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

 
« Previous story
Next story »
 
Wanted: Your Opinion on Inclusion of Women in Combat Arms Units.

 This post is an effort to solicit the opinions of Legionnaires and veterans:   Should the combat arms branches be opened to women if they can pass the same physical, mental and aptitude tests required of their male counterparts?

 We would also like your comments on the subject.  That being said, sending me an email or leaving a comment that says something like “Women need to be taken out of the military entirely” isn’t likely to aid the cause any; that ship has sailed.  Likewise, comments like: “Women are just as good as men” doesn’t add to our knowledge.  What we are looking for are well-reasoned comments on the efficacy of allowing women to serve in the combat arms branches that they have traditionally been barred from serving in.  We want everyone’s opinion, but are particularly looking for the opinion of those who have served at “the tip of the spear.”

For purposes of this discussion, let us assume that there is a standard, and any female inclusion in Combat Arms units would be based on that standard, without alteration, now or in the future (unless to make it tougher).  So, comments like “A woman couldn’t drag a man from a firefight” aren’t particularly useful.  I’m guessing there are some jacked up females out there that are way stronger than some of the guys I had, while there are some guys out there that would seriously struggle dragging me to safety.  If the standard is the same for all genders, that should answer that concern.

Anyway, you can take the poll, but what I would really like is some cogent arguments in the comments section.  If you feel uncomfortable leaving a comment there, please feel free to send me your comments via email at mothax@legion.org

The survey has been closed. Thank you to those who participated.

Posted in the burner | 371 comments
 
« Previous story
Next story »

 

* To comment without a Facebook account, please scroll to the bottom.

Comments

After serving in the Military Police/Security Forces for 20-plus years, I can bring some insight to this issue. From my experience about 10-20% of the females could cary thier own weight. It was the other 80% that became more trouble than they were worth. Then of course the "love connection" becomes a factor and that caused more problems. So if we all become eunichs, then it might work out to the Liberal "standard".

No, for the same reason gay men shouldn't. The femminine demeaneor is not that of a killer/warrior. Women also lack the upper body strength that men do. Mixing men and women in a combat unit would be a distraction (sexually). When you throw feelings of affection in the mix it changes the dynamics of the unit and it could undermind leadership and discipline.
Military service has typically been avoided. That's why there was once a draft. It seems that proponnents are making the case for removing the draft exemption for women. That would be the fair and logical next progression. We could never have a draft in the future if that were the case. There wouldn't be enough political support among the American people do have their 18 year old daughters, grandaughters, sisters etc. to be drafted and sent to combat. Not being able to draft would weaken this country's defense and are enemies and potential enemies would know it. To say that women are equal to men in combat and still exempt them from the draft wouldn't be logical or fair.

Not with the infantry. Studies show that Russian combat units with women during WWII lost combat effectiveness. It's not about what's fair or not. Nothing is fair about combat. It's about winning.

I fervantly believe that it is a mistake to place women in ground combat units. There are exceptions to every rule, however generally speaking they do not have the physical strength to maintain. I was a captain in a reconnaisance unit in the 82nd Airborne Division when I left active duty and have close to 14 years combined active and National Guard experience. The ROTC Advanced Camp that I attended was Co-Ed. The last two weeks was small unit infantry tactics in the field. There were continual problems with promiscuity, which is the men's fault just as much as the women's. That was common in other units I observed that were mixed gender also. That is not something that should be an issue in a combat unit. The men were in most cases required to help the women in excessive ways, because the women generally lacked the physical strength to handle the loads. I am not talking about physical fitness in this case, just pure strength and endurance. Lets not forget that the women in the military have a much lower physical standard required to receive the same score as the men in the same unit they serve in. There were multiple emotional breakdowns. Yes, that can happen with men also, but not a the rate that I personally observed with they women I served with. And finally there is the personal hygene issue. It is not uncommon in an infantry unit to spend many weeks to a month in the feild without access to a shower, while living on the ground. I don't think I need to go into the details on that issue. That being said, there are many outstanding ways that women can serve and in a lot of instances generally do a better job than men. We need to stop fooling ourselves into thinking that men and women are exactly the same and accept the reality that we are different, with strengths and weaknesses that are real. Women do not belong in ground combat units alongside men. This does not mean that what they do is not just as important. Please, enough with the politically correct BS.

