or in bad judgment endanger lives needlessly can be refused - though those refusing better have a good case to back it up. Equally, refusal to act upon orders that could be deemed an atrocity against civilians not only can be refused, but MUST be refused to comply with. This is a GOOD and WISE evolution of the US military.

But again, those refusing better be able to show they had good reason and that it wasn't just cowardice as the motive. That isn't always an easy determination to make in post refusal review.

 

Am I the ONLY person who does not believe the internment of American Japanese in WW2 was not wrong as WW2 literally was a war of national survival? What I disagree with was using the internment to steal their property.

It is amazing how essentially all espionage destruction by Germans, Italians or Japanese in the USA was prevented. The war was a no-comprise effort. Ministers - such as in one German-Lutheran synod - who were preaching for their members to refuse being drafted and preached against the war were given a choice - shut up or go to prison. Some did go to prison. Any propaganda or messaging against the war was crushed summarily. When national survival is at risk, "fairness" and PCism goes out the window.

Candidly, I wish we would take that perspective about defending our borders against ongoing modern invasion as a matter of cultural and economic survival, which then can evolve to national survival itself. Accordingly, I believe anyone who enters the USA illegally or remains illegally should be interned for a long enough period of time before deportation to be a reason not to try again.

 

You really should give your made up fairy tales a rest. No one who has spent more then a day in the military especially in the infantry or Special Operations, would believe your little wonder woman fantasies. And mostly not due to the fact that your version of Rambo is a woman but because it is not how the military works, it's not how combat in real life works and it is simply fantasy Hollywood nonsense. The real world isn't an action movie with one person taking out ten people in a firefight.

All you are doing is making anyone who has any knowledge on this topic laugh at you and discount any actual points you might have.

You should keep writing your fiction though. Might make a good 80s B rated movie. Probably to unbelievable to be a box office movie but you never know.

 

Tell me honestly do you actually think anyone believes your nonsense.

A helpful hint for the future. If you are actually going to try and make up a story to convince people in a debate at least make your made up crap believable or all you will get is people laughing at and ignoring you like you have done here.and you should stop trying to tell people what real combat is like a you obviously don't have a clue.

 

He's usually a solid poster. I'm unsure as well why this strange argument is being made. People who have never been deployed will have zero understanding of this.

 

shame that so many far right members of this forum are so blind to the TRUTH

bottom line is, whether you like it or not, mixed units have worked in combat and will always do so

 

Only recently.

I served when the only liberal social engineering that was being forced upon the U.S. military was McNamara's Moron Corps aka "Project 100,000."

There were never any women out in the bush and the only women in-country were Army, Navy and Air Force nurses, all who were commissioned officers and off limits to all enlisted personnel.