Wanted: Your Opinion on Inclusion of Women in Combat Arms Units.

If the Woman is willing to serve in a combat roll, then if they are as capable as a straight male or other breed to fight. I serviced in VN and there were Red Cross females that did as well as the ones they looked after. Go ladies and show your wiliness to protect and serve honorability

Let them experiment w/ the idea, 15 months outside the wire in Iraq had thaught me a lesson, never again.

I say if they want to go to the front then let them. They should be willing to handle what the men do and keep up. They could add an all woman's platoon. I am sure allot more lesbian/dikes (no offense) would like the fact that they are with their own. I think it could work. I think that they should have their plumbing altered as to not have a monthly bill. It just gets in the way and creates more issues. Some women would even cut off their left breast to serve on the front lines. It's something you have to feel in your heart and in you sole. It should be taken very seriously and a psych eval. should be given prior in order to ensure the mental stability of the soldier. There should be psych evals after training as well to ensure the continued stability and desire for the MOS they are filling. Me, personally, I would want to be with the guys, less complaints and nothing to prove, their already men.

All military personnel need to be qualified (proficient) with small arms and issued at least a side arm, sub machine gun, shot gun or carbine/rifle at all times, and loaded (with chambered round) while on or off duty. Women are not to be in combat (Israel found this out in 1948, their women were raped and murdered when captured). You don't send a woman to do a man's job. By training all millitary personnel to carry loaded arms you never have to rely upon the civilian population (the real first resopnders) to bail out the unarmed/untrained military (Fort Hood, 9/11, our national borders). Bring back the draft for men only. Send our politicians into combat first to defend their liberal policies that are killing us.

Think about this! Would you it bother you to have your YOUNGER SISTER being shot at next to you in a rice paddy?? It would bother the hell out of me.

I believe females are capable of serving in combat arms. My concern about having women in combat arms is maintaining the combat readiness of the unit. If a female becomes pregnant and must be withdrawn from the unit, that unit is no longer combat ready. The problem is compounded if the pregnant female is an Officer or NCO.

There is a place for a woman in the military but NOT in combat, especially if they have children. Children need their mother. Nobody can replace their mother.

No nation in recent history faced a fight for national survival comparable to the Russians in WWII. I don't think they hesitated to use anyone anywhere if was expedient. They never sought to integrate women into line combat units.

After viewing several of my Vietnam brothers comments on women in combat it appears many of them have forgotten the Vietnamese women they encountered other than on the streets of Siagon. They handled the jungle better than many men, and fired AK47's and sniper rifles with deadly effectiveness. If anything, men have a bad tendency to under estimate a woman's physical capability to take down a larger, stronger opponent permanently when properly trained to do so because we allow our testosterone to get ahead of our mental preparedness.

I SERVED 22 YEARS IN THE INFANTRY, HERE'S MY OPINION ON WOMEN IN THE INFANTRY OR SPECIAL OPS.
1. CAN WOMEN GO WITHOUT SHOWERS UP T0 45 DAYS? MANY TIMES IN THE INFANTRY WE DO.
2. CAN WOMEN CARRY 80-120 POUNDS ON THERE BACK 12+ MILES AND BE READY TO FIGHT? MOST CANN'T.
3. CAN MEN STAY FOCUSED ON THEIR MISSION INSTEAD OF WOMEN FOR MONTHS AT A TIME? I DON'T THINK SO.
4. THE SHOWER / LATRINE / TRAINING BARRACKS SITUATION IS BAD ENOUGH JUST FOR MALE SOLDIERS. NOW WHAT OR HOW ARE WE GOING TO FIX IT FOR THE FEMALE SOLDIERS? EXAMPLE IN GERMANY AT GRAF THE LATRINES SUPPORT 100 SOLDIERS AND 400 MALE SOLDIERS ARE REQUIRED TO USE IT. WHILE 10 FEMALES GET THE SAME LARGE LATRINE ALL TO THEM SELF. THAT IS NOT RIGHT.
OVERALL WOMEN SOLDIERS ARE DOING A GREAT AND IMPORTANT JOB IN THE ARMY. WOMEN SOLDIERS ARE IN COMBAT AND HARMS WAY DAILY AND DOING AN INCREDIBLE JOB.
I JUST DON'T THINK INFANTRY AND SPECIAL OPS IS A PLACE FOR WOMEN SOLDIERS. IT WOULD DO MORE HARM THEN GOOD.