I think you didn't like DADT repeal because your afraid of uncloseted homosexuals calling you out. Beware of Gaydar.
I think you don't like women around because they throw off your fantasy of sweaty, muscular men alone in a desperate situation bonding together.
Your say Gay you think this post is about you...

I think you didn't like DADT repeal because your afraid of uncloseted homosexuals calling you out. Beware of Gaydar.
I think you don't like women around because they throw off your fantasy of sweaty, muscular men alone in a desperate situation bonding together.
Your say Gay you think this post is about you...

I've read through many of the previous comments and am not shocked by any of what has been said either for or against women in combat arms units. As a proud American female with 22 years of service in the US Marine Corps and the US Army both active and reserve, I have served in both support and combat arms units. I have also been in more than one hostile environment not only as a peacekeeper but also as a security escort convoy commander in a combat zone. I think the question of women in combat arms units is actually being answered without question by those of us who have successfully deployed to combat and done combat arms jobs, regardless of the position or job title we fell under on paper. As with other changes in the policies concerning human differences, there will always be people on both sides of the arguement. Thing is, we learn to adjust. Otherwise, the system will be sure to get rid of those who can not.

In my many years of varied experience, the topic of women in combat arms has come to the forefront of conversation many times. No different, though, has been the conversations about homosexuals in the military as a whole and the affect of various races, religions, height, weight, etc. and all the changes in a unit dealing with such diversity. I have seen the drama caused due to fraternization not only between males and females, officers and enlisted, but also between males. I have also seen the differences caused by those who volunteer to go to combat, those who are only following orders, and those who are "drafted" through the back door draft even though they already realised the military was not what they wanted to do. It always comes back to standards. It's the bottom line as to why our military is based on and functions by specific standards.

I have personally experienced being raped while in the military... by my own fellow marines and soldiers. l have also met men who were also raped by those who served next to them. Would any male have gone out of their way to rescue me versus a male counterpart? They didn't help any differently while in garrison so I have no reason to believe that combat would be any different. I have also experienced close contact with the enemy from small arms fire, sniper fire, rpg fire, and roadside bombs. The resulting injuries to both my male and female bothers and sisters were the same. At no point was there any different reaction to taking care of our injured regardless of their gender. I know many of my comrades would take offense to being accused of such a discrimination, as do I.

I hoensetly think it's disgusting that anybody would suggest that a female's life in combat would somehow be considered more defensable than a males. I have met and spoken extensively to male and female service members, active, reserve, and discharged, who suffer from PTSD due to the loss of a close friend in combat, most of them male. Some of my own nightmares are based on the loss of men i barely knew. The bonds between men in combat can be just as strong as those between men and women.

Ultimately, regardless whether or not women are "allowed" in combat arms units, the question is currently irrelevant. I have a lot of pride in all the troops I served with in combat. Regardless of all the things that made us different, we worked together as a team; we became a family; and we did our best to treat each other with respect no matter what kind of situation we found ourselves in. If you talk to any member of my crew, Crusader 1A, aka. Crazy Train, OIF 3, LSA Anaconda, they will tell you we had our differences; but we worked through them and survived one of the most hostile environments on earth today because we put our differences aside and focused on taking care of the person next to us.

I'm still serving, unable to redeploy overseas because of sustained injuries during my service; but all who know me know I would go back in a heartbeat, regardless of my position or title, only to use my knowledge, skill, and determination to bring home as many brothers and sisters as safely as possible. All this contention really doesn't mean a damn thing to those who have the true heart to serve this country, not a personal agenda or belief. I'm American proud through and through. Regardless what anyone may believe about me as a female, I'd still lay my life on the line to protect any American.

Thank you to all who served in the past, to those who serve today (including my daughter), and to the many who will serve in our future (including my son). xandyz68@yahoo

Step or shut up,women fought in the revoultionary war for their country,why not now, they still may suffer the same as all of us if caught. Take note of WWII russian women snipers. History is a good teacher if you listen,and take note.

I. I am very conflicted about AMERICAN women serving as combat arms soldiers. the reasons are:

1. THERE is no room for social experimentation, political correctness, or fantasies when it comes to shooting and being shot at with live ammo.

2. COMBAT is a very harsh and unforgiving environment that a comes as one hell of a shock to all first time combatants, as well as an environment that is difficult for some soldiers to deal with on repeat occassions. COMBAT almost always leaves the physically unscathed survivor with a lifetime of night horrors and other mental trauma.

3. MOST modern AMERICAN women have been brought up with the belief that they are equal to any MAN, without exception, and the majority experience great difficulty when the are suddenly confronted with the mental and physical challenges required of combat soldiers, police officer or firefighter. COMBAT on the ground, especially in the infantry provides a reality check of huge proportions; police officer and firefighter experiences in no way compare with infantry combat.

4. LEGISLATION _DOES NOT_ make everyone equal when it comes to real life situations involving life, death, serious injury, or confrontation on the streets of the USA where everything is a lot more controlled than some piece of named or nameless turf where life and death confrontation, not, conversation, decides who lives, who dies, who is wounded, or who is maimed for life . . . .

5. MALES are genetically coded to protect the females and young of the "clan" this is part of our basic human survival instinct, just as females are genetically coded to protect their young above all else.

6. IT seems to obvious from what i am reading here ( and have been told by other vets since GULF WAR I) that some women in our military expect to be treated as equals until the feces hits the fan blades during training exercises and actual combat, combat support, and combat service support missions. i have no first hand experience with serving women now days, all i have is the info passed onto me by relatives, trusted friends and the currently serving children (both men and women) of friends. this second hand info leads me to believe that the majority of women are not physically or mentally suited to serve in any sort of ground combat unit, and in some cases, no where in the combat zone.

II. MY own experiences as a combat infantryman, and later as a combat military policeman, tell me that some women are capable of standing up to the physical, and mental stresses of combat as well as any man (except for brute physical strength). i have fought MAINFORCE and local VC women combatants who were dangerous and determined combatants in the jungle, in the city, as well as near (and on) national, and provincial roadways (and even on waterways) of SOUTH VIETNAM.

IV. THE actual site of the combat changes, the names of the combatants, their weapons, equipment, and skill levels change, but the young (and not so young) men and women of our armed forces engaged in ground combat, combat, combat support, and combat service support are fighting a major guerilla war that is not that different from the one i fought.

V. THIS means that no one has a "guaranteed safe slot" except at a major command HQ, and even there an incoming round, a skilled sniper, command detonated mine (IED), suicide bomber, hijacked aircraft, or misdirected friendly artillery round might just reach out and touch the so-called REMF without warning and when least expected.

VI. FROM my own war experiences i know that some military women made small fortunes selling themselves to officers, NCOs, and occassionally enlisted men during their duty tours. i also know that this was true about some of the USO and RED CROSS women who served in country.

VII. BOTH are little known, seldom discussed aspect of my own war (others included the so-called KHAKI MAFIA, VIET TONGS, CHINESE, TRIADS, JAPANESE YAKUZA, STATE DEPARTMENT, CIA/AIR AMERICA, and CIVILIANS ACCOMPANYING THE MILITARY IN THE FIELD) that came into being as the war progressed in RVN, then trickled and flooded back into CONUS.

VIII. JESSICA LYNCH - as i recall the events surrounding her, it was the US ARMY that tried to reate HER image as a ferocious fighter, not her. from what i remember of the event, she was injured in the crash of her vehicle and incapacitated almost at the start of the fight. she never claimed to have been anything but wounded and then a POW.

XIX. THE actual ferocious combatants turned out to a lanky jug eared soldier ( a motor pool mechanic i think), and a small never IDed (to my knowledge) male soldier from her unit. these two men both fought until they were out of ammo and could not get anymore rounds for their weapons before surrendering.

THE events leading up to and the ambush of the convoy she was part of are pretty typical guerilla war events .

BOTH LYNCH, another woman (an ARMY captain, MEDICAL CORPS, i think) were captured, as well as multiple male soldiers were taken POW and brutally treated by the IRAQUIs (in the "best traditions of THIRD WORLD warfare).

DAWGIE

Could a man bear the pain it takes to give birth? How strong does one have to be to be shot at? Pain is pain and it does not come in different categories. No male pain or female pain just pain just as death. Excluding women fromanything is like acknowledging that they do not exists.

