"Female Marines on women in combat: 'We're ready'" Topic

Love the references to WWII Soviet and general guerrilla experience.

If you are going to use those examples, then look at what those forces did after the war – they demobbed the women. Interestingly the groups that had the highest numbers and percentages of women in combat roles were also Communists who had a doctrine of sexual equality. That didn't stop the JNA from switching back to an all male military. Soviets retained a few women but not a significant number.

As I noted previously, for PC reasons the experience of every military that has had significant numbers of women in combat is going out the window.

Insofar as blacks, blacks have served in the military from the start, including the Revolution. There were periods of and differing levels of discrimination, but they served.

P.S. Having worked in construction and mining, I have never seen women producing at the same level as men in manual labor. A major percentage of that work is automated these days and so there are women operating equipment but very few doing any significant manual labor. Biology still trumps politics in that situation.

"Policy should be dictated by generals not by junior ranks."-ochoin

The problem is generals are being forced to endorse political agendas or they can kiss their careers good bye.

@Skarper

Please no wishful thinking…

And please no more jabs at our masculinity it does nothing to prove your point.

"As for lugging loads greater than 100lbs over rough terrain? Why is that so necessary anyway?"-

You really don't have any concept of what the infantry does yet you still feel entitled to an opinion!

For those that don't understand or have never experienced the infantry. Our "snivel gear" usually consisted of just rain gear, poncho and poncho liner, it was of minimal weight. The real weight comes from carrying extra ammunition, batteries the size of bricks, communication wire rolls and components for crew served weapons.

If the military could make all of that lighter tomorrow they would just make a soldier carry more of it to be competitive with the enemy. (i.e. bullets weigh half as much as they used to great they can carry twice as many)

I am an active duty Army officer and my basic branch is Infantry. Women are serving in combat now. They have been since the first Gulf War back in 1991. The medical team that was in direct support of my unit in the 101 ABN (AASLT) contained women as did the front line aviation units. In 2004 my first road movement on Route Irish in Baghdad was in a convoy lead by a woman platoon leader and in a vehicle with woman vehicle commander and woman turret gunner. In 2012-13 I worked in a cell that was responsible for the Combat Support Teams, the women that accompanied the Rangers and SOF units in Afghanistan.
The nation's demographics do not support male-only units. There are not enough qualified, mentally and physically fit men willing to join the military.
I recently completed a 12 month tour in one of our war zones. Women are on the front lines and doing just fine. They deserve the opportunity to fully participate in the Nation's defense and given full access to the paths to promotion and professional success.
Mike

@Rakkasan

Medical, aviation and support teams are not combat arms DON'T even try to compare them!

While you are commenting would you care to address any of the points I have made so far?

SOME women could serve as well as MANY men and better than SOME. MOST women could not usefully serve in a combat role but neither could MANY men.

I think the logic of this defeats some posters. Nobody is saying ALL women should be able to serve in combat units but some of us are questioning the argument that ALL are incapable or that it would somehow erode combat efficiency.

I wouldn't advocate change without the ramifications being fully thought through. But the military is innately conservative. A lot of what they do is based on tradition and this leads to a fear of change. I understand this but sometimes they are wrong. Maybe they are wrong on this too. Maybe not. I don't pretend to have all the answers.

Rakkasan's points are well made and hard to counter. Women are so close to the front line [if that still exists in a meaningful manner] that they become casualties, prisoners and have to engage the enemy in combat at times.

The world has changed and so has the kind of wars the US and others get themselves into. There will not be as much 'combat' for the combat arms to do. There will be a lot of armed policing and peace keeping. Of course you still need to train for and be capable of combat but more and more in the future combat units will not be deployed in full combat roles.

Probably a lot of combat units should be reformed as combat capable military police units.

"SOME women could serve as well as MANY men and better than SOME. MOST women could not usefully serve in a combat role but neither could MANY men."- Skarper

You have a point Skarper. The problem is a handful of women will be held up as examples. Over time that gets blurred into all women can do it. Fast forward to the future and they are being drafted into infantry units. As long as the politicians don't threaten or order the military to water down the standards or create an affirmative action program some could reasonably serve in combat arms.

However that does nothing to address pregnancy, fraternization or sexual politics and no amount of "training" or punishment will make that go away.

"A lot of what they do is based on tradition and this leads to a fear of change"- Skarper

Enough with the fear talk or insults to masculinity you really cannot resist. There is no fear there are real concerns and as soon as they get voiced that does not make someone afraid. No one on this thread has even implied they were afraid. By saying that you automatically award yourself some moral high ground. Its a very poor debate tactic and I am calling you on it…

"Rakkasan's points are well made and hard to counter. Women are so close to the front line [if that still exists in a meaningful manner] that they become casualties, prisoners and have to engage the enemy in combat at times."- Skarper

Rakkasan cited his personal experiences with medical, aviation and support units then he implies because women serve in this capacity they will make good infantry. I called him on it. Its not something I would expect you to understand Skarper since you never served in that capacity so please no more wishful thinking…

Yes women become casualties at times that is not an issue.

Women rarely get taken prisoner but that is due to the nature of the warfare we are currently fighting. I think it would be naοve to believe that warfare will always be like this from now on. When two countries of comparable ability have a conventional war expect to see entire battalions, brigades and divisions go into captivity.