I'm a female vet, security forces, Gulf War/Iraq War. I believe there are both men and women that are capable of serving in a war zone. I agree there are men and women that are not capable of serving in a combat zone. Time of month? That's a joke and non- issue. Saying a male may give in because he sees a female being sexually abused- that is the male's issue, not the female's. If he can't learn to "turn it off" and view her as a fellow soldier/airman, etc.. then HE is the one who has issues to work on. Women who cry or refuse to get the mission done- there is no excuse, and they should have been weeded out prior to their deployment. But let me tell you, I know firsthand of men who have done the same. I also was at a base where SIX men committed or threatened suicide because of various pressures - not a single woman. The person who said it takes an "absurd amount of abuse" for women to resort to violence- you haven't met me (and I'm sure many more out there like me). I'm 5'7 135lbs, and sweet as can be in the real world, but don't cross me or my fellow Americans. PT? Here is where I have an argument - I am physically fit, I lift weights, I run marathons, but no matter how hard I work- I will NEVER be able to lift more or run faster than SOME men. God just did not fashion our bodies in that way. Having said that, I can also outrun and outlift a good majority of guys. This is how I look at it- just as there are white "niggers" and black "niggers" (and yellow, etc), there are good men and bad men, and good women and bad women in a combat zone. I want the one next to me that is most capable of performing their job- male/female, gay/straight, ugly/attractive...I don't care.

ROB, in training I went 2 weeks without a shower. In the Gulf I washed my body from my helmet for 2 months, and then took turns with both males and female in our makeshift shower.In Iraq, I saw certain units with private showers, and some that were shared. I carried the same pack as everyone else. I agree- we should have the same shower/bathroom as the males. But then again, it goes back to your number 3- can males (and females) stay focused if we do share the same? Personally, I look at everyone in my unit as the same- no one is male or female or deserves different treatment. I dont care who I shower with. Yes, war brings everyone closer- we share a bond that no one back home will ever understand, but I still remain loyal to my vows/morals or relationships back home. There are also ALOT of men/women sitting back home cheating on their spouses. Face it- there are both men and women capable/not capable of serving in combat. It's our military's job to weed them out prior to serving/combat.

As a CIB wearing Infantry veteran of the current war, I have to admit that the attitudes expressed by many are disheartening. Children can't be deprived of a mother? Because fathers are a dime a dozen, right? "I'm a Vietnam combat veteran and why would a woman want to do that?" Why would a man for that matter? They can't carry a ruck? Didn't MOTHAX state clearly this is for people who meet the same physical standards? Women aren't agressive enough and won't hurt people? Has nobody ever hunted with a woman? Really? I've been with women who've had no qualms about gunning down Bambi and getting right in there to skin and dress the thing. We already know women have been shot at in combat and returned fire. That's a fact. All of them? Certainly not, but you can't say all men are cut out for that either. In all cases it takes a certain kind of person to go Combat Arms, I just don't think it has to be a man - judge individuals, not classes.

If they're in the unit, men will just have sex with them and everyone is going to get jealous and get into fights? Yeah, that's likely to happen, but since when was behavior that is against code and policy the deciding factor for whether we have a policy? Do we outlaw all guns because we know some people will use them to commit crimes or do we allow people to be responsible as gun owners and instead punish those who break the laws?

We're essentially stating we're animals incapable of controling our base urges. Me? I expect better of our service members, and I know we are trained and indoctrinated to believe that we are better people. We have codes of conduct, so stand by them.

