Ed's Blog

"Some people know everything, but that's all they know."

WOMEN IN COMBAT: THE FINAL OBSTACLE

 

women in combat

Is outgoing Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s decision to assign women to frontline combat units a bad decision or the logical extension of equality for women?  (Read the full column at EWRosss.com)

Advertisements

Filed under: Military, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

10 Responses

  1. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    Yes sir, there you have it’ Mr Leon Panettas last official act, allowing women to serve as front line leaders or combat groups..What is he thinking? moreover what is he doing?
    I am currently in afghanistan here, women are already serving in combat..roles as it is.

    But should we expand that more than it is already is?

    No one is saying women can;t handle it, no one is saying there not tough or smart,,But what arewe trying to change up here? let’s take a hard look at this, your married already let’s say you know how women get when there mad, so you know youre going to get yelled at her anyhow, but do you want to got o work and have her yell at you too?

    let’s look at it another way,, let’ say she is a total fox,, she is out in front leading you, is your mind on combat or what?? another example,, how about she responds emotionally and the rest of the men respond logically?

    Ok here is another way to look at this,,, will it be equal work for equal pay type thing?

    Are we going to have different standards ? ooppps we already do..

    Ok How many women for real that you know want to be the leader of men in a combat environment? How many men in a high speed environment are going to want women with them other than what’s already going on?

    How much adjustment do you think will happen or take place over this,,, this is not GI Jane the movie ….and what if she says something like master chief suck my D–K will she be subjected to a article 15, or what would happen if a soldier her or called her a B—H,,would this create another set of rules of how to speak to women, what would happen if another male soldier liked her and another one didn’t,? what would happen if there was a lot of sexual intercourse and half were left out of it,, would this create a problem?? just a few questions and food for thought here,,

    Hey” my wife was my commander, We both highly support our troops our son is serving as well, and our grandchildren will probally serve as well, but there is a fine line, and we don’t cross those paths.

    By Steve Cardoza

  2. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    If we examine the issue from a physical capability perspective, when anthropometric data are plotted in separate bell curves but along the same axis (i.e., side-by-side male and female plots), the overlap of the tails will show that some women do possess the body strength to meet the operational requirements. In general, the new policy will be adding more Marines/soldiers that are marginally qualified to the forces. The mean (or median if you prefer) capability will be lowered. Whether this makes a difference in combat is less clear. With all the experiments along this line since the late 1970’s, the debate goes on because the measurement is subjective in itself, as are the requirements. Secretary Panetta would have been wiser to designate a regiment-sized infantry unit in the Marines and Army each that would operate as a mixed force for the next 10 years; and for which assignment to these units was experimentally controlled (to prevent bias and stacking with only the finest, versus a true cross section). Instead he has put combat power at risk; there is no social “experiment” here. I hope the generals implementing the new regulations do so with prudence.

    By Jeff Vick

  3. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    When is our obsession with ‘equality’ going to run its course and ultimately surrender to the blessings that come from difference and common sense? Is embellishing this notion now, really, necessary to demonstrate to the world our nation deserves other nations’ remaining respect?

    Or have our two ‘unjust wars’ taken a toll on our military’s fighting force far more than publically acknowledged? Is this just another example of American perverted propaganda, which diverts the public’s attention, once again, from more underlying reasons, using an imoral narrative and takes advantage of a generation more vulnerable then they are naive to unsuspectingly endorse, support and even boast?

    Is this further and otherwise predictable evidence our military has sustatined loses well beyond what has been reported.? How much longer can we ignore the countless ‘news bits’ telling us of the long term toll these ‘unjust wars’ have and continue to take on countless men and women returning from these theaters? When will we admit that the irreparable damage to our gullible citizens these needless killing ventures cause,and haunt these ‘wounded warrors’ for the rest of their lives…those that still can be counted and have not committed suicide?

    Could this new ‘story’ ie; “…there are 250,000 jobs now available for women, in the military”, be a sick subterfuge (by the DoD) that in reality, America can no longer fill ‘these vacancies’ in its continued decline, the ‘old fashion’ way because, their current forces are more than just exhausted, they are permantly damaged? Too many, are burned out, crippled and mentally disabled. Indeed, our nation’s unfunded liability for taking ’emarrasing care’ of these lied to and naiive volunteers, are estimated in the hundreds of billions of dollars!

    And now people like me, raised by parents who were born in the eighteen hundreds, shake their heads! People who revere ‘female’ humans and think their best value to an honorable nation lie in helping raise their children and build healthy homes for future good and caring citizens, instead of killing people they will never know…for reasons that lack truth, shake their heads! While nations around the world continue to observe yet another absurd fad of America and ponder its senseless propensity to put ‘equality’ ahead of common sense, shake their heads! Moreover, historians wait to write the final chapter of a once great nation!

    Eli Mellor
    http://www.thetimeisnow.us

    By Eli Mellor

  4. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    I disagree with you because those women are getting same benefit that men get. On the other hand, the men are being killed and paying the price only! The veteran women should share same responsibilities that men do!

    By Florin Ehls

  5. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    The latter. The SECDEF isn’t proposing the service chiefs allow anyone be assigned if they don’t meet the qualifications. Truman went as far as he could, and that was overdue.

    By Brian Bott

  6. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    The outgoing Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s decision is a welcome development. Just to go straight to answer your question, I view the progressive stance as a logical extension of equality for women.
    More interesting is the fact that research has been done to that effect and the results have shown women withstand the heat just as men do. This will culuminate to gender mainstreaming in all positions in the offing and no hurdles or no go areas for women when they are in a position to search for employment. With the development , women have a choice whether to go for it or not which is a plus in women’s fight for equal rights and equal opportunities.
    In addition, Tammy Duckworth points out that ‘policy change will certainly allow the best qualified to serve regardless of gender’ and also capped by the U.S President Obama who is ‘supportive of the idea of expanding women’s roles’
    US women should just celebrate about the move to have a chance to be assigned to the fronline units.

    By Hilda Mafudze

  7. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    Good decision or bad? Time will tell. Hopefully the US Military will do a better job than THe Citadel ddi in their process to integrate women into the organization. VMI has been successful in their disciplined approach but all of the women are volunteers and have to meet the same physical, emotional and educational requirements. The US Military is “open enrollment” and as such there exists a wide variety of recruits coming in the door. As a combat leader I want a soldier who can and will do their job regardless of their sex (or sexual orientaiton). But the standards must remain as they are now.

    I will leave any discussion on teh draft for later.

    By Charles Steven Brennaman

  8. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    “Women’s reduced physical capability, along with the distraction from the mission women would interject in close quarters combat, will weaken unit cohesion and U.S. military capability on the battlefield.”

    Your quote. Doesn’t measure up in my opinion. I’m a standards based person and we have women in over 90% of specialties across the entire US military. Please point out with examples how they have degraded all those positions.

    Further, what distractions? I keep hearing this yet the last time I looked, during my 24 years in the Army, male and female Soldiers can cause distractions all their own so narrowing your field of view to only women comes at the subject one-sided. Further, your article arbitrarily assigns women to roles that you feel they will do good in; so what are your credentials beyond military service as an MI Soldiers for a few years back in the 70s (according to your profile) that enable you to make this comparison?

    Interesting you note two women who were unable to get into Marine Infantry Basic yet you make no mention of the female Army Soldiers who make it into and pass the tough Army Engineer Sapper Leader’s Course (see: http://www.armytimes.com/news/2012/06/army-female-sappers-forge-path-women-combat-062412/ ). Seems to me that those who want to pass and can meet the standards pass. Those who can’t, or are unprepared, don’t.

    Will quotas appear and standards get lowered? Far as I know there are no quotas in the military officially and as for lowering standards, well, we’re back in the arena of which ones.

    Want to be fair? Make pushup and situp standards the same across male and female Soldiers; after all, women excel at situp and men don’t and vice versa for pushups due to different physical centers of gravity. When my wife was in the Army, she killed at sit-ups and did more than most of the male Soldiers in her company. Therefore, guess those male Soldiers should not have been allowed to stay unless they too could do the same, using your argument, right?

    BL: maintain standards and use the strengths of the capabilities you have. If I have a female Soldier who is a better Artillery Forward Observer than most males, why should I not be able to use her skills? Females also excel as snipers, but can’t be one so far; so I should settle for less and hope I don’t lose more Soldiers rather than having the best on the line? All because there are billeting and apparent hygiene issues? Really?

    I thought the mission of the military was to utilize the best they have to fight and win our nations wars…lets do that then since there are many (male and female) who don’t want to be in combat billets and we don’t force men into combat billets simply to meet nonexistent quotas. If we did that, our combat support and combat service support units would be very undermanned and our mission to fight and win would suffer from sub-standard combat troops we can’t supply.

    By Pat Filbert

  9. Bob says:

    There will always be exceptions when women are compared to men concening phyisical endurance issues. A small percentage of women would be capable of performing the duties of a front line infantry soldier in sustained offensive combat. In todays military, just the load bearing equipment alone is somewhere between fifty five and ninety pounds, not counting their body armor and weapon. Other items of interest and concern would be the tasks that are expected of an infantry soldier such as carring a heavy mortar tube or its base plate long distances, not to mention recovering wounded troops that will no doubt be heavier than themselves

    Another factor of reality is the battlefield itself. I served as an infantryman in the mekong delta in Vietnam which many compared to fighting in the everglades. The temperature alone could average in excess of one hundred ten degrees with extreme humidity. Large amounts strong conditioned soldiers surccumed as heat casualties and often left their units understrength and compromised. Field sanitation issues must also be addressed in reality when considering women for front line infantry duties. I really don’t need to explain the differences in this area between the personal needs and requirements of males and females.

    These are just a few obvious issues to consider before placing women in direct front line combat duties. Their desire to be placed in combat for status or promotional advantages should never be placed ahead of the safety and welfare of those that serve with them.There are some jobs in the military where fashionabilty and political correctness just doesn’t make sense. Expecting women, in general, to compete phyisically with their male counterparts as “infantrypersons” in sustained combat is, in my opinion not going to work out.

  10. Bill Jordan says:

    I can only relate my experiences as the commander of the sole unit of an Armored Cavalry Regiment that had women assigned to it in the early 1980’s. This unit was made up of combat support and combat service support Troops and Companies. My experience was that women did fine, but didn’t have the physical strength to accomplish many of the missions. A case in point was a female 5-ton truck driver that had a flat in the west Texas desert–she didn’t have the physical strength to lift the spare and put it on; thus, a requirement for two personnel in heavy trucks whenever a woman was assigned as driver. Counter arguments pointed out that some men couldn’t either, but that was not my experience.

    The Armed Forces are a wonderful vehicle for social advancement; witness the integration of units during the Korean Conflict. But when lives can–and will be–risked, a long and careful look should be taken prior to some whimsical political initiative to win votes for uninformed legislators. They might also look at some of the treatment women POW’s experienced in Desert Storm–and this was fighting a third rate, non-fanatical force. The American public should balance the ‘feel good’ effects of this policy versus the reality spoken by a Division commander in Korea when the question of what would happen to women in combat was posed by a reporter. His reply: “they will be brutalized, raped, tortured and killed horribly…” That’s the reality of women in combat.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: