Panetta to lift ban on women in combat

  • Thread starter Thread starter captainmike
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Wolseley said:
She makes a good point. I remember being in a convoy once—a long line of deuce and a halfs that would pull over and stop every couple hours for a “bladder break”; we’d all climb down, stretch, walk around a bit to loosen up our muscles----and walk over to the ditch at the side of the road, unzip and flip and take care of business. Then we’d climb back up into the back of the deuce and a halfs, and away we’d go. The whole thing took maybe ten minutes.

Consider the same scenario with 250 women as opposed to 250 men. They’re going to have to bare themselves from the waist to the knees, squat, attend to business, and then wipe, and have some means of packing the used potty paper out----you can’t just throw it into the ditch. I lack the necessary expertise, ahem, to know how long this might take (not even taking into consideration the question that probably some of those women are going to be in the midst of their monthlies), but I suspect it would take longer than ten minutes.

I imagine the civilian driving along past the convoy during manuevers is going to get quite an eyeful when he comes upon that scene. The men can always turn away and give their back to unexpected spectators; not so the women.
Click to expand...
The visuals on many of these potential situations is not pretty! I applaud this female Marine’s thoughtful letter and no one can say she doesn’t or didn’t have skin in the game.

I think the most important thought was her comment that the idea that other lives would be risked or the mission compromised on the altar of her ambition was simply unthinkable. This is the true spirit of our troops—self sacrifice and focus on the objective. I know you’ve paid the price as well!

Lisa
 
TimeEntrance said:
Actually, I think the United States is trying to reassert itself as “The Land of the Free” and the nation that affords the most opportunity to the most people on earth. Doing this in a time when the West and America are undergoing some economic hardships. Making the U.S. look even more appealing to intelligent, ambitious homosexuals and women across the world. Which is not necessarily a bad thing.

If so… not a particularly bad image strategy. Reviving the American narrative.

Overall, I think the Obama administration has been leading the U.S. down the right trajectory into the early 21st Century. Though, I’d prefer not to see women in infantry roles, and it irks me some, but I can accept it and adapt to the change if it comes. I don’t know how women as a whole will adapt to infantry life and its demands but I suppose that will be solved simply by the infantry schools and infantry life culling out women that can’t measure up to its demands.

But more unfortunate is that injuries and tragedies will be extend from 19 year old old boys to 19 year old girls. But I suppose everyone has their path to go down in life.
Click to expand...
In other words, in order to make an omelette you have to break a few eggs? :confused:
 
maximus said:
Sorry to hear about your PTSD will pray for you. You last paragraph is so spot on. I realize how fortunate I was to serve during the Reagan era. I wonder if they would go so far as to try to force some of these ladies to the front lines. These are trying times.

God Bless and thank you for your service… I realized that you have had to paid dearly for it .
Click to expand...
I haven’t really formed an opinion about the issue in question but it should be pointed out that no woman is going to be forced into combat. Under the new rules women must volunteer to be placed in one of the formerly prohibited positions.
 
I am perplexed by the article on the Catholic Answers home page entitled “How to Argue Against Women in Combat.” The first sentence of the article says “What is the proper Catholic apologetic against using women in combat?” That sentence assumes there is an official “Catholic” position on this topic. Is there? I have never seen one. And if there is an official Catholic position on this topic, I would have to ask: why?

This topic reminds me of the scene in the movie “The Candidate” where Jeff Bridges gives his speech at the end of the movie. His speech includes the line: “There is nothing more powerful than that of an idea whose time has come.” This topic would fall in that category.
 
The Commandant of the Marine Corps said, quite reasonably, that if they have to alter their standards so that only a small portion of women would be able to qualify, it’s not worth the bother. (I hope he still has his job next week.)
WASHINGTON — In his first interview since the Pentagon opened ground combat jobs to women, the commandant of the Marine Corps said some occupations may ultimately remain closed if only a small number qualify.
Click to expand...
The Marines will not lower physical standards for certain specialties, Gen. James Amos told USA TODAY. “We can’t afford to lower standards,” he said. "We can’t make adjustments on what’s required on the battlefield.
Click to expand...
“That’s not why America has a Marine Corps,” he said.
Click to expand...
usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/29/marine-corps-women-combat/1873753/

May I say quite respectfully as an Army vet, Semper Fi.
 
