Panetta to lift ban on women in combat

[oldcatholicguy]

I doubt our enemies care what our physical requirements are. They’re going to, and have, attacked convoys and such whether or not women are present and regardless of which gender we think is best to fight them. I wonder if the survivors of those attacks would say they were appalled that a woman had their back. Women are already in combat situations so suddenly saying that they’re allowed to be is meaningless.

There is a difference between women in non-combat missions and non-combat MOSs being in combat (what can take place in our current wars given the lack of “front lines”) and women being allowed to enter combat MOSs and being tasked with a combat mission. Learning the difference would most likely allow you to present a more coherent argument. [smiley inserted here so my comment looks intelligent and I earn more internet “cool” points]

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

There is a difference between women in non-combat missions and non-combat MOSs being in combat (what can take place in our current wars given the lack of “front lines”) and women being allowed to enter combat MOSs and being tasked with a combat mission. Learning the difference would most likely allow you to present a more coherent argument. [smiley inserted here so my comment looks intelligent and I earn more internet “cool” points]

Surely you are not suggesting that a planned and practiced combat scenario requires more mettle than being able to successfully engage the enemy at a random moment without warning.

 

[nitesnake]

Women are already in combat situations so suddenly saying that they’re allowed to be is meaningless.

There is a huge difference between a 120lb female driving a supply vehicle and that same female trying to carry a personal combat load out that usually weighs more than a hundred lbs; on an extended dismounted patrol. What if this same female had to deploy an 81.mm mortar as well? That’s another 90 lbs. Is it still “meaningless?”

 

[LisaA]

Surely you are not suggesting that a planned and practiced combat scenario requires more mettle than being able to successfully engage the enemy at a random moment without warning.

All plans fail upon first engagement with the enemy. Good grief, you don’t think battles are choreographed like a Broadway Show do you?

I agree all of our troops need to be trained to respond in case of a surprise attack. OTOH as you’ve been told repeatedly, there is a big difference between a handful of attackers on a well guarded convoy and going house to house to clear out the terrorists.

Lisa

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Surely you are not suggesting that a planned and practiced combat scenario requires more mettle than being able to successfully engage the enemy at a random moment without warning.

No, I’m suggesting you think this discussion is about women being in combat situations. It’s not. It’s about women being allowed to be in combat MOSs (something for which the vast majority of women are not physically capable of doing if we assume the standards set by the Army for female physical fitness are correct and the standards set by the Army for the physical fitness requirements for these MOSs are correct), being integrated into combat units (which, outside of combat aviation units, are completely different worlds culturally and socially from non-combat mixed gender units), and being placed intentionally into combat.

 

[JimG]

I applaud this move forward to equality. If a woman wants to serve on the lines, she should have every right to.

I’m waiting for the remake of “Saving Private Ryan,” with women in combat.

 

[iamrefreshed]

Well, let’s see. I come from a military family, I was in a relationship with a man in the military for 5 years, lived with him on base for 4, which also means that many of my best friends are still serving in the military, and my second degree is in political science with dual emphasis on foreign policy and the legal system. While getting this degree I had two internships on a military base. I think I can hold my own in this discussion, thank you.

Thanks for confirming my comment.

 

[iamrefreshed]

I doubt our enemies care what our physical requirements are. They’re going to, and have, attacked convoys and such whether or not women are present and regardless of which gender we think is best to fight them. I wonder if the survivors of those attacks would say they were appalled that a woman had their back. Women are already in combat situations so suddenly saying that they’re allowed to be is meaningless.

Interesting that you count our enemies opinions so important as to how we decide our rules.

 

[Cloaked5]

for all those who claim that a woman cannot do the work of a man in the armed forces, read about the life of Nancy Wake and then get back to this thread. one of her colleagues had this to say about her: ““She is the most feminine woman I know until the fighting starts — then she is like five men.” this article is just a small snapshot of her life: articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-08-09/local/35271015_1_french-resistance-arms-factory-maquisards

 

[iamrefreshed]

for all those who claim that a woman cannot do the work of a man in the armed forces, read about the life of Nancy Wake and then get back to this thread. one of her colleagues had this to say about her: ““She is the most feminine woman I know until the fighting starts — then she is like five men.” this article is just a small snapshot of her life: articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-08-09/local/35271015_1_french-resistance-arms-factory-maquisards

Thanks for the anecdotal example!

 

[WildCatholic]

Honestly I don’t see the issue. I will say that men have different strengths and abilities of women, but I would think all different types of perspectives are needed on the battlefield.

 

[nitesnake]

for all those who claim that a woman cannot do the work of a man in the armed forces, read about the life of Nancy Wake and then get back to this thread. one of her colleagues had this to say about her: ““She is the most feminine woman I know until the fighting starts — then she is like five men.” this article is just a small snapshot of her life: articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-08-09/local/35271015_1_french-resistance-arms-factory-maquisards

Great. Now the U.S. Joint Chiefs can know for sure that they are right: Radically change the entire structure and physical requirements of combat mos based on an obituary in the Washington Post.

 

[captainmike]

I would think all different types of perspectives are needed

are you talking about having discussions in corporate boardrooms or fighting wars?

 

[7armyrugrats]

My husband hates the idea. He is active duty. But we knew this was coming a long time ago so it isn’t a surprise. Many female soldiers want this and a few men too. Personally I think it’s a bad precedent. That being said, when I was young before I had kids of my own I would have been for it. Now, especially having two daughters, I don’t like it. It’s bad enough with my husband and sons. Don’t want my girls too

 

[TimeEntrance]

Well, women in combat or no, I can tell you for sure that there’s two guys who ain’t gonna be fighting in the next war: me, and the guy they send to get me.

LOL! I’m sorry… but that was pretty funny.

Why are you blaming “feminism”?

This has to do with who is able-bodied, strong, and can help defend our country.

And there are many women out there who are stronger, quicker, braver, smarter, and more honorable than a lot of men. These might be the women who save the country and your life or the life of your children or other loved ones one day.

You are correct that some females are the better of many men in the ways that you mentioned. So are some 12 year olds I would point out.

The problem with this is its narrative. Similar to the drug addict that thinks only about the high but not the results after they come down.

It’s kind of bad that 60 year old men in the Federal Government don’t really care about the 19 year old kid’s testicles that get ripped off by shrapnel when they start their wars of crusades. Now they are putting females in this that don’t have much of the life experience to realize what comes after the glories of war have faded.

When their bodies are scarred, breast ripped off, and they’re drowning their PTSD in bottles of alcohol and no man will marry them–or stay with them. Then the great hoorah of war and the chances to get medals pinned on the chest don’t mean as much.

But… most women can’t handle infantry life anyways. I think I ever saw only one woman in the Marine Corps that could hump a pack like a man. And by “hump” I mean keep up with the pace of march.

But times change. And if this is one of those changes so be it. I’m sure some women will prove successful at it. Some may even enjoy it–and enjoy war or killing or butchering children of the enemy.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

for all those who claim that a woman cannot do the work of a man in the armed forces, read about the life of Nancy Wake and then get back to this thread. one of her colleagues had this to say about her: ““She is the most feminine woman I know until the fighting starts — then she is like five men.” this article is just a small snapshot of her life: articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-08-09/local/35271015_1_french-resistance-arms-factory-maquisards

She was an insurgent (or guerrilla if the term insurgent offends you). Not the same as being in the armed forces or being a soldier.

 

[TimeEntrance]

“About 90% of the women in the Marines” - as a friend of mine going through basic training told me little more than a week ago - “are lesbians or wh—s.” Not that there aren’t plenty of guys just as bad, but that’s a pretty sad statistic coming from someone’s first-hand experience.

Not that that detracts from the fact that they’re willing to put their lives on the line, but still…

I don’t know… I take umbrage and object to your friends characterization of his fellow Marines. WM’s as they’re often called.

I would say 100% of WM’s are women and Marines. That’s it.

 

[Cloaked5]

fyi to the sarcastic people who are absolutely convinced in their own rightness: yes, i used the example of one woman. but this one woman changed lives. there are women out there who have done or are currently doing what this woman did, changing lives with their bravery. though i used an example, you are making assumptions too. you are assuming every woman who ever wants to join the army is a 90 lb. woman who can barely carry more than 10 lbs. that is simply not true. i’m not saying that every woman can be a Nancy Wake, but there is a chance that some could. not every man is fit for the military, but you don’t question the fallacy that any man is stronger than any woman. bottom line is that if a woman is strategic enough, brave enough, and strong both physically and mentally, there is no reason that she should not serve our country if that is what she wants to do.

 

[LisaA]

for all those who claim that a woman cannot do the work of a man in the armed forces, read about the life of Nancy Wake and then get back to this thread. one of her colleagues had this to say about her: ““She is the most feminine woman I know until the fighting starts — then she is like five men.” this article is just a small snapshot of her life: articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-08-09/local/35271015_1_french-resistance-arms-factory-maquisards

It’s a wonderful story…I can see a made for TV movie coming out next year! OTOH this isn’t a very realistic scenario vis a vis women in combat today.

Again can anyone answer why? (other than the ideology of the Obama administration). I swear I might need a tinfoil hat soon. I keep seeing stark evidence that Obama wants to emasculate our military in every way possible. From the refusal to call the Ft Hood Shooter an Islamic terrorist to forcing chaplains to marry homosexuals and having openly homosexual troops to this latest counter productive move. It seems to be a well orchestrated plan with these stark changes simply sprung upon the unsuspecting public and the poor troops who have to adapt to his bizarre idea of what a military is supposed to do…you know kill bad guys and blow things up.

Lisa

 

[TimeEntrance]

I think that this is a positive thing. Anyone who is capable and desires a combat role should be permitted to serve. There are several documented cases of women serving in the US Civil War…

Why not?

John

Probably because they weren’t–along with their packs–humping radios and medium machine guns. Those nuts in the Civil War were standing targets too. They weren’t conducting fire team rushes up hills.

That said… I know in Latin America (I think in Colombia) they have had good female guerrilla fighters for a long time.

So, I guess the U.S. military will just have to weed out what females can hack infantry life. Used to be in the Corps there wasn’t much choice for males as you either humped your weight and kept up or got the living *&%# kicked out of you.

I’m not sure American fathers and mothers are much in the mood to hear about their daughters close to being heat casualties being flung to the ground kicked, and then straddled over by some man punching her in the face.