"The Truth About Women in Ground Combat Roles" Topic

"Women have long been an integral part of the U.S. military, having performed admirably—in some cases, heroically—in Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom. Over the past month and a half a succession of some of the nation's most powerful civilian and military leaders have lauded the recent decision to remove all restrictions on what jobs women can fill in the U.S. Armed Forces. Lifting the ban, they say, will make the military stronger. They are wrong.

The very best outcome we can hope for is that the Armed Forces' abilities will remain static. The most likely outcome, however, is that there will be some degradation in the units that are charged with some of the most critical roles: closing with and destroying enemy forces. Lifting the restrictions was, no doubt, designed to elevate the stature of women and give them an opportunity in the military equal with men. The result of the move, unfortunately, is likely to be that we'll place women at a disadvantage and put them in a danger greater than that faced by men in combat.

President Obama commended the December 3 decision by Secretary of Defense Ash Carter to open all combat jobs to women. He said that, as commander in chief, he knows "this change, like others before it, will again make our military even stronger." Echoing that sentiment, Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus argued that lifting the ban is "not going to make [the U.S. military] any less fighting effective. In fact I think they will be a stronger force, because a more diverse force is a stronger force." Evidence, logic and experience says these hopes will not be realized…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

Lol.

Remember when they used the same words for recruiting minorities too. How did that turn out?

Until the women start getting killed and the male soldiers have a hard time with it. Then you can expect the military effectiveness to plummet.

With apologies to kyoteblue:

Will they amend the draft laws?

Yes, because male soldiers don't have any trouble at all with other male soldiers being killed?

No, but I think they will have more trouble with females getting killed. Anecdotal, I know, but the females were treated differently when I was in training. But hey, maybe we're smarter and more advanced as a species than we were twenty years ago…or not.

Makes capture prospects nearly equal in the middle east, elsewhere less so.

forget not the children. Let them fight too. Utilise the population completely.

Male combat soldiers DO have more problems when female soldiers are killed or captured. Female soldiers DO have more issues in the field. These are not questions, they are factual statements. Just like females ARE better AWACS controllers, etc.

The real issue is are we willing to lose soldiers on the altar of "equal rights" if you believe this is such an issue.

"In fact I think they will be a stronger force, because a more diverse force is a stronger force."

I'll never understand the blind worship of 'diversity' in some circles. Should we have more fat soldiers? mentally deficient? undereducated? midgets? All of these will give us a more 'diverse' force which, according to that statement means an automatically stronger force.

I agree with many of the comments here. Females assigned to combat units, like Infantry, Armor, tube FA & ADA and CEs. That have a direct combat role … ie.: killing the enemy and destroying their equipment. Females add problems to the commanders who already have a very full plate, without females being added to the equation …

I also think we should include young children in all combat positions. They are quick learners and absorb info like a sponge. Besides, everybody likes kids!

LOL ! They have been doing that in Africa for years …

Dude…! (smile)

Amicalement
Armand

There are few suitable words to properly describe how bad an idea this is. It is at least for now the present policy, so as commanders struggle to make it workI just pray we do not have to test this.

This is not the first time this has been raised, however each previous time some crediblity was given to those with experience in this area. This time not so.

Yes Sir it appears many here and elsewhere think they know better than those who actually were soldiers, in combat arms, etc., … I served in 4 Infantry Bns, 1 CBT SPT Bn and a Mech Bde HQ. But it appears my experience means little to many. Maybe all the wargamers here know better than the Vets like us ?

They are trying to destroy the Marine Corps. Without treading on Dawghouse waters, perhaps this will not be set in stone, nor other proposed pc directions. The Corps is dealing with a lot more issues other than the combat restrictions.

I really don't care if women go into direct combat or not. I do have an issue with them being 'allowed' to do so or not, at least from an American perspective where females are equals to males as human beings both.

There are certain standards that must be set for a job--any job--and those standards should be driven by the requirements not by the applicants. I trust this is something on which we can all agree as a baseline of discussion; I choose not to entertain politically-charged rhetoric one way or the other from others. I merely state this as a reasonable presumption for level discourse.

But some of the comments within this very thread make me glad that no American female servicemembers have died or been seriously wounded in the GWOT or else entire units would have ceased to function…oh, wait, a few have after all. Must be news to their families and comrades.

There have been other 'social experiments' conducted within the United States military over the years as a result of change within the greater society. Those have worked out after all. If women want to die for their country, so be it. If my daughter wants to follow in my own boots, I will likely get a little blurry-eyed when I clip my old blue cord to her dress uniform.

But it will be *her* decision to do such a thing and damned to whoever decides to get in her way.