B
BroomWagon
Guest
Would you feel the same way about people in wheelchairs who wanted to serve in this manner?
- Status
Mark121359
Well-known member
Ah, Sandra Fluke. As my late father would say… She’s a real winner!
E
epan
Guest
actually, from what i hear… and this is second hand, coming from females who have been in combat situations, the males slow down and rally around the female, which diminishes combat effectiveness. i take offense at the suggestion that US service members would assault and rape women in their unit. Is that a serious prediction? I don’t quite understand what you mean about “the other side” targeting females.
P
Phemie
Guest
In the Canadian Forces all combat roles, except submarine warfare, have been open to women since 1989. Since 2000 women can also serve on submarines.
Although women make up ~15% of our troops, they are only 2% of our combat troops. I don’t think women are showing up in droves to go into combat.
C
Catherine_S
Guest
Good points, Arizona Mike!
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Safe to say everyone’s “fear” is well founded. 
God forbid the draft is ever re-implemented during this trial period. These women who serve whom all think highly of, not convinced this serves them well. I wouldn’t say this is one of the better ideas in American History.
God forbid the draft is ever re-implemented during this trial period. These women who serve whom all think highly of, not convinced this serves them well. I wouldn’t say this is one of the better ideas in American History.
A
Arizona_Mike
Guest
I should add that many, if not most, women are courageous and can endure considerable pain and discomfort, and that most good women would fight to their death to protect their children and other innocent people. They are very capable of carrying out most of the technical tasks in the modern military. It speaks well of the patriotism of many women that they seek a chance to serve.
But that’s not what we’re talking about in the combat arms - infantry, armor, artillery, special operations. There is a reason that warplanners have begun to call those in such positions “combat athletes” - the physical demands, as well as the emotional and spiritual demands, are overwhelming. While exceptionally physical talented women might be able to endure the demands of those tasks - carrying a rucksack that weighs over 100 pounds cross-country, lifting and loading artillery shells, pulling a track off a tank, all while armed and dangerous men are trying to kill you, for months on end - the vast majority of women are not capable of doing that. Even the woman who prides herself on being able to run a marathon, backpack the Appalachian Trail, or earn a black belt in Krav Maga. It’s a whole different ball game when your life, and the lives of others, depends on your being able to perform to standard. Many men aren’t even capable of doing this, but statistically, men are more likely to have the physical attributes to do so. The cumulative physical cost of such efforts takes a toll that the young male body is more able to endure - collapsed arches, blown-out knees, ruptured discs, are common overuse injuries in the combat arms, but they have a disproportionate impact on young women who have just begun Basic Training – the first and least demanding of the progression of schools that a combat arms soldier must accomplish.
In today’s warzone, the combat arms leader, especially special operations soldiers, also have to deal with foreign nationals who regard women as mere chattel, and who would recoil at the shame of taking advice or orders from a mere woman. That’s not right, but it is what it is, and you are in their country. If a combat arms leader is to be effective, he has to be able to deal with foreign nationals who do not and will never respect female soldiers. Most jihadi enemy combatants would consider group sexual assault as fitting punishment for a woman who opposes him, or who is just in his presence or his country bearing arms. The horrible gang rape the female CNN reporter experienced during the victory celebrations in Egypt would probably be mild in comparison to what a captured female American soldier would experience.
The combat soldier also has to live in close quarters with other young males in the field - there are no separate shower facilities, or latrine facilities, and the field soldier’s latrine is often a hole in the ground and the occasional bathing facility may be wet wipes or if lucky, a hose down along with the rest of the platoon.
One must also have, and be willing to bear the spiritual cost, of having to kill other young men, often in extreme close quarters, and to bear the emotional cost of ordering your own young men to take actions that may cause them to die. And to do this day after bloody day, while separated from the support of your family and your friends, including your children. And to possibly deal with the loss of a leg or legs, loss of an arm or arms, loss of bodily movement and function, and the emotional and physical long-term effects of PTSD as a reward for your service.
But that’s not what we’re talking about in the combat arms - infantry, armor, artillery, special operations. There is a reason that warplanners have begun to call those in such positions “combat athletes” - the physical demands, as well as the emotional and spiritual demands, are overwhelming. While exceptionally physical talented women might be able to endure the demands of those tasks - carrying a rucksack that weighs over 100 pounds cross-country, lifting and loading artillery shells, pulling a track off a tank, all while armed and dangerous men are trying to kill you, for months on end - the vast majority of women are not capable of doing that. Even the woman who prides herself on being able to run a marathon, backpack the Appalachian Trail, or earn a black belt in Krav Maga. It’s a whole different ball game when your life, and the lives of others, depends on your being able to perform to standard. Many men aren’t even capable of doing this, but statistically, men are more likely to have the physical attributes to do so. The cumulative physical cost of such efforts takes a toll that the young male body is more able to endure - collapsed arches, blown-out knees, ruptured discs, are common overuse injuries in the combat arms, but they have a disproportionate impact on young women who have just begun Basic Training – the first and least demanding of the progression of schools that a combat arms soldier must accomplish.
In today’s warzone, the combat arms leader, especially special operations soldiers, also have to deal with foreign nationals who regard women as mere chattel, and who would recoil at the shame of taking advice or orders from a mere woman. That’s not right, but it is what it is, and you are in their country. If a combat arms leader is to be effective, he has to be able to deal with foreign nationals who do not and will never respect female soldiers. Most jihadi enemy combatants would consider group sexual assault as fitting punishment for a woman who opposes him, or who is just in his presence or his country bearing arms. The horrible gang rape the female CNN reporter experienced during the victory celebrations in Egypt would probably be mild in comparison to what a captured female American soldier would experience.
The combat soldier also has to live in close quarters with other young males in the field - there are no separate shower facilities, or latrine facilities, and the field soldier’s latrine is often a hole in the ground and the occasional bathing facility may be wet wipes or if lucky, a hose down along with the rest of the platoon.
One must also have, and be willing to bear the spiritual cost, of having to kill other young men, often in extreme close quarters, and to bear the emotional cost of ordering your own young men to take actions that may cause them to die. And to do this day after bloody day, while separated from the support of your family and your friends, including your children. And to possibly deal with the loss of a leg or legs, loss of an arm or arms, loss of bodily movement and function, and the emotional and physical long-term effects of PTSD as a reward for your service.
A
Arizona_Mike
Guest
So, what is the pressing need to add all these burdens on the American female soldier? Are all the female enlisted and non-coms demanding the right? No. Most are very familiar with the demands of combat arms and did not join to be Willie and Joe in the trenches. The demand for combat experience is coming from a rather small group of vocal female officers, who see their promotion opportunities reduced by their inability to obtain combat experience.
It is less about the needs of the service, or making their service more effective, than it is about the personal ambitions and ego of these female officers - many of whom have a willing ear on Capitol Hill. As well as a bunch of cheerleaders in the media, almost none of whom are actual veterans.
As an example, see the current demands to admit women into Ranger School. Ranger School is an incredibly demanding (physically, emotionally, mentally) combat leadership school within the U.S. Army. It has maintained its standards for decades. It has a very high failure rate, about 50%. It can also be very important for advancement within the officer corps of the Army - 90% of high-ranking Infantry officers are Ranger qualified. As such, female officers are increasingly demanding the right to attend, and with Panetta and Obama allowing women into the infantry, there will be pressure to allow them to attend.
As Stephen Kilcullen pointed out in his article in the WSJ (online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303830204577448821376681662.html), Ranger School is not supposed to be a career advancement school - it is supposed to be a school that teaches leaders how to lead soldiers to victory in armed combat. The careerism demonstrated by such a change would be pernicious, in that the goal of facilitating the advancement of women in the Army will inevitably lead to a change in the Ranger School’s standards. Which means that not only that women who cannot physically handle the current standards will start to pass, but so will men who cannot handle the current standards - or you will have two sets of standards, which female officers will see as demeaning. In microcosm, this is what will happen to the entire U.S. military.
If your son goes to war, do you want his leader to be an officer who was under the old or the new Ranger standards? If the fate of your country’s survival may depend on the actions of your military’s combat leaders, do you want them to have passed the toughest school or the best school?
As Thucydides said, “We must remember that one man is much the same as another, and that he is best who is trained in the severest school.”
The military has always taught that the essence of leadership can be taught as “Mission, Men, Me” - in that order. Your priorities are to accomplish your mission, then look after the needs of the soldiers under your command, and then, and only then, your own needs and goals. The best leaders in our history have always followed this. The female officers who see their own need for a combat command as overriding all other demands have subverted this to “Me, Me, Me.”