Arizona_Mike said:
The Commandant of the Marine Corps said, quite reasonably, that if they have to alter their standards so that only a small portion of women would be able to qualify, it’s not worth the bother. (I hope he still has his job next week.)
WASHINGTON — In his first interview since the Pentagon opened ground combat jobs to women, the commandant of the Marine Corps said some occupations may ultimately remain closed if only a small number qualify.
Click to expand...
Nothing unreasonable about that!🤷
Click to expand...
 
JaneGrey said:
Out of all the arguments against women in combat, that they might lose their looks and end up old and ‘alone’ is one of the most ridiculous. So ridiculous that I am pretty sure you re not being serious.

Newsflash, sometimes women care about more than their looks and marriage prospects.
Click to expand...
I was being serious.

I think most people care about their looks and sex or obtaining a mate for marriage. Well… they tell you in biology that sex is one of the basic drives for animals like humans. That and food.

But for women they are judged by men more for their looks than women judge men for their looks. Women judge and care about the looks of males too but they place greater priority on the social and financial status of the man.

There are other things outside of romantic relationships and marriage too. Money. People care about that. Social status. People care about that. Careers one enjoys. People care about that too.

What is it about the infantry a woman or man enjoys? Stabbing someone in the face with a bayonet. Riddling a group of people to death with bullets in an ambush? Calling in supporting naval or air fire to flatten a human occupied position? A sense of fulfillment out of all of that or… something not so stupid as “marriage” and “looks.”

Now, I’ve never taken a psychology course, but I’ve participated in a few sports and been around enough that I think I know something about human wants, feelings, and desires. At least a little.

And it seems to me most people do want to have a romantic relationship. Especially, when they see others their age in them. But humans are not spiders that are comfortable being isolated (on a web) and lack empathy. We are social creatures that like companionship. I don’t see what is so wrong in acknowledging that. I also don’t think its a stupid or “childish” thing to want marriage someday.

The reason the vast majority of men (and any woman that wants to) join the Marine Corps or Rangers or SEAL’s is out of an immaturity related to ego in that they want to be a part of the “tough” and “strong.” (not that I’m necessarily against these motivations–you need them in other things like the Texas Rangers or the NFL too)

That’s why they pursue that rather than making a career out of piano string. Marriage on the other hand–if indeed it is sacramental–is superior to joining and being a U.S. Marine or joining the SEAL’s to train in killing which you likely will never do.

Being a Catholic priest is superior to being a Marine or infantryman in the Army 10th Mountain Division too. Why not become a nun with an M.D. if one does not care about looks or marriage? A woman that does not care about looks–or looking like a major burn victim in the face and across 10% of her body–or marriage can’t find fulfillment in practicing internal medicine or doing open heart surgery on people while devoting herself as a nun to God? She has to throw hand grenades and fire machine guns to do that? This later is more mature and fulfilling than being a nun or married mother?
 
TimeEntrance said:
I was being serious.

I think most people care about their looks and sex or obtaining a mate for marriage. Well… they tell you in biology that sex is one of the basic drives for animals like humans. That and food.

But for women they are judged by men more for their looks than women judge men for their looks. Women judge and care about the looks of males too but they place greater priority on the social and financial status of the man.

There are other things outside of romantic relationships and marriage too. Money. People care about that. Social status. People care about that. Careers one enjoys. People care about that too.

What is it about the infantry a woman or man enjoys? Stabbing someone in the face with a bayonet. Riddling a group of people to death with bullets in an ambush? Calling in supporting naval or air fire to flatten a human occupied position? A sense of fulfillment out of all of that or… something not so stupid as “marriage” and “looks.”

Now, I’ve never taken a psychology course, but I’ve participated in a few sports and been around enough that I think I know something about human wants, feelings, and desires. At least a little.

And it seems to me most people do want to have a romantic relationship. Especially, when they see others their age in them. But humans are not spiders that are comfortable being isolated (on a web) and lack empathy. We are social creatures that like companionship. I don’t see what is so wrong in acknowledging that. I also don’t think its a stupid or “childish” thing to want marriage someday.

The reason the vast majority of men (and any woman that wants to) join the Marine Corps or Rangers or SEAL’s is out of an immaturity related to ego in that they want to be a part of the “tough” and “strong.” (not that I’m necessarily against these motivations–you need them in other things like the Texas Rangers or the NFL too)

That’s why they pursue that rather than making a career out of piano string. Marriage on the other hand–if indeed it is sacramental–is superior to joining and being a U.S. Marine or joining the SEAL’s to train in killing which you likely will never do.

Being a Catholic priest is superior to being a Marine or infantryman in the Army 10th Mountain Division too. Why not become a nun with an M.D. if one does not care about looks or marriage? A woman that does not care about looks–or looking like a major burn victim in the face and across 10% of her body–or marriage can’t find fulfillment in practicing internal medicine or doing open heart surgery on people while devoting herself as a nun to God? She has to throw hand grenades and fire machine guns to do that? This later is more mature and fulfilling than being a nun or married mother?
Click to expand...
You’re right, you have never taken a psych course. Your ill informed assumption that the soldiers in the elite military units are there because they some how have an immature ego is clear proof of that. I assume you haven’t taken a course on physics, care to educate us on why we will soon have time travel?
 
oldcatholicguy said:
The studies that have been done on this topic have found that women who are exposed to the same level of physical demands as men have a higher injury rate and a higher rate of not being physically fit for duty. Other studies have come to the same conclusions concerning non-combat injury rates in our current conflicts.
Click to expand...
From what I learned in an intro anthropology course there is little sexual diamorphism between human women and men–compared to other primates like Gorillas. There is much less among small children.

But there is sufficient sexual dimorphism among members of our species that skeletal remains can unusually give evidence to the sex of the dead or murdered. For one, the male skull and skeleton is more “robust” typically than the females.

Now I’m learning there are even physiological difference between the two sexes when it comes to some drug usage.

Basically, there seems to be logically a “natural” difference between men and women. I’m not sure their typical skeletal and muscular system can take the pounding of infantry life without–as you’ve pointed out–incurring many injuries.

To be fair… I was diagnosed with a stress fracture during and after completing MCT in the Marine Corps. I made it through with medication from the corpsman. 🤷

Then again… certain aspects of my skeletal system is more gracile than the average man’s but more robust than the vast majority of women’s. If I could hazard a guess I would say the load and demands of an infantryman was designed around sample sizes of men with a more robust skeletal structure than mine. The pace of forced marches seem to be based off of taller men too (I’m 5’6" or 5’7").
 
oldcatholicguy said:
You’re right, you have never taken a psych course. Your ill informed assumption that the soldiers in the elite military units are there because they some how have an immature ego is clear proof of that. I assume you haven’t taken a course on physics, care to educate us on why we will soon have time travel?
Click to expand...
That’s just an overreaction.

Ambition to be the best (ego) drives a lot of successful men (and women). I watched a HBO documentary on Vince Lombardi the other day. Pretty good doc that kind of choked me up a little. I like how in the doc Lombardi was said to have stated to his football players in Green Bay that “We will relentlessly pursue perfection knowing full well we will never obtain it, for in doing so we will achieve perfection.” That however is less ego driven (but arguably shaped by Jesuit indoctrination) than his famous quote of, “Winning isn’t everything it is the only thing.”

But even Lombardi knew “toughness” was not the only aspect of creating champions. He had sensibilities to the emotional state of his grown men too. So, even after tearing them down he would give words of charity (or maybe truth as he saw it) to build and inspire them. Even Lombardi was concerned about doing his part in life in shaping men into good husbands and fathers. Not that he was the best father. He was a flawed man himself. But he had some admirable qualities.

One of my mentors in the Marine Corps was concerned with my own lack of dates (or marriage) while I was in the Corps and even before I picked up the E-4 rank.

I think good leadership is mentoring and takes into account a fuller scope of the human person. It is not simply yelling or chastising people or only telling them they must achieve X, Y, Z.

But as to why people volunteer for special ops is driven out of ego. I would have tried out for Force Recon if I could swim, but I couldn’t, not well enough to be a life guard let alone a member of Recon. The only reason I would have joined was out of ego. That’s the reason I joined the Marine Corps anyways. I could have joined the Navy or Coast Guard.

Just look at the commercials seeking recruits for the U.S. Marine Corps. It’s entirely aimed at appealing to a young persons ego and sense of pride. I could have pursued becoming a Jesuit or Carmelite friar instead. Less ego in that.

Same reason I joined the freshman football team in high school (they didn’t disqualify students on the freshman team) weighing less than 90 pounds and shorter than many girls I went to high school with. And played running back. LOL.
 
Example of a commercial. youtube.com/watch?v=MZ73FEXSQRQ

Pushed or fueled by ego or pride is probably the equivalent of “greed is good” in capitalism. You probably need a big ego in higher stakes game of business. I dunno. You need it in varying levels in professional sports like boxing and the NFL. You don’t need it so much being a monk or a married father that gets up to go to work every day at his union blue collar job.

I remember in a movie a military character in Nazi Germany told a Catholic priest that, “The world must be ruled by honor.”

The character of the Catholic priest replied, “No. The world must be ruled by love.”

The woman that cares neither for looks or marriage and becomes and nun with a medical degree, treating even those “with no honor,” pursues a world ruled by love. The woman that cares neither for looks or marriage but pursues a career with the opportunity to maim and kill other human beings is pursuing a world ruled by honor.

Military service is not the only way to serve one’s nation or humanity in general. And the military–for good or ill–like an college football program or the tough NFL wraps itself up in every warrior ethos of “honor.” In my opinion an appeal to our immature egos. Perhaps the exceptions having been the long ago Knights Templars. I’m no expert on that redoubtable organization but my understanding is they were monks that did not “pretty themselves up” in uniforms akin to secular knights. But maybe they were ego driven to… I dunno.
 
TimeEntrance said:
But as to why people volunteer for special ops is driven out of ego. I would have tried out for Force Recon if I could swim, but I couldn’t, not well enough to be a life guard let alone a member of Recon. The only reason I would have joined was out of ego. That’s the reason I joined the Marine Corps anyways. I could have joined the Navy or Coast Guard.

Just look at the commercials seeking recruits for the U.S. Marine Corps. It’s entirely aimed at appealing to a young persons ego and sense of pride. I could have pursued becoming a Jesuit or Carmelite friar instead. Less ego in that.

Same reason I joined the freshman football team in high school (they didn’t disqualify students on the freshman team) weighing less than 90 pounds and shorter than many girls I went to high school with. And played running back. LOL.
Click to expand...
Speak for yourself but do not project your IMO bizarre beliefs regarding the motivation for joining the military on others. Your comments have left me stunned and the claim that you were in the Marines makes this even more shocking.

What our troops, particularly the elite troops such as SF, have in common with a priest is the desire to sacrifice self for others. The training, the demands, the hideous conditions are enough to weed out the self absorbed, all about me attitude (too bad similar training isn’t a requirement of our elected officials!). I don’t know how living in dirt, pooping in an MRE bag or not changing your socks until the skin on your feet peels off comports with an idea that this is all about bragging rights and feeding your ego.

Lisa
 
The reason the vast majority of men (and any woman that wants to) join the Marine Corps or Rangers or SEAL’s is out of an immaturity related to ego in that they want to be a part of the “tough” and “strong.” (not that I’m necessarily against these motivations–you need them in other things like the Texas Rangers or the NFL too)
Click to expand...
That’s why they pursue that rather than making a career out of piano string. Marriage on the other hand–if indeed it is sacramental–is superior to joining and being a U.S. Marine or joining the SEAL’s to train in killing which you likely will never do.
Click to expand...
If you’re not reading the above quote in Turkish, thank a Crusader.

Catholic men have been going off to war and paying the physical and spiritual cost of combat for centuries to protect their families and Christendom.

What’s wrong with marrying, raising a family, and becoming a Ranger or SF trooper or SEAL or Marine? They aren’t mutually exclusive. Most of the people I know who joined just wanted to prevent another 9-1-1 from reaching our shores and endured separation from loved ones, hardship, pain, misery, and fear on your behalf, not to show how tough or strong they are. The “immature” ones never made it though training.
 
LisaA said:
Speak for yourself but do not project your IMO bizarre beliefs regarding the motivation for joining the military on others. Your comments have left me stunned and the claim that you were in the Marines makes this even more shocking.
Click to expand...
I am speaking for myself but as to what I know of others in the military and what motivates one to one unit or branch over another.

In general no one joins the Marine Corps merely out of “service” or even the GI Bill. They join for pride and the USMC is quite open and frank about that. They even call themselves “The Few, The Proud.”

In script they capitalize the word Marine and not soldier, sailor, or Airmen. And we routinely talk down about other branches–especially the Navy.
What our troops, particularly the elite troops such as SF, have in common with a priest is the desire to sacrifice self for others. The training, the demands, the hideous conditions are enough to weed out the self absorbed, all about me attitude (too bad similar training isn’t a requirement of our elected officials!). I don’t know how living in dirt, pooping in an MRE bag or not changing your socks until the skin on your feet peels off comports with an idea that this is all about bragging rights and feeding your ego.
Click to expand...
Lisa
Click to expand...
They join out of pride and to be one of the tough. Many of them (not all) are pure jerks too with little to no humility. Sorry, but they are.

And their are pride driven rivalries among the SF. The SEAL’s pride themselves on supposedly (as I heard one former SEAL say on TV) being the only ones that can talk down about Marines.

I showed the commercial of the Marine Corps. I think it adequately demonstrates the Corps appeals to young peoples sense of pride (though, I often don’t remember but am half way aware “pride” is one of the 7 deadly sins).

One of may favorite cadences in the Marine Corps when we jogged was:

***Bomb the town and burn the village! Throw some napalm in the square!

Do it on a Sunday morning, while the people are in prayer…

Throw some candy to the kiddies…

Watch them as they gather round.

Then I pull out my M-16 and mow the LITTLE F&%$ers down!**

That’s the Marine Corps I belonged to. And it’s the one I loved (and hated). The one that prided itself on traveling the world and killing “exotic people.”

While on CINCLANT Compund a small Navy base in Norfolk, Virgina we were not allowed to sing cadences like that or curse while running or put down the Navy as it would offend the sensibilities of many non-Marines (that had civilian women and FBI and high ranking officers of every branch on the base).
 
Arizona_Mike said:
If you’re not reading the above quote in Turkish, thank a Crusader.

Catholic men have been going off to war and paying the physical and spiritual cost of combat for centuries to protect their families and Christendom.
Click to expand...
I’m a supporter of the Crusades. But even I must acknowledge that many of the Catholic men fighting the Crusades were greatly flawed men. Some were straight up evil it would seem. Cutting the noses off of the faces of Greek Orthodox priests is not particularly a trait of saintliness.
What’s wrong with marrying, raising a family, and becoming a Ranger or SF trooper or SEAL or Marine? They aren’t mutually exclusive. Most of the people I know who joined just wanted to prevent another 9-1-1 from reaching our shores and endured separation from loved ones, hardship, pain, misery, and fear on your behalf, not to show how tough or strong they are. The “immature” ones never made it though training.
Click to expand...
You are correct, they are not mutually exclusive.

Unlike simply becoming a Marine the members of U.S. special forces have been described as “the professional athletes of the military.” Probably a good description. They are ambitious too and highly driven men usually. For many of them that carries over into success outside of the military into the civilian careers.

My impression is many of them view themselves much the way Satan is said to have viewed himself with pride.

To be honest… given the constant promotion of pride in society it’s easy for me to overlook at times. Mobsters, gang members, capitalist, the military all promotes pride and honor. None of them have much tolerance for the weaker.

These are not Mother Teresas’.

But like I said… some pride may be a good thing insofar as it drives one toward the pursuit of excellence or winning.

Here is a clip of the Vince Lombardi documentary by HBO. I was surprised to find out Lombardi went to mass everyday of the week and served as acolyte during mass even has head coach General Manager of a champion NFL team! But like I said… he is said to have desired to shape young men into better men as fathers and husbands. Largely an idea lost today as any role of a mentor in a profession.

I suspect Lombardi would not see it as sufficient to be a Marine or SEAL (or NFL player) and prideful. But this is a different time and era.

youtube.com/watch?v=f_v4ThbDS2Y
 
I was reading a pretty good article today about how women in combat roles was obviously something that Obama wants, but it never entered his campaign, and never entered into debate, even now.

The article goes on to say that the debate will be deferred to the time when large amount of dead women’s bodies arrive en masse in body bags

Counterpoint would be that that is not the nature of the fight any more, and that the need for drafts and boots on the ground are not going to be big parts of the way that wars are being fought.
That would be the counterpoint, if there was a debate. It is not likely though that the military leaders will want to make that point too loudly, given that their continued funding relies on the opposite being the case.
 
Darryl1958 said:
I was reading a pretty good article today about how women in combat roles was obviously something that Obama wants, but it never entered his campaign, and never entered into debate, even now.

The article goes on to say that the debate will be deferred to the time when large amount of dead women’s bodies arrive en masse in body bags

Counterpoint would be that that is not the nature of the fight any more, and that the need for drafts and boots on the ground are not going to be big parts of the way that wars are being fought.
That would be the counterpoint, if there was a debate. It is not likely though that the military leaders will want to make that point too loudly, given that their continued funding relies on the opposite being the case.
Click to expand...
Good luck winning a war without boots on the ground.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top