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

Guarantee: should any foreign country be stupid enough to invade the USA, armed women will be at the ready and shoot the @sses off of any foreign invader.

 

He apparently has a crush on the GI Jane in question. It's providing a reality distorting filter.

 

Right. Different war.

Should a man or woman that can't meet the combat standards be deployed to a combat zone as an infantryman or SOF though? Or is the solution to lower the standard for less valuable soldiers?

 

There no longer would be any place for a man with your expressed opinions in the current US military. Anyone who has contempt for any member of the military is a danger to all, a troublemaker and needs to be blocked from joining and put out if in. In fact, officers - including ranking officers - do get so wrapped up in trying to get any woman out of their unit and go to such contortions to try to force it to happen that that is exactly what is happening.

If you want to protest women in the US military you can rant and sneer on a forum or go march outside a military base with a protest sign. But there is no place for anyone in the military with the views of any of our service members who have such views as you express in your messages.

 

Except that isn't really what you are arguing, it is? Aren't you instead claiming the standards for women are too low? Instead, isn't your claim that while the military can make all sorts of downgrading adjustments for men on ethnicity/race and age, downgrading should only be done for men and not for women?

Otherwise my answer is no - obviously - to "SOF." because few men can pass as a woman. There are situations where a female can move easily where no man could. This also circumstantially would apply to women as well since we are in theaters of combat and potential combat where men would absolute not be tolerated by civilians for certain tasks and using force to do so would be exceptionally counter productive. How well do you think American male Rangers frisking Muslim women in a remote Afghanistan village would win over the locals support?

According to the Marine squad leader I've referred to, he was very clear that unless the locals told them where the "outsiders" were at or hiding, there was no finding them. It was a simple pitch. If they would tell them were the "outsiders" are they would go kill them - and then neither those outsider criminals nor they would return and they could return to living in peace among only their own villagers. His goal was not to act in the safest way, meaning avoiding engagement, but rather to hunt them down, literally, like hunting deer or wild hogs. Learn where they are. Set up a cross fire trap before engaging so they could not escape. Then kill them.

BTW, he greatly disliked the Army specifically because they could be getting cooperation with the locals who did not like the "outsiders" who extorted them and assaulted their women - but when Army would come tearing thru in their Humvees playing with their 5o cals shooting up stuff for the hell of it all that would be lost. He called the Army "the cowboys" - as in cowboys riding into town after a cattle drive shooting into the air hooting and hollering. Once they arrived, any cooperation with the local ended and instead the sentiment was hatred and we became their enemy. The Marines do go on foot and I've posted many times according to him as soon as out of sight they dumped alot of the weight they were suppose to carry. They weren't going on a camping trip and they didn't just spray out mass numbers of bullets. Rather, operated like hunting - one shot = one kill.

You seem to have an extremely narrow view of what infantry and SOF may be called upon to do.

Additionally, some people - I'm guessing not you - might be of the opinion that people who end up in advanced operational support, intelligence, surveillance and other areas might be better able to interface with infantry, SOF and other ground forces if they had some experience at what that involves by first having some experience at it. The military is far more complex, diverse and ideally flexible than what seems your opinion. One size fits all simply is not reality.

I probably understand your reasoning and in your limited context you are largely right. Obviously, someone who can not perforce a specific task should not be placed into the role of doing so. I'm addressing the other 98% of what our military now does and plans for the future.

I'm curious of your opinion of how you think most military missions and operations in Afghanistan, Iraq and some other countries in the ME are now being undertaken. Of those, what percentage would you estimate are involving groups of infantry moving rapidly by foot over long distances with 80 pound packs? I would hope you would agree that what our military actually is now doing and their future planning has some relevancy to this topic.

 

Reading you post threads on what it's like in combat or how the military operates is hilarious as you have proven over and over again that you have zero clue what you are talking about. I don't believe a single story you have posted in this entire military section and I doubt anyone with any actual military experience does either.

 

What is hilarious are men who did a short stint as a grunt and then believe they are experts, when that were just grunts. In fact, there are some who were/are career military on the forum who know exactly what I'm talking about. They may or not agree with me on the role women should be allowed in combat - most more disagree than agree, but they do recognize what I'm talking about. Many grunts are whiners, complainers and malcontents, which is why they didn't go career and wouldn't go far up the ladder if they did. Its just too much work, too much thinking, too much study, too hard, too dangerous, they never expected to actually be deployed to combat, too many telling them what to do, too hot or too cold - and of course all their officers are stupid and the military isn't fair to them - so they don't re-enlist. Grunts.

Their 15 minutes of fame for the rest of their life was a foreign deployment in the role of a grunt, faced no face-to-face combat, and after their single tour of duty wear their short time in the service like it is an Eagle Scout merit badge. Military window sticker on their car. Asking for the 10% veteran's discount at the cafe - for the next 5 decades.

If you do not recognize the Marines go on foot? You were never in the military regardless of branch of service. At least I do not pretend I am a war hero or veteran of vast military experience as if a retired combat operations Ranger Colonel as it seems some of the claimed veterans on this forum act like is their knowledge level and expertise.