There were men in my own platoon who were clearly not cut out for combat, it's not for everyone. As I said before, judge individuals. There are women I've known who I'd much rather have at my back in combat than some of the guys I know who just hunkered down behind a berm and plugged their ears while others were running through gunfire to engage the enemy. There are women cops who perform this feat all the time. Not every woman out there is cut out for that, but not every man is either.

What needs to be done is select for those who are going to be the best fit. You want that person to be physically fit and mentally strong. I've know enough men and women to know you could pull that from either pool, but only from a small subset of that pool. Let's start doing that.

ARMYE5, You hit all nails on the head. I agree 100%
In reply to a few others- NO ONE WANTS to go into combat, man or woman. However, if that time comes- the best men and women should be given that option. And yes, it would bother me to see my sister being shot in a rice paddy, but it would equally bother me to see my brother being shot in a rice paddy. I understand alot of our "older" vets having a hard time with this- but Vietnam, Korea, etc were a different era, alot has changed in our society/military, and alot of things you mentioned would not occur today for a man OR a woman. There was a time I didnt agree with gays being allowed to serve for the very same reason you are stating against women now (distraction from completing the mission, etc), but after serving with a gay man who was more capable of the job than a strong athletic soldier in the same unit (mental issues), I have changed my mind completely. I am not looking to be in combat, I have nothing to "prove" and I have been tested time and time again, only to "prove" I am capable, and have earned the respect of my male peers. I'm tired of it. Let me serve my country, let me do my job, let me follow the oath I signed. Worry about the ones who can't- not their sex.

This is being considered to placate a small minority of women and pandering to a political agenda. How many women would really want to serve in front line face to face combat units, serve, not assigned to. Would it be on a volunteer basis or on an assign as needed basis? You would upset an entire system because a wee minority want to be generals. Then there's the cost factor. You absolutely know the standards would be lowered. They were lowered when the volunteer force was created and more women saw the writing(money) on the wall. The commercials promoted it. Why did we go from a Physical Combay Proficiency Test(PCPT) in the early seventies to a PT test of no real combat relevance?

I fully understand that there's a concern about pandering to a small political agenda, but I've run into a number of women who want to be out there, and aren't exactly high enough in the chain of command to be doing it to push a career.

I heartily agree with your point about changing the physical standards and how that is a detriment. The Army (and I believe the other services) are actively working to change the PT tests to something that better reflects the needs of combat. They SHOULD and they NEED to. I couldn't agree more with that criticism. But that criticism is irrelevent to the question of women in a combat arms unit if the physical standards are the same. The bar SHOULD be higher, but we should be glad for anyone who can meet that bar and wants to go forward.

To insist we shouldn't do something because of negative connotations of the past would have prevented the Wright Brothers from revolutionizing flight, would have prevented the explorers from their voyages of discovery, would have kept this country from putting men on the Moon. To my way of thinking, if there's something bad in the world, work to change it.

Of course, I could be a couch curmudgeon and complain that everything will fail and therefore insist that we do nothing...but that would lead to stagnation and that's not what they trained me to do at Fort Benning.

I read a lot of comments about how a woman can't pick up a man or won't be able to carry the gear. I also read a lot about how she would be too distracting and endanger lives. Here's what I have to say to you. How do you know she wouldn't be able to lift the weight? How do you know she wouldn't out perform you? And if you get distracted by a woman so easily, that's your own damn fault for getting shot, don't blame it on someone else. Some women, myself included, can easily carry over 100lbs and our bodies handle it just fine so don't use the physiology excuse either. That's why you train for things like that. I agree not every woman is cut out for these positions. There are a lot of guys that aren't either but they still get a shot at it. That's why there are standards that have to be met in order for someone to be a part of those units. I think its time for a woman to get there. Those who can't hack it will be washed out and those that can will probably be one of the best memebers of the team because they will continuously prove they belong there

In reading over more of the comments, I have to add a few more things...
Why is a female any less capable than that wimp of a 125lb man next to me of dragging your 220lb ass to safety? Who would you rather trudge up the mountain with- a female or Major Nidal Malik Hasan (THERE'S your politics at work)? Have you ever looked into the PA Guard barracks that was hit during the Gulf War- did you know the AF men AND women were the first to respond from Dhahran? Did you know men AND women helped drag burning bodies from that wreckage? I suppose I'm a "typical" woman because I still have nightmares about that day? And I have to laugh at the comment about the waste of drinking water because a woman is using it to wash her hair. When we first arrived in the Gulf and had 6 bottles of drinking water per person per day, there was no hair washing, but as time went on and more water became available, I traded an old sony walkman for bottles of water to wash my hair! haha! But guess what, there were males also trading books, mre's, and water in exchange for MY razors! haha!