No one is willing to talk about what could happen to those women or they might return from a war pregnant with the enemies child.

Yes women have to engage in combat at times currently to DEFEND themselves. That does not make them infantry! Does not translate into the rigors of what is expected of infantry.

There seems to have been very little discussion on here of basic female anatomy, and its weakness relative to male physiology when it comes to high-stress/frequent impact activities (eg jumping and walking/running with heavy loads). This study shows women are up to 10 times more susceptible to ligament damage:-

link

Typically, around 92% of career-ending injuries for female athletes in the US are knee-related. The ratio of leg joint injuries for top female and male basketball players in the US is around 9:1. I doubt the women in that demographic are lacking commitment, or mental toughness; it's their bodies that let them down.

By all means use them to provide top-cover on vehicles, and other sedentary (though not necessarily less dangerous) jobs, but for Pete's sakes let's listen to guys on here who have been there, done it, and got the t-shirt (not to mention the replacement knee joints). Marching – even on soft surfaces – and patrolling will take their toll, and the attrition rate will be such that the remaining male members of the unit will be fighting short-handed AND carrying even more kit. The British Army also has female combat medics, but they generally don't carry the same weight as the infantry they serve alongside; they may have to drag/carry an injured man, but this is generally not a prolonged task lasting hours, or even days.

And of course there's one aspect of impaired physical performance in women that we've not DARED to touch on, isn't there? Ignore the mental aspects (and the jokes), when maximum physical effort is called for, this is a very real and serious issue:

link

The units and experiences are not rear echelon. The infantry soldiers in the spots got combat infantry badges. The combat action badge was created to acknowledge that personnel with a MOS other than infantry or medical experience combat too.
The CST were teams walking point with SOF and Ranger units as members or those teams. That is about as front line as you can get. My point is that women are already doing the job and should be granted the same opportunities for training, jobs, and promotions as their male partners.

@ Rakkasan

Those women sound exceptional!

I appreciate the endorsement, Legion! But I hope we are never in a situation where we have to slay bodies together, because then things have REALLY gone Bleeped text up!

Amen to that !!!! I'm far to old and far too large ! LOL !!!

Rakkasan … Rakkasan !!!!!!! I served with 3/187, 3d Bde, 101, '80-'83. Was a Rifle PL in B co.,then Bn S-3 Air. But as you know we didn't have any females in INF units.

And yes, I've read about those "exceptional" gals … And I was very glad when I saw the ARMY was giving a CAB for all MOS. Not just INF and CBT MED, with their CIB and CFMB. Today as we see, not just Grunts are the ones primarily in harms way. That had not be the case since before WWI. Like Horse Cav, they were up front , etc. …

Probably a lot of combat units should be reformed as combat capable military police units.

Not really … a lot of Infantry units still are very appicable to the current paradigm. However, I have heard some other units, like Res FA being converted to MPs.

Still the best way to go after Daesh types is with highly skilled, high trained, agressive, Infantrymen. Operating at night with the mastery of fieldcraft, and Recon, Raid and Ambush patrols. Supported by FA, CAS, etc. … Those of us that are well trained and know how deadly a properly executed L-Shape Ambush can be … Know that is not for MPs or other type units. That is pretty much Grunt territory … And a very effective tactic to take the fight to the enemy …

Intelligence Guided by Experience" was advice often proffered to Archie. Policy should be dictated by generals not by junior ranks.

Policy is dicated by Generals … but on the ground in the dark, it has to be executed by the Pvts, NCOs, LTs and CPTs … And some times things are not just like in the FMs or FTXs back in the USA. Like at Benning, Bragg, Campbell, etc. …

It is cliche' but true enough … Improvise, Adapt and Over come … is how the Plt and Co. level evolve and learn to fight … You do what works …

but for Pete's sakes let's listen to guys on here who have been there, done it, and got the t-shirt

BINGO !!!!

Just because I have never done something does not mean I have no right to an opinion about the activity.

My opinion might carry less weight with some people because of that. Fair enough. I for one don't like it when outsiders try to tell me how to do my job [and there is no shortage of these] but they do still get to have an opinion.

Personally I don't think women will ever serve in combat units in the US military in any more than TINY numbers. Probably not more than 1:100 000 women would be capable of making a positive contribution. I'd guess about 1:100 men are capable of being really effective in combat. Others are just extra bodies. The tricky part is figuring out in peace time which of the men make up that 1:100.

As for the scenario of a large scale war with large US units being taken prisoner I think that is such a remote possibility that it's outside the discussion. Global Nuclear war is much more likely.

Also, a draft is never going to be implemented again. If the US got thru the Iraq/Afghan debacle without resorting to the draft then it is clearly a no go area.

Regardless, women will in any case be in close support roles in any future conflict and become prisoners/casualties anyway. What their MOS is won't matter.

And – unless the fighting takes place on the moon there will also be civilian 'goodies' who become prisoners/casualties of whoever the 'baddies' are. Why is it worse for a volunteer, professional woman soldier [or Marine] to become a prisoner/casualty than for a local woman or girl?

I would hazard a guess that, within 20 years, a few women get into hitherto all male combat units, including and indeed probably starting with special forces. They being less traditional and more flexible will probably be the first.

Technology to help with load bearing – robots and exoskeletons – will also remove many of the strength obstacles.

This will happen regardless of how outraged serving and ex-military types are.

There are plenty of people in the military already who are ineffective and should never have been allowed into combat units. Not a large number but they do exist. It would be a plus if a few [a very few] highly capable women could replace some of these.

"This will happen regardless of how outraged serving and ex-military types are."- Skarper

Can't resist the personal jabs…

And for the record I am not outraged.

You can create whatever fictional future you want to justify your points that does not make them valid.

"the elephant in the room is how basic human sexuality undermines unit cohesion….and a combat unit lives & dies by its unit cohesion."- Noble

A true story…

We had a private that married his high school sweet heart right after high school and joined the Army. His wife started having numerous affairs with other men in the platoon. One day the guy finds out what has been happening while we are in the field. Some idiot (think Bunny from the movie Platoon) informed him the ENTIRE platoon was banging his wife and rubbed it in his face.

The private has a nervous breakdown. I am watching emotions flood over him, sadness, shock, rage and disbelief. It was like watching a roulette wheel not sure which emotion it would stop on.

The private happened to have an M16 in his hands with no blank adaptor on it and a magazine in his weapon. I am wondering does he have live ammunition for that thing many men carried lives rounds on training exercises in violation of policy. He also had a replica Rambo knife on his LBE and a machete sticking out of his rucksack.

The platoon leader and platoon sergeant try to talk him down and request he turn over the weapon. When he fails to respond they order him to turn over the weapon but the private is mentally gone…

I am worried the private might think I was with his wife.

Eventually the roulette wheel of emotions stops and the private settles on shock. The platoon leader disarms the man and arranges for his immediate transport to the rear.

The end result that private was never taken to the field ever again he could not be trusted due to no fault of his own. He became slightly unhinged after this and was given a discharge.

This is just one example of sexual politics destroying unit cohesiveness I could site others.

Women already serve in combat. The only difference with this announcement is that Pentagon rules and bureaucratic paperwork are catching up with the realities of the battlefields, operating rooms, VA hospitals, and cemeteries where female soldiers have already been fighting, bleeding, getting maimed, healed and buried.

Women have been awarded citations for their actions in combat (i.e. killing enemies and saving the lives of their fellow soldiers) that very, very few MALE soldiers will ever earn (even those vets posting to this thread I'm sorry to say).

If anyone really feels certain in their denial of these battlefield, hospital, and cemetery realities then I strongly urge them to contact these women who have earned combat citations such as the Silver Star for killing enemies and saving fellow soldiers, contact the ones wounded in battle and still at VA facilities missing limbs or otherwise mutilated, or contact the loved ones of those killed in combat, and tell these people that these events didn't happen and that they're not really combat veterans. Maybe you can even compare awards when you meet them: your Marksmanship merit badge versus their Purple Hearts and Silver Stars.

Or, really now, maybe we can just and stop dishonoring their sacrifices for OUR freedom.

We're not the Taliban and we're not ISIS. We let individuals achieve all that they can based solely on their talents, capabilities, and personal motivation.

And in this case we're not even dealing with theoretical concerns about boot camp standards being lowered. They've already met the ultimate standards of the freakin' BATTLEFIELD, under fire, and paid the price of admission which very few of us will ever be asked to pay.

but for Pete's sakes let's listen to guys on here who have been there, done it, and got the t-shirt

I agree…

"Staff Sergeant Timothy F. Nein, who also earned a Silver Star that day (later upgraded to a Distinguished Service Cross), paired with the 5-foot-4 Hester to kill the final four insurgents in an irrigation ditch alongside the road. "We need to charge these guys," he recalled thinking. "I thought we were all going to die there."

Hein continued:

So Sergeant Hester and I rolled into the canals and, just before we did, there was a guy who was up by the vehicles – and I believe she shot and killed him. We went to the canals and basically she was behind me the whole time. One of the things we always talked about was that if we had to go head-to-head with somebody, always try to keep our body armor square with the bad guy: that way we had the best ballistic protection from our vest. We stayed squared up.

The pair crept along a ditch, tossing grenades and firing their M-4 rifles at the enemy, who was firing back with AK-47s.

I stepped off to the left and she shot two 203s, but she couldn't get them low enough because they were about 50 meters in front of us at that time. I told her we just had to keep on going and so we started throwing grenades and shooting our M-4s. She would shoot over my right shoulder while I prepared the grenade to throw it, or I would be shooting while she threw a grenade. I had three grenades when I left that morning. I'd already thrown one. I threw two more in the canal off my vest and she had two on her as well. I threw one of hers and she threw one of hers.

Basically five or 10 minutes into the canal system we'd killed the four guys.

In fact, the unit killed 27 insurgents, without losing a single soldier. Hester, 23 at the time, "engaged and eliminated 3 AIF with her M-4 rifle," her Silver Star citation reads.

_________________________

Army Major Christopher L'Heureux, for example, was a company commander in a Stryker brigade in Iraq in 2005-06 when he changed his mind on women in combat. His change of heart came on Oct. 11, 2006, when an explosively-formed penetrator – an especially-deadly kind of IED – blew up one of his Strykers in the Baghdad's Rusafa neighborhood, just across the Tigris River from the U.S. Embassy:

The fuel cells are on the outside in the back and they catch on fire. There are four people in the back; Nick Sowinski who is sitting in the hull. Next to him is LT Bernard Gardner who is outside the back hatch. Those two are closest to the blast.
On the other side of the vehicle is a guy named SSG Beam out the other hatch as well as [Specialist] Van Wirt. The EFP rings Gardner's bell and he doesn't know which way is up; the compartment is full of smoke. The driver and gunner get out; they're fine. Beam loses his leg below the knee, just above the ankle but his wits are completely about him. He is thinking completely crystal clear.

Gardner screams, "Get out of the hatch!" He's kind of spastic and he's bell is rung. Beam was the opposite and was like, "Sir, calm down. I can't get out. We have to get the hatch open. The hydraulics are busted right now. The vehicle is on fire. We can't get the damn door open."
Sowinski is a six-foot-one guy and with all of his kit on he has to weigh 250 pounds.

Van Wirt is about a buck-20 maybe 100 pounds at five-foot-one or two; she's pretty short.

Sowinski was non- responsive…

They also take small arms fire from a roof top about 100 meters away.
The vehicle behind them pulls up and start laying suppressive fire. They drop the ramp and come out. By this time the driver and gunner come out and try to get the damn door open and it's on fire. The fuel cells are literally right there in the back of the Stryker anyway. The finally get the hatch down and the first few people — Beam and the lieutenant — are pulled out.
Van Wirt, all 100 pounds of her, pulls Nick Sowinski out of this burning vehicle with her weapon. Getting in and out of the vehicle with all of your kit on is difficult enough on its own, especially if you add smoke, fire, and the chaos of getting shot at and bullets pinging off the outside of the armor but she does it anyway.

She pulls him out of this burning vehicle!

She's just f—ing awesome!

She pulls him out of this burning vehicle, which is amazing in itself. As she's dragging him back she's shooting one-handed with her M-16 towards the bad guys; completely phenomenal!
…Nobody knows he's dead until I meet them at the CSH [combat support hospital]…

Van Wirt is basically unscratched…

It changed my opinion about where women ought to be in the fight…after this I just thought it didn't really matter. When the chips are down, a good Soldier is a good Soldier and it doesn't really matter.
She was just phenomenal…

"the elephant in the room is how basic human sexuality undermines unit cohesion….and a combat unit lives & dies by its unit cohesion."- Noble

A true story…

Are you suggesting that we ban all males from military units?

:-)

"Or, really now, maybe we can just Bleeped text and stop dishonoring their sacrifices for OUR freedom"- Visceral

No one has dishonored their sacrifices.

It's not personal Dragon Gunner. I assure you.

I think the opinion of serving and ex-military has great weight in this discussion. Great weight. But it is not the only POV that counts.

In the end – the TMP cloud does NOT make the policy on this or other issues. Thankfully.

If I were a gambler [I don't gamble as a point of principle] I'd wager the future I imagined comes to pass.

Sexual issues [politics seems to me the wrong term] from having male and female in the same platoon will no doubt arise. But they can happen among male only platoons as your example illustrates. Gay men are now allowed to serve openly. Is it having any material impact on combat efficiency? I doubt it. We would have heard if it were true. Closeted gays have served FOREVER with many rising to very high rank without any particular problems.

The problem stems from the baggage we bring to the issue.

I'm sure it's very difficult to suppress the baser human emotions and maintain combat cohesion even in peacetime. Doubly so in wartime I expect.

Interesting anecdote but I don't see the relevance.

No one has dishonored their sacrifices.

They've done more to "earn the T-shirt" than most TMP'ers who served and it's insulting to suggest otherwise. I dare anyone here to visit a VA facility and tell a female wounded warrior that she can didn't serve in combat. Heck, there's one serving in congress. Contact her and tell her that she really didn't lose her legs in combat.

And yes, when you're telling a soldier who has ALREADY been in combat that she isn't qualified to serve in combat, you're dishonoring her sacrifice and making a mockery of the REALITY of her service.

They've been there, done that. How many of us can say the same? Not many.

Besides, which should take precedent? A female soldier's actual combat experience or the opinions of media pundits and pencil-pushing Pentagon geeks? I'd side with the combat veterans but YMMV.

The impotent raging of people who cannot influence matters will change nothing.

Women will enter the combat arms of the US military for one simple reason. A group of senior female officers initiated legal action against the DoD because lack of combat arm experience was preventing them reaching the highest positions. Rather than take their slim chance in court the DoD changed policy. Good idea or bad idea? It matters nothing. As KB said, change will happen whether you like it or not.

BTW, this uniquely American situation will eventually be used to justify changing the policy here in Britain as well.

I am really amazed at how many have taken issue with comments and valid points of veterans, particularly the 0300s and 11Bravos.

As to the comment that generals must follow political policy, did anyone pay close attention watching Carter's announcement?
Someone was missing.

a gentleman named Joe Dunford.

Semper Fi, Sir!

Now… who is goind to used female soldiers in your Modern/Ultramodern wargames…? (smile)…

Amicalement
Armand

As my Air Cav buddy Leroy the Cobra pilot used to say, "About time we started bringing our own <insert slang term for female parts here> to the field with us."

Seriously, Rakkasan nailed it. Female soldiers will be as effective and professional as we let them be, despite clowns like my buddy Leroy who was a perve and borderline rapist that I would barely trust with a burned out match, let alone a female, soldier or otherwise!

I'm mainly addressing the ground based infantry type jobs in the military. Almost anyone that can move a joystick, drive a car and at least average physical fitness is physically fit enough to "qualify" to fly a helicopter or even a jet fighter, including females (that does not mean they'll make it through training). Of course ejecting and evading the enemy on the ground is something else. Women have already proven themselves as combat helicopter and jet pilots equal to most men and in some cases better WITHOUT dropping the standards or compromising mission efficiency.

Saying someone "deserves" or has a "right" to serve in combat is arbitrary. All military branches and MOS's have specific qualifications and needs. Try going into a recruiting office of any branch and tell them you have a "right" or "deserve" something or to have a specific job and see what they say. Finding a few exceptions does not make the rule or really change reality.

Just because someone has served in combat, a combat zone or was killed or wounded does not make them qualified for any other job, combat MOS or not. Women have served in many military occupations and in combat areas all over the world going back thousands of years, so have eight year old children. They've both contributed. No doubt about it. Most of the time it was out of necessity, not because it was ideal to have them in combat.

The military fills its openings based on needs and what's available to field the BEST (not PC) force it can. That's what tax paying citizens are expecting (at least the majority). When I enlisted in 1971 the need was great but not much was available. They drafted and dropped their standards. They developed a military of low standards and very bad discipline problems. The solution was an all-volunteer force and they were able to get enough people to fill quotas without the need to drop standards except for a short period in the last 10 years.

I visit the Marine recruiting office a few times a year. They've missed their monthly recruiting quota 2-3 times in the last 20 years. In the first 6 months of 2015 their quota was filled (I'm in northern California). They said the easiest jobs to fill with the most applicants is the infantry MOS's (was not the case in 1971). To better screen applicants and ensure the best they increase the minimum requirements. That only makes sense and is best overall for the Corps and country. No one, male or female, deserves or has a right to ANY job including infantry jobs. That includes All State football linebackers that are 250 pounds, run 3 miles in 18 minutes, have an IQ of 125 and bench press 450 pounds. If he wanted infantry and all slots were filled he may have to wait 3-6 months before an opening comes up. He'll still have to pass a physical and go through training like everyone else. Nothing is guaranteed.

Preference is given for specific jobs if you have exceptional ASVAB scores in specific areas, especially technical or language and there is a NEED at the TIME you enlist. This is extended to females too as far as I know. Additional consideration may or may not be given for minorities or waivers granted for shortcomings in some areas. Their toughest job to fill is for Musicians for the Marine Corps Band and native language speakers for areas we are in combat. Because of the cutbacks there is less need and re-enlistment bonuses cut across the board. The Marines are asking people to leave in many MOS's and have disbanded or cut Company and Battalion level infantry units. The Marines (not sure of other branches) is not hurting for qualified candidates in almost all combat MOS's. Fortunately there is no need at this time to drop standards or to integrate women. Hopefully there never is. It's not a sexist thing.

However, women will be attached to combat units and front line combat units. This is normally temporarily attached when operating in Islamic areas these women do need to be combat trained to a degree to defend themselves and to contribute as part of the team and pull their weight. I'm all for putting them through an all-female training and familiarization course to bring them up to minimum standards the military may establish for that. To put them in harms way without that training is criminal!

A woman (or man) that fails the infantry physical standards and is assigned to being a vehicle driver (my mom's job in the Coast Guard in WWII) and then gets wounded in an ambush is not magically qualified for a combat MOS nor does she/he "deserve" one. They deserve all awards, administrative and combat related. Either one could earn a Silver Star for evacuating wounded, etc. and still not meet the standards for an infantry MOS. It's not a sexist thing.

I know the "exceptions" like Audie Murphy but exceptions do not make the rule. Once you start making exceptions the exceptions soon become the norm and the overall standards drop.

The other problem that does not seem to be addressed is integration. The military overall is a toxic and dangerous environment for women. Just check on the sexual assault cases that are reported. Many infantry units are living in open squad bays and group bathing facilities. Are we going to force a few females to shower along side dozens of 18-20 year old males with raging hormones? Would you want your daughter in that environment? I guess you can call it "equality"?

My son has spent many cold nights on a mountainside "spooning" with multiple male members of his team to keep warm. When the guys on the edge get too cold the crawl into the middle and push someone else to the edge. What is the fraternization regulation on this behavior with females and what does the UCMJ state?

If this PC move is pushed the real causalities will be the well-meaning, excellent and motivated women that decide to sacrifice themselves to this experiment. The real winners will be the career minded officers that can claim a "first" in getting females into combat arms and show the PC politicians that select the Generals and Admirals. They'll show that they are indeed qualified to be a perfumed prince and will blindly obey the PC directives handed down to them from paid lobbyists, special interest groups, radical feminists and feel good hippies left over from the last millennium.

Let's put women in a position where they can contribute and excel, not be victimized or used in some experiment that is doomed to failure (as the Marines have already proven in women in combat MOS training). Again, as I stated at the top, there are women that have already proven themselves in combat jobs where the standards do not seem to have been dropped and integration was not a problem as most were officers,not junior enlisted.

Wolfhag

.I am really amazed at how many have taken issue with comments and valid points of veterans, particularly the 0300s and 11Bravos.

I feel the same.

I'm even more amazed about how many have taken issue with combat vets who have actually fought along side women (see above) and those women who have actually killed enemies in battle and/or been wounded in battle.

It's an attack on those men and women who have fought for OUR freedom in battle to them deny them those very same freedoms. "Thanks for killing tangos for us and sorry bout getting maimed. Now get back in the kitchen or the motorpool cuz you're a woman."

ISIS and the Taliban treat people that way, not freedom loving Americans who value the individual right to be everything we can be.

It's odd that so many say, "The terrorists hate our freedoms" and then we rush to deny fellow Americans their freedom.

The argument against this based on perceived sexual encounters goes squarely against the long standing canon that the military, and combat units in particular are a brotherhood.

Everything in my limited experience with female soldiers, and from debating this issue with actively serving male and female soldiers is that the women get treated like sisters, not pieces of @$$.

Yeah, the bad guys won't necessarily behave the same way, but you assume the risk of being captured when you sign up and the female soldiers know that going in. And trust me they are worried more about getting molested by pervs like my buddy Leroy than daesh or the talibunnies.

Wolfhag,

The two examples that I cited were ground combat.

A 120 pound soldier dragged a 250 pound soldier from a burning AFV while firing her M16 one handed.

The other soldier assaulted an enemy trench with her M4 and frags.

Those were not experiments. They were reality.

As for the risk of sexual assault, I have to disagree with your defense of rapists.

It's asinine to say that a female should be excluded from activities where males might be present because the males might be unable to control themselves. That's literally how the Taliban justify the forced separation of men and women and the wearing of the burkha. I would never rape someone. Do you have any such concerns about your own self control? Your male relatives? Friends? Do you believe that your own son would be unable to control himself?

By your rationale, women should be banned from schools, offices, factories, and sports. Sounds pretty much like you share ISIS and Taliban views on the subject. Do you support all aspects of Sharia law or just this one?

And if you're naive enough to think male POWs are not raped then you have no business weighing in on this. Just ask the U.S interrogators who sodomized Iraqi prisoners with broomsticksm ;-)

I'm pretty sure that most of us here support the second amendment.

But I'm pretty sure that we also agree that most American males lack the tactical training to use a firearm effectively under combat conditions, especially CQB. Most guys lacking that training are a risk to all around them, not just bad guys. And the fact is that many gun deaths are from suicides.

Should we ban ALL American males from owning firearms because MOST lack the formal tactical training to use them effectively? Or because some might use them on themselves or family members, the most common cause of gun deaths?

Should we ban ALL American males from buying firearms because some, like the guy and his wife in California, might use them for terrorist purposes?

Yeah, thought so.

If we're willing to allow ALL American males the opportunity to buy guns, even the idiots/suicidals/terrorists, maybe we should let all Americans the opportunity to fight for their country.

After all, women have already done it. We're just back dating the paperwork.

It is interesting that the fact that women have performed well in specific combat situations are considered to trump all of the biological, anatomical, and other reasons offered against a blanket policy of opening up combat units to women.

I would bet money that post WWII the Soviets and Jugoslavs for example had thousands of stories like these. Israelis probably had a few as well.

Every military that has had large scale experience with women in combat units has reversed that policy after the emergency situation that inspired it was past.

The particular concern in the case of the US is that as with police, firefighters, non-combat military MOSs, etc. once the action is taken, standards will be lowered due to politics.

And ultimately very few who are pushing this will pay the price.

P.S. As noted in a comment above, children have fought and performed heroically in combat as well. Matter of fact there are quite a few teen aged boys out there that are more physically capable than most of women. Doesn't mean we should draft 14 year olds or let them enlist.

Frankly there have probably been far more adolescent boys who have fought and died than women who have fought.

P.P.S. Apples and oranges VIS. And no one has the right to get other people killed as the result of their inability to adequately perform their duties.

p.p.P.S. As to the sexual assault aspect that is a separate issue, but insofar as treating females in the military as 'sisters,' then incest is rampant.

VIS, you've gone off the deep end.

I have no doubt that some women can qualify for numerous positions in the military, and can do them well. Some, perhaps better than men in a number of cases.

However, that isn't the issue.

Introducing sexual dynamics into the fighting units on a widespread level is, and personally, I don't think it is a good idea. As the independent study shows, it impacts adversely on a unit's combat effectiveness and cohesion.

The decision has been made, so it is a moot point.

It will be interesting to see how it plays out, especially since we all know that the codes of conduct, and other regulations getting ignored regularly in secret, all the time. I suspect we only hear about 1% of the violations that have occurred, while many, many others are swept under the rug.

ScoutJock:
Perceived sexual encounters: link

Tell DoD there is no problem as your friends unit treats them as sisters. Maybe tell the thousands and thousands of women that have reported and not reported it everything is OK. Tell them to transfer to your friends unit.

Yes, evidently enlisted and officer males in the service have a problem controlling themselves. Males get raped too but that does not change the situation whether there is a NEED to integrate women into line combat arms units.

OK guys, I'm sure we all have our social engineering agendas here. Again, a few exceptions don't make the rule nor does an individuals limited experience. Women and men are not equal – they are different. Let's play to their strengths. Respect women and protect them. There's a reason there are mens and womans sports, it's to give the woman a place to compete. If a woman could run the football like Marshan Lynch she'd be in the NFL but again that would be an exception as no team would fill their roster with 100% women.

Viseral Impact: I didn't think my remarks would have such a viseral impact on you. Defending rapists??? Not sure where you picked that up. I'm not even saying it's the woman's fault, never is. Is it asinine to want to protect women from sexual assault or put her in a situation where there is a better chance of it happening? Not me. Is there any father out there that would want their daughter dressing and showering with a few dozen other 18-22 year old guys? If there is that's fine by me. We can agree to disagree.

Nice try on the personal attack. Sorry to disappoint, no I'm not a Taliban nor do I advocate any your extreme response or nonsensical jumping to conclusions. I'm not even going to call it logic. Save it. I'm been through this with trolls more talented than you. I'm not going to stoop to your level.

Do your own research on the problem of sexual assault in the military and how woman are treated when they attempt to file a report. Look at the results that the Marines have had with women enlisted and officer infantry training. Sure, some will make it. But it's a PC tactic not dictated by the needs of the service.

Is integrating more men and women together IN LINE COMBAT UNITS (not all units like you trolls are trying to insinuate) at the junior enlisted going to make the sexual assault problem better or worse? I say worse. If you say better or the same or not a problem to begin with we can agree to disagree. Again, why risk it when the service has no need to.

Does the military NEED to integrate woman into LINE COMBAT UNITS with junior enlisted because we can't get enough qualified male recruits? I say no but we can agree to disagree.

If women cannot be at the top military positions because they don't have combat command experience then change the rule that will let them. Our commander in chief rarely does. I don't have a problem with that. It may well be males protecting their domain. Woman as head of JCS? No problem for me.

It's bad enough woman are victimized in civilian occupations. The military should be a safe sanctuary for them and more honorable. From the reports that DoD puts out it is not and the stats show it's getting worse. Very disappointing. I say let the military get their house in order and show a real need before continuing the experiment.

Wolfhag

Wolfhag,

You make a compelling argument for tighter recruiting standards and more aggressive prosecution of perps on the military.

Unfortunately, COs get to investigate their own organizations for sexual assaults. And, shockingly, they tend not to find them. Citing incompetent and corrupt officers as a reason to deny freedom to all Americans is blaming the victim and belongs in the 1950s.

So I would recommend that instead of applying Sharia law to American women, we reform the military justice system.

And no, I didn't make a personal attack. It was you who cited your son spooning with other young men and the uncontrollable sexual urges of young people that lead them to rape one another. I just disagree with you and believe that with the right leadership, a sane military justice system, and adherence to American values we don't need to impose Sharia law here.

Just because I have never done something does not mean I have no right to an opinion about the activity.

My opinion might carry less weight with some people because of that. Fair enough. I for one don't like it when outsiders try to tell me how to do my job [and there is no shortage of these] but they do still get to have an opinion.

Everybody is entitled to an opinion …

I think what we are seeing here, is that females can and do perform well in combat units … But as Infantryman and Tankers … probably not …

The "spooning" is self preservation with clothes on to keep from freezing to death while on an operation (not in an air conditioned FOB), nothing homoerotic. They call it spooning themselves, just making an example of the close confines that are represented in mixing the sexes and if it breaks a UCMJ code and if those issues have been addressed. Sorry if it was misinterpreted.

The uncontrollable urges are documented in the DoD reports, not my opinion. Why do the stats keep going up? I can't understand it. This is a much better military than when I was in. There are even reports of JAG Attorneys representing or prosecuting sex assault cases that are offenders themselves.

A Taliban approach would be to totally isolate all women from men. If I inferred that I correct myself. You brought up the Sharia Law of which I in no way condone.

From 1976-1991 I did staffing for mid east projects for US and foreign based companies. Including the first Gulf War, Saudi Arabian National Guard (Vinnel Corp), Saudi Air Force (McDonnell Douglas), Saudi Navy (SNEP)and other defense support projects including the KKMC facilities. I've entertained Arab businessmen for contracts with the Royal Commission in Yanbu and Jubail and have had lunch with members of the Saudi Royal Family. I'm probably more familiar with the Wahhabi sect of Islam and Sharia Law than most people you'll meet. When I was in that business I also gave hundreds of lectures on employment in the mid east and the cultural differences and what to expect as a Westerner once you get there.

My son has traveled on three different continents to hunt down and kill the Taliban/Jihadi types that want to implement Sharia Law and mistreat women with my full support. He controls his urges and respects women in his unit and I remind him to stick up for and protect them whenever he comes home. He's doing a great job at it too. They have women in their unit that function as analysts and don't deploy forward like he does. He said they make a great team. I know his Platoon Leader who is a female. She's a good officer.

We both agree on the military justice system getting revamped.

Good discussion, thanks.