I have military window stickers on my vehicle. All branches of service. But I was never in the military myself. I would never have passed the medical due to childhood injuries, though no disabilities. Some of my own kids have or are in. There is no current theater of combat - declared and not - one or another has not been in and in combat roles. Every generation of my family has been in the US military dating back to the war of 1812. I include my wife's side in this - ultra military history there generation after generation. The last family member laid in a military graveyard was 4 years ago - female. Those graveyards are filling up. She was honorably laid to rest over the body of her son - Army. There are such military graves across this country of my ancestors. Every branch of service, excluding Merchant Marines. Everyone in the military loves to tell of their experiences and I greatly enjoy listening. None left as grunts. None in as grunts. They work and study their asses off. They are rewarded for doing so. And with each promotion, I have no doubt there are those such as I suspect of you declaring "that's not fair! I've been in much longer!"

So, tell us all the source of your vast knowledge. Start with your final rank. I'm certain we'd all love to hear it. Which war did you win for us?

 

"liberal" engineering within the Vietnamese forces led to victory thereby proving that integration by gender works quite well

 

Which Vietnamese are you referring too ?

 

the liberators who freed that country from the imperialistic foreign invaders

 

Looked at many videos and hundreds of photos of NVA soldiers invading the RVN in 1975 and entering Saigon and don't see any female NVA.

 

Well you failed to describe my "expressed opinions" so I'm sure you don't know what they are, and therefore don't know when and where I could express them.

 

Looks like a woman in that last one 3rd from the right. The bottom right person on the tank in the second picture looks female too.

I hope this thread does not divert to debating the Vietnam War.

 

Well maybe I have you confused with one of the G I Joes on these threads.

 

I've no doubt there is some confusion afoot.

 

Once again we are agreement. If this keeps up they might start to suspect one of us is the other's sock.

 

The last photo is Main Force VC not NVA.

The guy on the tank is just feminine looking.

Doing some research on the last photo...


Soldiers re-enact the historical image of Viet Cong soldiers entering Da Nang city before the fall of Saigon. Photo: AFP

The VC weren't the NVA.
The VC were South Vietnamese commie terrorist who weren't much of a fighting force after Tet of 68.

 

too bad you missed the Vietnam series shown earlier on PBS

 

If you're referring to Ken Burns revisionist history of the Vietnam War, I didn't miss it.

Not once and I mean not once was SEATO ever mentioned.

There was some revisionism to protect the JFK legacy when it covered when President Kennedy signed off on the CIA backed military coups of regime change in 1963.

 

SEATO did not liberate Vietnam. The NVA and NLF did so. Watch the video again and see how women helped in the liberation efforts.

 

America from 1961 until 1966 were told the reason why we were in Vietnam was because of SEATO.

If SEATO fails...NATO was likely to fail.

 

Yes, I know you're curious, as you've never sworn in, let alone deployed to these combat zones.

To answer your question, EVERY 11b, 11c, Marine infantry, and other CAs ruck long distances with massive ruck loads on deployment. You make it seem like it's some rare occurrence. The **** you getting this INSANE information? The "squad leader" you are referring to doesn't know a ****ing thing about the military. Sounds completely made up.

 

BS. Infantry etc may deploy with "massive ruck loads" but generally move by transport, not on foot. When I travel, I might travel with a "massive luggage load." That does not mean I then carry it everywhere I go all the time. There are other members on these topics with far more experience such as Apacherat who seem to recognize that it was not rare for squads going out on patrol, seek and destroy and other on-foot missions that don't go by the book as to all they actually carry - though he certainly disagrees with me about women in certain combat roles.

"Massive ruck loads" are only carried on missions when the mission calls for it. That is increasingly rare and deliberately so.

What I keep reading in your messages seems to be a view of singularity of operations and options in the military, and that is not accurate.

Who do you think posted the THOUSANDS of pictures you apparently claim MUST BE TOTALLY FAKE online such as this:




U.S. Army Soldiers from Charlie Company, 1st Battalion, 26th Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division perform a cordon and search operation in Al Adhamiya, Iraq, Feb. 21, 2007. Sgt. Jeffrey Alexander

According to you, that and all such thousands photos are all FAKE because they would NEVER not have a "massive ruck load" - or so you claim. So, who do you think photoshopped all those fake pictures? The Russians? Anti-military leftwingers?

What a shame no one in Army Infantry ever thought of using these. Those must be Navy Humvees.

https://www.army.mil/e2/-images/2009/12/28/60174/size0-army.mil-60174-2009-12-28-071242.jpg

 

What is this "source" you cited? There's no article there.

You have no ****ing clue what you are talking about. You and your imaginary squad leader have never once deployed, had to ruck to your OP, go on patrols. Do you think every PVT riding shotgun in the vehicle gets to ride there all deployment? **** no.

You have absolutely no idea what you're saying.

 

Your messages now are just absurdities. But let's see if anyone else who claims to have been deployed on the forum agrees with you that they always were wearing "massive ruck loads" at all times and never moved anywhere nor did anyone else in infantry or Marines by mechanized transport.

I've never spoken to anyone who said they were "PVT riding shotgun." Unlike you, I do NOT pretend I know all there is to know about military combat missions. But give more details of your actual experiences since you claim that is your proof. What missions were you on? Tell details. What did you do? Ever under direct small arms fire? Ever kill any enemy? Since your ONLY source is you say so - give specifics. How many times when in a combat zone did you have to run at least 10 miles as fast as possible wearing a "massive ruck load?"

You should send a letter to General Stephen J. Townsend telling him there are lots of pictures showing Army Infantry not wearing their "massive ruck loads" because he might not be aware of such widespread misconduct.