Women are not suited for the Infantry, many men don't make the cut. Having been through PLDC, and BNOC with women who tried to carry a ruck, who tried to carry a 240B, I know for a fact that not a single one in the training detachment could do it. There were exceptions made for females that were not given to the males in events that required a particular skill set, and physical strength, like the land Navigation Course, and the Confidence Course which had certain obstacles deleted for the females. The actual truth is that not a single female met the same standard that was required for males, but were not only allowed to graduate anyway, but with one being an honor graduate. It was a joke that I bet all the men who failed and had to repeat the Courses did not think was funny. Political correctness at the cost of National Security will always be the wrong policy.

I have read most of the comments, from the Viet Nam Vet to the current campaign Vet. Starting with WWI and WWII if you check your women in combat history, the European country’s used women with the utmost skill. They were combatants and also some of the best spies. Now moving to the Viet Nam conflict women were not used on the front line but saw front line action. They served heavily in the medical corps keeping young men alive, and were left with deep mental wounds in seeing the day to day conflict.
Now let’s move to the current Middle Eastern conflict. As everyone knows we (the US) can blow the crap out of anything, but is that really going to win the conflict / war? If you study Counter Terrorism and the history of the Romans (their conquests) and the Germans during WWII you will see that just kicking the crap out of the other country’s locals creates more enemies than friends. (read the Art of War)
With the US being involved in the Middle East we are starting to understand that in dealing with the male population, we are only gathering 50% of the Human Terrain. So how do we increase that percentage? By using females in units such as Civil Affairs or Counter Insurgency Teams you then can increase that Human Terrain percentage. You have trained and PROFESSIONAL Female Marines (Service Women) that understand the culture, religion, demographics, and life cycle of given areas. Now when that CA Team / CI Team goes into a village you have the men speak and work with the men and use your females to meet and gather information from the women. And yes there is a security team with the females. Many of the Old School Marines (Service Members) may not buy into this but I have served in both Iraq and Afghanistan and in using the above outline (plus more not mentioned) we were able to build an 85% – 95% Human Terrain layout for the Battle Space Commanders area. This gave him the ability to better understand the individuals (Afghans / Iraqis) he had within his AO and deploy his Company’s and Platoons in areas with better understanding.
Again we can blow the crap out of anything, but is harder to create a LASTING relationship within the AOR and KLE (Key Leader Engagements) which can not only keep Service Members alive but get the local villages to work together with the unit in that area. Women Service Members within this current conflict is KEY to this process.

I think its a bad idea to open Combat Arms up to women - XX reasons:
1. Good Order and Discipline - Having served as a Tanker then switching to Intelligence I have a good perspective (Males only then Mixed). We are products of our culture and well you are not going to be able to keep the romance, drama, he said she said and all the other National Inquirer stuff out of a Male/Female unit - not going to happen no matter what anyone says. My time in Intel NCO was spent dealing more with these distractions to the job than the job - Not so in the Male Only crew of my Abrams.
2. Standards - totally agree with Mr. Ireland - However the physiological differences between males and females make this impossible. Train Females for crying out loud - to be able to defend, counter attack ruthlessly but - not as their primary job. In a knife fight between a 200 lb Haji and a 145 Lb woman - my money is on Haji.