If they volunteer for the unit I wouldn't have a problem with it. My grand daughter was the best rifleman in her Guard Unit, best heavy vechicle driver and when they needed her to cross train to run the water purification unit she was selected because their commander felt she was best qualified. When I had women in my Engineer Unit they didn't shirk from hard work and didn't complain because they got promoted as fast as the men. I remember laughing to myself as our dumps pulled out for a mission with our women driving while in the offices I had guys who couldn't drive a 5 ton dump to save their butts let alone shoot a
M-16 good enough to make me feel comfortable. I loved those Tom-Boys. We have read for years about these military women running machine gun turrets in convoys, flying choppers, preforming MP duties and as result getting wounded or killed. They are losing their limbs just like their male counterparts. They are already doing the job, many have the aptitude to do the combat mission as well as their male counterparts. They have the mental toughness to survive in combat. The old Soviet Red Army and Israelie Army didn't have a problem with this and we all know that they could kick butt. Besides, as long as we don't have a draft we need men and women willing to go into combat. We have a Congress that talks tough until it comes time to wear the uniform, both parties.

Let Sarah Palin at 'em, A pit bull with lipstack! That will curdle their milk!

As others have said, when you are getting your back side kicked do you really care who bails you out? It used to be the "colored" soldiers were no good, now it is women and gays. Times change people and it is time to let anyone who can do the job do it. All the soldiers today volunteer. What more do you need. These people want to do the job, let them do it and be proud of what they do. The saying we used to have was that we "are all green."

not so much "green" anymore, but some weird camo pattern...

It has been said that the women's Army should be named a no-fly zone. It has also been said that the Military belong in the women, but not vice-versa. I agree but missed your opportunity for me to vote.

Women are brought into this world with but one mission. This is to bring life into the world, as ordained by our God, not take it out. They should have no part in combat. We already know that the jobs they did as WACS,WAVS,WAFS, and WASP's made a contribution to the war efforts in the past. Why then do we continue to argue about it. Let's put the ladies to work in the great support roles they once occupied, and let the men get back to negating the roles mothers on all sides have played in building the armies of the world.
Maybe God will again pour out his blessings on our country that is in much need.

If they can pass the physical fitness test that is given, then by all means, go for it. But we all know that unless they are a female bodybuilder, this is impossible. That is why, if we ever see a woman in the SF or SEALs, it will only be because of politcal correctness. Those in Congress who support this type of integration must accept the fate of those women and men. The degredation of performance in a special operations team, even if by a small percentage, could result in the deaths of the entire group.

I think the idea of putting females into combat arms units - as opposed to females being placed in a combat situation due to the necessities of fighting an insurgency on a 360-degree non-linear battefield - is being examined (by the proponents of that integration) from an emotional, rather than logical, perspective. There is a difference between a woman being placed, say for a combat logistics patrol, or for convoy escort duties, temporarily outside the wire and a woman who is with a unit that spends days, weeks, or even months at a time out in sector. Also, I personally feel that this is even being considered for the same reasons as the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell; to cater to the desires a minority of individuals regardless of whether or not it is good for the mission of the service. And that, in fact, should be the deciding factor. The question should be asked, is this good for the military? That, FWIW, is my two cents.

While there are some of my soldiers who may disagree with me, I do believe that women should be alowed to fight along side men. We are supposed to hold the values of equal rights; right? I have worked with some women in the "rear with the gear" and they hold their own. In some cases they go above and beyond the call. I am currently deployed to an undesclosed location in Se Asia. I have three women that work in our logistics department. I would fight along side them anyday, and they would have my back in a fight. We PT togethere, eat, and work (behind the wire) togethere. Plus; when one is allowed to go on patrol with us (usually inside the guntruck) you would be amazed at the looks and remarks that the locals give us. We allways get smiles and thumbs up when they see them. And last but not least. When the fecies hits the rotary cooling device, these girls can get down right mean and nasty. I say Let them fight.

Here's the thing, whether women can do it or not is not issue. The simple fact is that most combat arms units will be filled by men, forever. This is just how it is. The other fact is that the majority of these men are straight, and always will be. Sexual tension is the last thing that an infantry unit needs to be worried about. This will cause massive disciplinary problems, and this transcends the issue of whether or not women can handle it, (which, by in large, they can't). I weigh in at 190 lbs. On average, with all my combat gear, in Iraq, I weighed in at over 300 lbs. I don't know a single woman who can do that. Get real America. Seriously.

Here's the thing, whether women can do it or not is not issue. The simple fact is that most combat arms units will be filled by men, forever. This is just how it is. The other fact is that the majority of these men are straight, and always will be. Sexual tension is the last thing that an infantry unit needs to be worried about. This will cause massive disciplinary problems, and this transcends the issue of whether or not women can handle it, (which, by in large, they can't). I weigh in at 190 lbs. On average, with all my combat gear, in Iraq, I weighed in at over 300 lbs. I don't know a single woman who can do that. Get real America. Seriously.

Most women can't meet those standards. And anywhere there are WM's, there have to be facilities in place to accommodate their needs. We don't have the time or the training staff to basically cater to the whims of certain individuals.

Whoever that was that said if we have to go, they should have to go too hit the nail on the head.

And there's a difference between manning a mod deuce and being an 03. A monkey could run a machine gun as long you as made sure he didn't fire outside of his lane.

good enough for israel russia and a lot of other countries..they can be as hard as men

'am retiered soldier and supervice 5 woman but we were never in combat, but 'am sure that we would made alwright in combat, everybody wants equlity and freedom the bad part about it is that it cost alot, alot alot,and I belived that if anybody wants part of this freedom and equality they most fight for it and thats to include Mexican alients

Being in the Navy for 21 years, I found that woman at time will be detrimental to the working of a unit. Now I must say that my Daughter was in the Army Reserves and spent 1 year Iraq. I and here engineering unit felt she did a good job. But there are alway problems that come up. In a supply unit on a sub tender a fellow chief said that you would have 4 to 7 days a month that the woman in his unit would be on light duty. When moving large amounts of supplies, he and the fellow men in the unit did all the heavy lifting.
It is like putting Woman on Submarines, what a fiasco it would become. You have 150 men working together and you put several woman in between that and all you have is trouble while being under water for 70 days.

Wouldn't want to wish that hell on another segment of humanity. And it is hell when they are captured by these scum. But if they sign a waiver and truly desire it, and meet training requirements. I know there are some that can excell and do it. Israel has proven that long ago. I just don't want some careerist woman field grade office chomping at the bit for more promotion opportunities as a motivation. We've got enough perfumed princes in command.

The reality is that there is absolutely no intelligent, logical, sensible reason for women not to be in combat roles with the technological style of warfare that abounds today.

Thanks

usb flash drive

Women have fought in combat in/for this country since the days of the
Revolutionary war. Check out the history!
This is not a new issue in the USA - so let's spend time on a cause
that needs attention - like proper care for returning soldiers.

It's a sad day when America needs women to fight their battles.

Urinating in water bottles and on the floor of the humvee during a 500 mile convoy is typical when 2 guys are teamed up. But it would be a little difficult for a woman to piss into the neck of one of those water bottles while driving. And I always hated trying to catch up to the convoy at night in blackout , when stopping to take a dump. Front line maneuver units function at a faster pace and intensity without females. But I'm sure the first wave of a Chinese Army invasion of Taiwon would be men.
The second occupation wave could consist of women in medical, logistic, linguistic and intelligence
roles as to stablize a Chinese victory on the island. Women are needed, such as the Russian snipers during the battle for Stalingrad. But it would be moreso the Taiwonese women defending their homeland. American women could easily serve as a homeland defense force if a state like Florida or California experianced a Chinese amphibious landing. American forces could easily defend from the Appalacian Mountains and Rocky Mountains. But the midwest cropland and coastal resupply routes would be blocked by the Chinese control of coastal seaports and power stations. In the end as America waged an unconventional war in the deciduous forests and mountains of the USA, women of child bearing age would serve a vital purpose in producing a continuous fighting force during a protracted conflict. American women could also serve as vital intel gatherers, when gifted in the language arts of the oppposing country, they could then seduce their generals and politicians and obtain critical information, which could utilized to repel the foreign invaders during a protracted 10 year conflict. But I do agree, that when that time of the month comes, it would make it harder to urinate in a water bottle while driving along a gravel road at night in the appalacian mountains.
But they tend to be good snipers, before the first trimester.

Hopefully when they reinstitute the draft, then woman can serve in the infantry, armor and engineering units. Eventually the commander in chief will be a woman, and women will be brought into units that were an all male occupation. Eventually front line units will consist of advanced automated vehicles and robots. And a secondary force of genetic huminoid type warriors could be held in reserve that are influenced by mind control and propoganda.
Almost like us, but a little smarter. And if the commander in chief turns out to be a middle aged woman going throuh menopase and hot flashes, then the second runner up, or the speaker of the house should lead a full blown bonzai charge consisting of thousands of automated tanks, airborne drones and satalite based laser and missle stations into a full frontal assault on the empires army.
I am sure that this would be worse than the four horsemen riding side saddle. women can give birth, which is pretty painful, and bloody. and women are also capable of killing their own children, so I guess they can push the button or kill in combat without any regrets. Give them a chance at war, they
may actually become better than men at waging it.

I would leave that choice to the individual ladies.
As far as exposure of private body parts, that is a cultural issue. Ask any naturist who spends his weekend days on a naturist beach or at a nudist resort and he will tell you will get used to it. You get desensitized to the issue. Time and place has a lot to do with the issue of whether nudity is a sexual issue or a non-sexual issue.
We men have been exploited for too long by the purveyors of porn and have been conditioned to believe that a women's body is a commodity to be exploited.

In a combat uniform and a combat situation, there is no eroticism. Only unit cohesion.

This is the ultimate opportunity to overcome errors in our cultural conditioning.

Richard

Wow, I like the idea of women giving birth to snipers, machine gunners and nuclear artillary officers, they are creating an entire fighting force right in the uterus! We could have won Vietnam if they wouldn't have given birth to them hippies. And I'd like to see an entire submarine of women, with one torpedoe man aboard.

I was at a nudist beach with my Glock, holstered to my hip, but everyone got a little upset when I urinated in the hot tub. A nudist beach aint the same as Omaha, Sword or Iwo Jima.
My wife still screams when I piss on the toilet seat. Cant see the rationale. Who was that girl who did the beach party movies in the early sixties. General Annette Funichello?

I guess I could urinate in front of a female 1st LT, if I was a PFC. But I don't think I could push out a steamer in front of her, unless she was comfortable with the smell and I didn't have any TP.
War is 90 percent eating, drinking, urinating , cleaning weapons, wrighting letters or texting and reacting to crazy circumstances. Another thing, I would hate to have her helmit cam on me when something goes down. Remember this is a digital IPOD war, no media coverage at all.

Gender doesn't always make the soldier better or worse. I think it should be on a case by case basis and with an adequate training a performance evaluation made for both. "Gomers" can cause just as much hardship to a unit as anyone else. To generalize that all men are made for combat is ridiculous. To generalize that all women are "nuturing and motherly" is by far a stretch. Watch the "Lioness" if you think this isn't already a part of the call to arms. Can women out perform their counter parts? Some can. I believe we are limiting our readiness by leading with emotions. So, guys....don't feel sorry for a woman that may opt to serve in combat...feel sorry for the "Gomer" that had no choice and puts you all at risk. How many of those have you seen in your lives?

In all the fighting our Country has had, there has been women doing there part, the problems are our leaders don't know to handle women Give them some respect and let them do there part. Disabled seabee 16 yrs and paralyzed and our President is cutting our benefits, when I fall I have to lay till some one hears me and picks me up, Just remember what you do when you VOTE.

dj3Idaho (not verified)

March 31, 2011 - 2:03pm

Permalink

Unless that protective wiring has been undone, a man will do what he has to to protect any female he knows.

the above is a quote from someone. that wiring will never be undone, at least not by any MAN worth the title. that said, if the person next to you needs protecting, will you be LESS likely to protect if it's another guy. get real. in combat, everyone worth a damn will protect the ones next to him. or her. that way, you all get to go home together.

As the father of 4 grown women, and 3 grown men (a merged family), and the husband of a wonderful wife I can assure you that women can hold their own when the going gets tough. Our daughters and my wife are independent for sure, and can match the guys when it counts. What they may lack in physical strength they more than make up for with determination, perseverance, devotion to a cause (duty), planning to the nth degree, and carrying out the mission. When one daughter graduated boot camp at Ft. Jackson in the '80s it was very obvious that the greatest achievers were the women - in shooting awards, PT awards and performance awards. Am I biased? All 3 sons served their country in the Army, Navy and Air Force and I could not be prouder, but given a goal, I'd match the women with the guys anytime. Let them serve under the same standards as all soldiers have to and let us make sure that all soldiers are treated the same way.

there is no place for romance in combat situations .

women put men at risk. if she is in a situation men will risk more for her safety. and put every body a t risk.