Catholics who see an analog in this situation to the demand by some for the ordination of female priestesses in the Church, and the demand for egotistic personal advancement over the good of the organization, are quite correct.
It is less about the needs of the service, or making their service more effective, than it is about the personal ambitions and ego of these female officers - many of whom have a willing ear on Capitol Hill. As well as a bunch of cheerleaders in the media, almost none of whom are actual veterans.
As an example, see the current demands to admit women into Ranger School. Ranger School is an incredibly demanding (physically, emotionally, mentally) combat leadership school within the U.S. Army. It has maintained its standards for decades. It has a very high failure rate, about 50%. It can also be very important for advancement within the officer corps of the Army - 90% of high-ranking Infantry officers are Ranger qualified. As such, female officers are increasingly demanding the right to attend, and with Panetta and Obama allowing women into the infantry, there will be pressure to allow them to attend.
As Stephen Kilcullen pointed out in his article in the WSJ (online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303830204577448821376681662.html), Ranger School is not supposed to be a career advancement school - it is supposed to be a school that teaches leaders how to lead soldiers to victory in armed combat. The careerism demonstrated by such a change would be pernicious, in that the goal of facilitating the advancement of women in the Army will inevitably lead to a change in the Ranger School’s standards. Which means that not only that women who cannot physically handle the current standards will start to pass, but so will men who cannot handle the current standards - or you will have two sets of standards, which female officers will see as demeaning. In microcosm, this is what will happen to the entire U.S. military.
If your son goes to war, do you want his leader to be an officer who was under the old or the new Ranger standards? If the fate of your country’s survival may depend on the actions of your military’s combat leaders, do you want them to have passed the toughest school or the best school?
As Thucydides said, “We must remember that one man is much the same as another, and that he is best who is trained in the severest school.”
The military has always taught that the essence of leadership can be taught as “Mission, Men, Me” - in that order. Your priorities are to accomplish your mission, then look after the needs of the soldiers under your command, and then, and only then, your own needs and goals. The best leaders in our history have always followed this. The female officers who see their own need for a combat command as overriding all other demands have subverted this to “Me, Me, Me.”
Catholics who see an analog in this situation to the demand by some for the ordination of female priestesses in the Church, and the demand for egotistic personal advancement over the good of the organization, are quite correct.
L
LisaA
Guest
AZMike thank you again for your insight and thoughtful posts. As you noted at the end, there is NO compelling reason to allow this other than “ME ME ME!” from some ambitious females and the “You go girl!” from would be social engineers WHO DO NOT HAVE SKIN IN THE GAME.
It is so tiresome to hear from pundits about why women should be given this opportunity although their lives are not being put in danger nor are the lives and mission of their loved ones. The few examples of females performing well in traditionally male bastions are trotted out for good measure.
This morning Col McSalley and Ret Gen Boykin debated the issue. When the evidence of how this would both be detrimental to the mission as well as putting females in situations that the vast majority would consider impossible, McSalley said 'Sign me up."
Note the ME…
IOW McSalley’s ambition is the overall driving force in why women “should” be allowed into combat positions. Ironically she is an accomplished pilot, so her ambitions were obviously not thwarted by her position under the current rules. But the men and the mission should be compromised so she gets her shot at the big chair.
Selfish desires vs enhancing the military’s overall objective? I’ll take the latter.
Lisa
It is so tiresome to hear from pundits about why women should be given this opportunity although their lives are not being put in danger nor are the lives and mission of their loved ones. The few examples of females performing well in traditionally male bastions are trotted out for good measure.
This morning Col McSalley and Ret Gen Boykin debated the issue. When the evidence of how this would both be detrimental to the mission as well as putting females in situations that the vast majority would consider impossible, McSalley said 'Sign me up."
Note the ME…
IOW McSalley’s ambition is the overall driving force in why women “should” be allowed into combat positions. Ironically she is an accomplished pilot, so her ambitions were obviously not thwarted by her position under the current rules. But the men and the mission should be compromised so she gets her shot at the big chair.
Selfish desires vs enhancing the military’s overall objective? I’ll take the latter.
Lisa
P
Phemie
Guest
Not to debate the idea of women in combat but how many men do you think have the military overall objective in mind rather than their own personal chance of advancement when they apply for Rangers, or Seals, or Green Beret?
L
LisaA
Guest
Of course they are ambitious or would not go through the hell of that training. Have you seen the SEALs training? YIKES!
The point is not that women are ambitious and selfish and men are not is that at this point men are not asking to compromise their buddies, the mission or the defense of America to further those interests. I believe the women ARE doing so.
Again please do tell me how the defense of America is better served by integrating females into combat?
Lisa
O
oldcatholicguy
Guest
The difference is that the male careerists who use the Ranger tab as a means to pad their OER aren’t demanding a change that would have negative effects on the military’s ability to execute its mission. The male careerists are abusing the system for their personal gain, they aren’t demanding the system be drastically altered for their personal gain.
J
JaneGrey
Guest
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.
J
JaneGrey
Guest
Being a woman is not the same as being disabled. Have one standard for fitness, anyone who can meet it is in, anyone who can’t is out. There will many who will not make it, but that is better than having an all-out ban on women just because they are women.
M
maximus
Guest
If it works out like the professional sports leagues like the NFL, MLB, NHL, and NBA where the players are all men but a woman could play if she was good a good enough player. Then I have no objections and without PEDs.
Reality is if you took an elite female athlete like Serena Williams or former WWF star Chynna they just do not stack up to an average male in the infantry; yet alone special forces.
God Bless
O
oldcatholicguy
Guest
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.
Not a problem right? After all if she wants to destroy her body under the erroneous assumption that doing so will somehow advance her career that’s on her. But it’s not. Her being at risk of injury, being injured, and being on recover affects her entire unit. From her fellow platoon members who will have to “cover down” for her (as in do their jobs + whatever she can’t do due to being injured) all the way up the chain (Ever try to create a 24/7 combat ops schedule for mounted patrols, infrastructure security, base security, TOC operations, maintenance time, and down time for a 100 man unit? I have and even planned manpower shortages (mid-tour leave) throws a wrench into the works. Guys have to cover down and the first thing they lose is down time (sleep), the second is maintenance time, then less patrols, then smaller patrols, no patrols, etc, etc.).
Let me put it to you this way, what if I told you that you had to drive off road across some badlands (very rough terrain) with 3 all terrain tires, 1 of those spare “tires” (the small, flimsly “don’t go over 45” type spares) with no spares, little water, and no AAA. Would you look at me and say “Well that’s fair for the tires so off I go,” or would you look at me and say “Yeah, you need to replace that spare tire with another all terrain tire”? That’s basically what “if they can do it, they should be able to” boils down to.
T
tabycat
Guest
Neither, just stating that women have served in combat from the begin of the contry.
M
maximus
Guest
We know that, they loaded canons in the revolutionary war, built airplanes in WWII, nowadays they are air traffic controllers, avionic specialists, mechanics, and other vital support roles. They pilot combat aircraft, etc.Neither, just stating that women have served in combat from the begin of the contry.
Oh well, eventually we will be switching to robotic combatants once power issues are worked out and that way we make this point mute.
God Bless
L
LisaA
Guest
Define “served in combat” please. Other than the occasional Molly Pitcher or Gen Hooker’s working girls, there haven’t been female infantry or combat Marines. Women are currently serving in some high level positions that are engaged in combat operations but the idea of a platoon of modern day Bodicas is just plain silly.Neither, just stating that women have served in combat from the begin of the contry.
Right now women are advancing at the same percentage as men so the theory this is the only way to promotion has already proven erroneous. What other reason would you suggest makes this anything but social engineering or feeding into a tiny minority’s selfish desires (hmmm sounds like the gay marriage dispute doesn’t it? Another Leftist utopian theory…)
Lisa
W
Wolseley
Guest
Well, as I said before: any woman who wants combat that bad, she can take my place in the next war. I will be perfectly happy to let her go in my place. So long, sweetie—good luck, keep your head down and your weapon dry. Been there, done that, got the PTSD to prove it. You wanna scramble your head the way I got my scrambled, good for you, dear.
Sort of resembles the homosexuals and their fellow travellers who not only abuse the system (courts) for their personal gain (mainstreaming of their specific perversion), they also demand that the culture be drastically altered (marriage) to include their specific perversion, doesn’t it?
- Status