I think its a bad idea to open Combat Arms up to women - XX reasons:
1. Good Order and Discipline - Having served as a Tanker then switching to Intelligence I have a good perspective (Males only then Mixed). We are products of our culture and well you are not going to be able to keep the romance, drama, he said she said and all the other National Inquirer stuff out of a Male/Female unit - not going to happen no matter what anyone says. My time in Intel NCO was spent dealing more with these distractions to the job than the job - Not so in the Male Only crew of my Abrams.
2. Standards - totally agree with Mr. Ireland - However the physiological differences between males and females make this impossible. Train Females for crying out loud - to be able to defend, counter attack ruthlessly but - not as their primary job. In a knife fight between a 200 lb Haji and a 145 Lb woman - my money is on Haji.

The sayings "that's the way it is" and "it'll always be that way" are so much crap. The only reason for separation of people in any field has always been discrimination. If the unit breaks down because of a lack of discipline then its because the wasn't any. The female menstrating can be just as effective as the male with the clap or prostate problems. Ability to bear weight, move quickly, be allert, etc, have nothing to do with race, nationality, origin, or sex. These are the same arguments used since time began. The civil war soldiers from Maine didn't like the theives from Virginia. The white soldiers of WW1 and 2 didn't want to serve with the black soldiers. The Marines in Viet Nam didn't like the Air Force boy scouts. Each of these ideas were just as stupid and bigotted as this separation in combat. Equal training for equal pay for equal responsibility.

Absolutely not, first is the physical staying power for extended periods of combat. Secondly, too high
a chance of them becoming a disasterous distraction at that critical time. Let women do the things that free up men for combat.

If they can pass all of the test and want to be in a combat unit then I say let them. But, just because a few want to be in combat units does not mean to impose it on those that don't want to.

Yes, if women can meet the same standards they should have the ability to participate in combat training and environments. This change would show the world particularly countries in the Middle East that in America we are all equal under the law and in the military, regardless of sex, race, ethnicicity, or religion.

I was in Fallujah in 2005 when the female searches got blown up. They were blown up because they didnt pay attention on convoys. they would face inboard looking at each other with their chin straps off, while my unit would be facing outboard ready to rock and roll and kill insurgents. who do you think is the harder target? Then after they were smoked, their replacements wouldnt pay attention.

I see no problem with a female that is ready, willing and able to being allowed in combat situations.

i suppose there are exceptions to the rule, but in my oppinion, women do not belong on the front lines, period.

I spent 4 years active duty AF and the 6 years in the ANG in a combat communications position. As a strong female, I could lift and do the work of any male. My male counterparts treated me fairly, respectfully, and could count on me to do the work needed. At the start of the Persian Gulf War, I found was no longer an "equal"...they saw me as a "wife", a "mother", and a "sister". I realized I could never go into battle with these guys because they would try to protect me!! In fact, my male commander and another male who had the same AFSC as me (but NOT in a combat position) tried to secretly switch our positions!! I did NOT report this because I knew they were doing this because I was a mom of a 3-year-old. They immediately tore up the paperwork (after much discussion and debate on MY part; I asked them "how could I live with myself if we deployed and HE was KIA?").

Up to this point, I had always felt women who could strong enough to lift and do the work required COULD be in combat positions. Then, after reading a story of female officer who was captured with some of her unit during the Persian Gulf War, I realized American men would protect women and it's NOT in military's best interest to be try to "be fair in war". The men in this woman's unit were going to try to protect her...I would NOT want ANYONE (male or female) to try to "protect" me. Unit readiness and unit cohesiveness should be the number one priority and NOT try to be politically correct. The "hooking up" part is also a big issue. This is also the same reason I do not believe married couples, gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve in the military. Romance destroys unit effectiveness...period!!

I spent 4 years active duty AF and the 6 years in the ANG in a combat communications position. As a strong female, I could lift and do the work of any male. My male counterparts treated me fairly, respectfully, and could count on me to do the work needed. At the start of the Persian Gulf War, I found I was no longer an "equal"...they saw me as a "wife", a "mother", and a "sister". I realized I could never go into battle with these guys because they would try to protect me!! In fact, my male commander and another male who had the same AFSC as me (but NOT in a combat position) tried to secretly switch our positions!! I did NOT report this because I knew they were doing this because I was a mom of a 3-year-old. They immediately tore up the paperwork (after much discussion and debate on MY part; I asked them "how would I be able to live with myself if we deployed and HE was KIA?").

Up to then, I had always felt women who were strong enough to lift and do the work required SHOULD be able to serve in combat positions. Then, after reading a story of female officer who was captured with some of her transportation unit during the Persian Gulf War, I realized American men would only try to protect women in their unit and it's NOT in military's best interest to be try to be "fair in war". The men in this woman's unit were going to try to protect her (she talked them out of it). I would NOT want ANYONE (male or female) to try to "protect" me. Unit readiness and unit cohesiveness should be the number one priority and NOT trying to be politically correct. For this same reason, I am against married couples serving in the military and gays/lesbians serving in the military. There is NO room for "romance" because this destroys unit effectiveness.

I don't know how women feel about this issue in the present tense, but, without a doubt there are female troops who want access to any job, and have every right to do so. There are young, motivated women today who want this type of service with the same ardor as the young motivated man wants to be in force recon, Navy SEALS, or Delta. There are people who do not wish to embark in these callings. During the seventies, I knew guys who did't want to "run hot" Some joined the active duty military units to get past the draft, some guard or reserve unit perhaps unit like the Texas Air Guard. Some learned a job, an occupational MOS, and some to avoid the combat. These soldiers still met and fulfilled a service need. Our soldier's job choices they make today should be respectected. Today there is no draft, We have an all volunteer force, it was in all the papers. Older vets may look into a recruiting station at the mall, and see many more options that we had. They hope there are recruiters who learned to tell the truth by now. Racks with glossy printed information is available. This for male and female prospects. Yes, I am for women in the combat units if that is their dream, same as the males, and show motivation, to get the job, male and female. Those who don't meet the standard, don't, male and female. But all recruits should go through combat training, together, to learn about the ability of two distinct parts of the band of brothers. this to dispelled complaints like," I wouldn't want one in my position", "what can thery do? there're just women" Priority choice of a candidate for the "front line" MOS jobs should be desire, and capacity first, and needs of the service second, male and female (That may make some of of the old guard mad)

This Country has successfully survived numerous military conflicts now for 235 years WITHOUT using females in combat. I am sure we will continue to pervail in that mode and be victorious WITHOUT using them in future wars or "Police Actions"..There is an old saying that goes"If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it."
SEMPER FI.

I served 8yrs during the 1st desert storm. I was trained by the Marines to be a combat corpsman. I never saw action. I went to San Diego instead. I don't think women should serve in combat, I feel this puts undue pressure on the men in the group to protect them even if you know the woman is trained to fight the same as the men. I know from my own experience in the school the guys would help the girls out and it puts them at risk. Also, you add the love triangle in as was the case in many of my fellow classes mates and its a wonder some made it through the school much less a combat situation.

Unless the unit members can fight together, eat, sleep, shower, pee and poop in front of each other without hesitation or discomfort then it's just not gonna work. As long as any of the above is considered obscene or uncomfortable then they will always be viewed as separate and unequal. Sorry guy's it's just a fact. I know it's cinema, but there is a scene in the movie "Starship Troopers" that shows males and females consorting in a shower without any sexual overtones. That was the movies, but most guy's sitting in their arm chairs at home got a rise out of seeing the girls boobs I'm sure. Maybe a tempered introduction to common nudity and bodily function is necessary to desensitize both sexes and erase decades of Jewish/Muslim and Christian ideals of implied modesty. in the 2nd world war the Russians very effectively DE-sexualized it's armed forces, but even then, sexuality was a common occurrence between battle field comrades.

I am sorry but i do not think women should be allowed in combat. I was in Vietnam and we did not let women fight.

I agree that women should not be in the combat arms unit. As a woman, I never expected to be involved in combat. I was never deployed and was glad of it. I think despite what skills, physical ability, training, etc. that is not where women should be. There are so many other areas where we are needed for support. Yes, women should be trained with weapons and defense tactics to protect themselves if the situation presents itself but, women are distractions whether we want to admit it or not. I hated to leave my kids. I feel blessed all the time that I never left them to be raised without a mother. I wasn't out to prove that I could be just as strong or stronger than any man or that I could do the same job.To what end? At the expense of my children? Women have different needs than men. We are more emotional and as such, carry more baggage. The enemy knows that too. Most women I know do not want to be in combat. Others thought they did and hate(d) it. I think most of the excitement wore off with so many women were getting raped, beaten, and killed. What did they expect? If they are going to torture and kill a male soldier, why wouldn't they do they same or worse to a woman? Like "txgal" said, " it changes the whole dynamics of the situation". Females try to get out of doing their duties all the time. Oh, "it's that time of the month (PMS headaches, backaches, etc.) or they get pregnant. I remember getting stuck with everybody's else's duties because all six of the females in our unit were pregnant at the same time, except me. There are just too many outside variables to consider and the complaints I hear from the females outweigh the positives.

Look folks it is deeper than a "woman's time of the month", or "female issues" if we send all of our young people into combat and it adversely affects a great percentage of them who will raise our next generations? We have to look at the big picture, not what we want for ourselves, or what we think is right at this moment, what about our future as a nation? we all know what prolonged time or even short time in any combat situation can do to men, so it must do the same things to women and I have some friends from a couple of wars that are as messed up as soup sandwiches, I love them all dearly but it seems that we need to save some of our youth for parenting and being,,well for lack of a better word,,,normal. Just my thoughts, our country already haas a problem with some of it's young people, gangs, drugs, and other issuses, why compound that?

Females can not physically perform as an infantry man and would place an unneeded burden on their team,squad.How many females can hump a SAW with a combat load and no less be effective?Females have different PT standards just this contradicts their ability to perform.This is just PC garbage and yes todays military is full of political correctness and social engineering that has been forced on it.

The amount of females in the military that are capable of combat are an exception and not the rule. The experience I have had with females is that they get scared, really scared and fast. I do not trust women to have my back in a combat zone at all.

I'm a female veteran of WW11. My opinion is: Women should not be in combat units.

Combat or zones of combat are no place for women. The training, stress responsibility, and duty to kill an enemy (perhaps by hand) are not meant for women. I have no problem in their working in support, but not in my fighting hole.

After nearly 29 years in a high stress career field, I have found that women will respond to the need to make decisions under stress just as men will. Some will step up and do what is needed, while others will stand back and wait for someone else to make the decision or take the appropiate action. The key thing is to identify the ones capable of and willing to accept responsibiity as leaders as early as possible, placing them in key positions while ensuring that those not qualified to fill these positions are never given the opportunity. We must encourage qualified members of both sexes to move to the front by providing them the guidance and training necessary to their and the units success. By the same token, those unwilling and/or unable to accept and perform in positions of greater responsiblity should be identified, counseled, provided remedial training, and finally separated if they fail to meet standards. While this will hurt some people's feelings, the result will be a more competent and professional force, capable of accomplishing the mission with limited losses. The social action and human relations people do not like this approach, as it does not ensure equal results for everyone and hurts the feelings of those passed by, but that is one of the things one must accept as a leader, supervisor, and manager. If equal results are desired, I strongly suggest the civilian world where the threat of death being the reward for failure is much smaller or virtually non-existant in most cases.

This issue has nothing to do with anyone being sexiest or disrespectful towards women. This issue has been all about political correctness at its worst! When people confuse the physical realities with social wishful thinking (social re-engineering) this is where we as humans go really wrong. News Flash men & women are different & different for a reason! There are things that women can do much better than a man and the opposite is true as well. Pound for pound a man's psychical strength & endurance is far greater than a woman's. For you nit-pickers - for every one woman who can endure I can find over a million men. this is only one very strong reason among many others why it should not become the norm that women should not be relied upon to serve in combat positions period! I have so proud of all of our fine women who have served our country honorably. I have served with wonderful women as juniors and as seniors to me in rank & have respect for them all but I must respectfully draw the line here. Life is not "equal nor fair" for everybody; we are not the socialist military of America are we? i guess it's not fair that we are all not Donald Trump nor can all of us be a General today either? Just my opinion, I'd though you'd like to know.

Welcome to the PC world backed by a PC Command structure. From the top, in discussion of women on submarines, we all saw many of the same objections. Capt. said that we were dealing with "professionals" & he didn't see that it would be a problem. The lady medic who detailed the # of troops lost due to pregnacy goes right with what we have seen on surface craft. Too many not going for that reason & too many going home during long deployments who are with child. So, the pros did manage to get together. Never been shot at with small arms, but had Russians trying to find us because we were playing in their op areas.

The PC crowd just doesn't care as long as they get their own ways. For the person who said the same thing about unit cohesion being disrupted before integration of Af-Am troops is talking apples vs oranges. Men are men. Skin color should not have had any place in the military. Blame Woodrow Wilson & thank Harry Truman. I served 54 to 74 & saw just how well women fit into the overall military effort. They did a great job wherever they were assigned. Now if there weren't problems introduced, then why was it necessary to have SecNav ordered "gender sensetivity training"? Glad I'm still married to an old submariner's bride who has stuck with me for 54+ years. Hope you all will be so lucky.

I SPENT 20 YEARS IN THE AIR FORCE. I WAS IN VN AND NOT IN A FLYING JOB. I WAS STATIONED JUST ABOUT 12 MILES FROM THE DMZ. I MUST STATE THAT I RECEIVED NO COMBAT TRAINING, BUT I HAD WATCHED QUITE A FEW COMBAT MOVIES AND SAW WHAT THE ACTORS DID AND WHY THEY DID IT. THIS HELPED ME COME OUT OF VN IN GOOD CONDITION. THERE IS NO FRONT LINES ANY MORE! STOP AND THINK AND REMEMBER, KOREA, VN, ETC. IF YOU ARE SENT TO A COUNTRY WHERE THERE ARE FIGHTING THEN YOU ARE IN A COMBAT ZONE. IT DOES NOT MATER IF YOU ARE IN A FANCY HOTEL OR IN A FOX HOLE YOU ARE SUBJECT TO BEING KILLED. IT DOES NOT MATTER IF YOU ARE A MAN, WOMAN, COMBAT PERSON, PRIEST, COOK OR CLERK, YOU TAKE THE SAME RISKS.

I HAVE NOT DECIDED WHICH WAY TO GO ON THE SUBJECT OF WOMEN IN COMBAT. BOTH SIDES HAVE GOOD STRONG POINTS. WHICH EVER WAY THIS COUNTRY GOES ON THIS, THERE MUST BE UNIFORM TRAINING FOR EVERY ONE REGARDLESS OF THERE DUTIES, BRANCH, OR SEX.

WHEN I WAS SENT TO VN, I WAS SENT WITH A M16, 3 EMPTY CLIPS, NO CLEANING EQUIPMENT FOR THE M16, NO AMO. THIS IS NOT CORRECT! GIVE US THE EQUIPMENT, AND TRAINING WE NEED.

AGAIN I HAVE NOT DECIDED HOW TO GO ON WOMEN IN COMBAT. I NEED TO FIND OUT MORE BEFORE I MAKE UP MY MIND. WHEN I WAS GIVEN A CREW OF WOMEN I WAS TOLD, " DON'T EXPECT ANY WORK OUT OF THEM". THEY WERE THE BEST CREW I HAD.

SORRY FOR THE RANTING BUT I GET UPSET REMEMBERING AND WONDERING HOW THE BOYS NOW ARE SENT INTO COMBAT, AND WHAT EQUIPMENT AND TRAINING THEY HAVE, AND WHY WE SEND PEOPLE INTO COMBAT WITH NOTHING. I DO NOT MEAN TO EXCLUDE THE WOMEN .

The insidence of sexual assaults are higher in the military than on the streets of our country. Now you want to put them in combat, no, we cant even protect them from our own troops. So now they have to worry about the enemy, or would they be safer with the enemy?