If you can keep a bullet outta my backside and do your due, I don't care, man.

Back in the late eighties this was a huge subject during field medical service support school at camp pennleton Ca. we had 5 or 6 woman training with us. They for most part did just fine. I believe the question was not one of are women able to do the job but what thier effect would be on thier male counterparts. The ideal at the time was a man would be better off putting a bullet in her head as combat began in order to save those who would sacrafice themself to save a woman. That was then and that line of thinking was sexest and stupid. Honestly back then that is the way I felt. Today I feel completly different it is my belief that anyone willing to volenteer for military service who are capable should be allowed to serve no matter what thier sex, race, color creed or sexual orientation is. The days of the draft are gone and we now have a much stronger and profesional military to serve and protect our nations interests.

Females and males both are soldiers first in any branch of the military. Female pilots to female crew chiefs to the admin clerk or any other job they preform . They all have been trained to fight, all I have to say is let them.

Every Military Service has different requirements and conditions that impact on this challenge. However, in the US Army, as a retired Armor & MI officer, I always believed "every soldier - an infantryman!" There are no front lines anymore and our highly specialized Army must still defend itself anytime, anywhere. However, should women serve as combat soldiers in combat battalions or special forces? As a rule no. The exceptions (there always are exceptions) should only be female soldiers with specialties necessary as augmentees for combat battalions and special forces to perform their mission. We REALLY need to stop political correctness dictating the outcome of tactical and strategic challenges to our Republic. We also need flag officers, particularly at retirement age, willing to stand up and speak the truth to national political leadership. Sun Tzu disciplined the cortessans to obey military orders - but he did not take them into battle.

Every soldier an infantryman! If that was the mentality that was to enabled every military unit to rotate in and out of Iraq and Afghanistan, Every soldier trained on the same level, on all weapons systems to do be able to do the same job. Then that's what should be done. If your in a military uniform you should all be proficient in the basic skills of an infantryman, ergo you should be able to pull your weight and your buddy. I believe that if men and women alike want to choose equal jobs the standard should not vary an inch, set the bar and pass or fail, if you pass the more power to you, if not that's it your out. there should be no other options, if your fit for one your fit for all, if your fit for none your fit for none, Women are in combat! It's the slack and difference in standards that will get people killed on the battlefield, when something does go wrong. Can the cook or the clerk, pull the weight of an infantry man? they better. In today's modern warfare we don't choose our battleground, the enemy is using guerrilla warfare, the enemy are cowards, that look for the weak links in our system and exploit them. Every soldier better be ready! Man and woman.

Yes, if they want equal right, equal risk.
Last few wars have no fronts, soft targets are now front line, so they are already in combat.

Definitely! It should not matter what gender, color, sexual orientation, etc., a person is. Let our young Americans, who want it, serve their Country proudly. Do not stereotype or discriminate. On another note, perhaps more Women in combat areas will bring a new perspective. If they can pass the same physical, mental and aptitude tests required of their male counterparts, let them serve proudly in combat.

I was just searching for this information for a while. After 6 hours of continuous Googleing, finally I got it in your website. I wonder what is the Google's problem that doesn't rank this type of informative sites closer to the top. Generally the top sites are full of garbage.

Special Ops is not all about combat, it is much more, which is why language skills are required and women can konteyner

They would break down in the condition of war or extreme training enviorments. A physical test is not what is needed. It would need to be an enviormental study of the break down of womens body during prolonged field operations. Infantry soldiers endure conditions for long periods of time without proper heygene and poor living condition such as exposer to elements. So take one these superwomen to a jungle or desert have them sleep in a fox hole or on the ground, no showers or hot chow then lets see what happens to their body then. Pushups, 2 mile run and some situps or draging a body is not going to prove anything at all.

Pages

Add new comment

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.
Have a tip for us? A link that should appear here? Contact us.
News from the World of Military and Veterans Issues. Iraq and A-Stan in parenthesis reflects that the author is currently deployed to that theater.