Wolfhag

Yes, I know about spooning too. At a BSA meeting right now. Last year my son won award for best survival shelter in his troop. Local farm near ATL allows the troop to cut down trees for survival training. He trimmed branches and cut down a small tree with his knife. 8-O

:-)

And a career in the military is a possibility for him. He's thinking navy. He speaks english, german, japanese, and wants to learn chinese and latin as base for romantic languages. Navy intel? :-)

@ Visceral

"and tell a female wounded warrior that she can didn't serve in combat"

I don't recall ever saying that so please don't make things up and present them as fact.

"And yes, when you're telling a soldier who has ALREADY been in combat that she isn't qualified to serve in combat, you're dishonoring her sacrifice and making a mockery of the REALITY of her service."

I never said they didn't serve in combat. My concern is what kind of infantry they will make and how their presence might impact combat effectiveness.

If you want to make a point Visceral please by all means quote me and do it in the context that it was presented.

"Interesting anecdote but I don't see the relevance"- Skarper

I would not expect you to see it!

I find it amusing that we think that women are somehow protected, like this decision suddenly throws them to the dogs. Very few countries survive modern war without civilian casualties, America being one of the few to not suffer the casualties of bomber raids on civilian population centers (Hawaii excluded).
We need a reality check we no longer don shako and pelisse and march in line to battle in some farmers field, and even then the civilians were not safe. The future is coming and even in the past both sexes fought now women can at least get training. All we need to do is look at what is happening in Africa and in Kurdish territories to realize that female soldiers have long been here and this decision only opens our old eyes.

I as well am a Veteran of 21 years in the military.

I have also known a few females that would have handled the grunt aspect of the military.

Remember their are many roles in most of our combat squads, which for the most part are also Mechanized.

Yes this is a PC move by our current government.

Yes a 100 pound female cannot hump 40-60 pounds of gear for eight hours but then again quite a few men can't either.

Oh and if they get deployed to a real combat area guess what they will not be humping 40-60 pounds of gear either day in and day out.

The job and training will weed out the ladies that cannot cut it.

But as Infantryman and Tankers … probably not …

Why not?

Are you saying that they couldn't hump the rounds for a tank? Or change out the track?

There have been females that fought in other Wars and the Israel military uses females in combat units today.

The few, the foolish…

"As the Islamic State amped up attacks around the world, the Pentagon responded by bravely announcing that American women will now be put in direct ground combat.

Whereupon "military intelligence" secured a permanent place in the Encyclopedia of Oxymorons

The new decree opens 220,000 military jobs to women — including Army Special Operations forces and the Navy SEALs…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

Israel currently allows women to be in 92% of all military positions. As for their effect on the ability of units
link

Why not?

Are you saying that they couldn't hump the rounds for a tank? Or change out the track?

Ah yeah … But as a vet you know that. For the non-vets … if you have not seen or did either of these critical tasks … well … it's not that easy. And the stronger and in some cases bigger you are, the "easier" it is …

All we need to do is look at what is happening in Africa and in Kurdish territories to realize that female soldiers have long been here and this decision only opens our old eyes.

That is because they have no choice.

Israel currently allows women to be in 92% of all military positions.

Yes, that makes sense and again, they are surrounded by enemies or potential enemies. I'm pretty sure the US military already allows about 92% of it positions open open to females …

Just because I have never done something does not mean I have no right to an opinion about the activity.

My opinion might carry less weight with some people because of that. Fair enough. I for one don't like it when outsiders try to tell me how to do my job [and there is no shortage of these] but they do still get to have an opinion.

AS I said, everybody is entitled to an opinion. But as pointed out some's opinion carry less weight than others. Especially is you have never actually served in an Infantry or Armor units, even FA for that matter and add CEs to that list.

There are many things that those who have not served have no idea what it is like to be a combat arms soldier. Yes, females have been and are seeing combat. But it is different if you are a Grunt or Tanker actively "hunting" the enemy. And again, if you never have been in that situation … I feel you really don't understand. IMO … of course …

This is all still raging around the basic fact, it is going to happen and all the grognards are not going to stop it.

The tales of pending doom should be viewed in the context of another issue that was once accepted as an obvious truth. When I signed up homosexual behaviour was an offence under military law here in the UK. Some really ridiculous things were regarded as suspicious indicators. Later it was decriminalised but regarded as undesirable and warrented dismissal. Then it was tolerated so long as it didn't involve the individuals duties. Now it is irrelevant. My point is that all this has happened and the world didn't end.

While I share others discomfort at the idea of women in the "teeth" arms it has happened before and it will come to pass. If equipment or tactics need to change make those changes. If the capacity to fight is diminished get used to it and find another solution.

ISIS and the Taliban treat people that way, not freedom loving Americans who value the individual right to be everything we can be.

Glad there's no hyperbole here. Have ISIS/Taliban finally replaced Nazi's in Godwin's Law?

Most special ops forces opposed to integrating women…

"Special operations forces overwhelmingly opposed opening their jobs to women, according to a study that explored integrating the forces under U.S. Special Operations Command.

The study was part of a trove of documents the Defense Department posted online over the weekend after Defense Secretary Ashton Carter announced all combat jobs will be open to women.

In his announcement, Carter specified that women will "be able to serve as Army rangers and green berets, Navy SEALS, Marine Corps infantry, Air Force parajumpers and everything else that was previously open only to men."…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand