The Tragedy of Women in Combat

US Defense Watch ^ | May 6, 2016 | Nolan Nelson

[pboyington]

Ash Carter’s announcement December of 2015 demonstrated the Obama’s Administration attachment to a political ideology fueled by arrogance and premeditated ignorance. His direction of any long period of study and vigorous debate has been among those mutually supportive creatures that have metastasized throughout the military to serve a social agenda bringing future needless devastation. Most of the points I highlight about women in combat arose first when the decision was made to do away with DADT. A lot of good men are going to have to die in years to come to cover up this disaster.

This tragedy of women in combat provides another reason I now always council men to never enter the armed forces. Social engineering that amalgamates feminist ideals everywhere has now become the over arching imperative to which all operational capabilities must submit.

However, combat operations too often demand unpredictably and unimaginably exhausting brutality to achieve victory. Therefore, only the highest physical abilities and most severe restrictions on human behaviors can foster the required high morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion required.

Human sexuality simply cannot intrude into this sub-culture where only those displaying the greatest savagery and endurance can hope to win. Resorting to war for national defense entails the ultimate Olympics of conflict occurring at the bleeding edge of existence where the unbelievable must become possible. In this authoritarian meritocracy there is much less excuse for merging men and women into these struggles than exists for the athletic competitions held every four years.

Combat forms personnel into rigid, task oriented units. They then can descend into a squalid cacophony of shrieking, sobbing, crashing dissonance to orchestrate the killing of other humans without hate or joy. These people continuously face extraordinary stress and survive by acquiring the wisdom of wild animals that live in the moment without schedules for eating and sleeping.. At the point of collision, they undertake operations requiring sacrificial, primitive and intimate actions. They must display a noble fidelity to each other in spite of environments that are inherently chaotic, barbaric, and brittle. This alternate reality can be overcome only by trained killers subject to a totalitarian leadership and narrow focus unimaginable for those who see any opportunity for the social alchemy popular in civilian life.

The regimental combat teams for infantry, mechanized and armored units are now the playthings of bureaucrats committed to equal opportunity and affirmative action. They are dismissive of warriors enduring the carnage imperative for triumph. Institutional memories no longer exist for fighting ferocious, shrewd enemies such as the Germans, Japanese, Chinese, and North Vietnamese, who utilized a full array of modern weapons. If one notes the ribbons on any senior officer’s uniform, they show they fought only Arabs the Israelis beat three times at 20 to 1 odds. Such people now question the necessity for high standards which do not obfuscate or allow inferior female performance.

Women not only do not belong at the pointy end of the spear, but should not be holding it to the extent they intrude into the fellowship of combat arms which depends upon savagery for victory. As this tragedy unfolds I will remember the quote that, “Men sleep peacefully in their beds at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf”.

Nolan Nelson served in the Navy as a line officer in Vietnam with both riverine forces and conventional blue water task forces. In retirement he devotes considerable time to veteran volunteer activities. He is a life member of Disabled American Veterans and Veterans of Foreign War. He is Past Commander VFW Post 293 in Eugene Oregon. Nolan is Secretary/Treasurer of the U.S.S. Westchester County (LST-1167) Association. He also volunteers at the VA clinic in Eugene.

[thoughtomator]

The reason not to have women in combat is very simple: captured female soldiers will get raped almost every time.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

Hasn't women been tried before?

[onedoug]

I was in armored combat in Vietnam, and I cannot even imagine having had women along. To say it would have been a crippling impossibility would yet be a major understatement.

[BroJoeK]

from the article: "...I now always council men to never enter the armed forces."

So this author is not just spewing humina-humina at us, he's also dangerous to the republic.
As such, he's a disgrace and should be removed from the rolls of honor.

The fact is that, so far, we've seen no data on how well some women in combat perform, or how well units which include some women perform, compared to others.
Are they 100% equal, or 80% equal, or maybe just 40% equivalent to similar all-male units?
We don't know, and so all this talk is just humina-humina.

Further... are there cases where you don't need a 100% capable force?
Maybe 80% is enough under some circumstances?
In those cases, you move your very best at the cutting edge of the pointy end of your spear, and use others to fill-in the resulting gaps.

Bottom line: I'm not making a case one way or the other, simply saying that actual experience will teach us much more than all the theoretical arguments in the world.

In the mean time, idiots who recommend against joining our armed services should be shamed.
If or when this social experiment ends, we will certainly need the best men possible.

[PIF]

Urban Dictionary: Humina Humina
www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Humina%20Humina Proxy Highlight

Top Definition. Humina Humina. An expression to imply sexual arousal. Often used when spotting a visually pleasing individual and actual words are lost.

[Twinkie]

Women’s upper body strength is not enough for combat.
Heavy lifting is out for women. Combat for women is a
stupid idea.

[phormer phrog phlyer]

The military today is not focused on combat readiness, they are more concerned with diversity by their definition, LGBTXYZ programs, basically a SJW agenda.

Are you aware of the purge of hundreds of officers who would not submit to what their commissars told them to believe? Chaplains and Christians are being demonized.

Sir. The military of today is vastly different than prior to Obama, putting females as trigger pullers does not enhance combat effectiveness. If so, why was it not done a long time ago? I know we are so much smarter now.

It will take a long time to recover from this mess and many lives will be lost, but soon your daughter could be drafted in to the infantry, isn’t that great!

[BroJoeK]

PIF quoting: "Top Definition. Humina Humina"

Hmmmmmm... not the way I learned it.
Was considering the term "mumbo jumbo", but that didn't seem right.
So what word do you use when your learned professor is droning on and on and on, not just incoherently, but un-hearably? Is that not the sound of it? "hummmmmmina... huuuuuuuumina"?

[PIF]

Last “learned” professor last seen 50 years ago ... and no I just got up and left the room - piss on him, I said.

[central_va]

Women can do everything a man can do in a combat zone. For about 5 minutes.

[central_va]

I guess we'll have to give each split tail grunt their own pick up truck.

[WorkingClassFilth]

Show me the dissolution of female privilege in every other sector of life and I will cede females in combat arms.

[BroJoeK]

phormer phrog phlyer: "The military today is not focused on combat readiness, they are more concerned with diversity by their definition..."

Agreed, I don't for one second underestimate the damage done by Democrats to our military.
It is deep, profound and possibly long-lasting.
But it will end in eight months and from that point on the military will need every qualified person they can get.

phormer phrog phlyer: "Are you aware of the purge of hundreds of officers who would not submit to what their commissars told them to believe?
Chaplains and Christians are being demonized."

I shudder to think how badly our guys have been abused.

phormer phrog phlyer: "...putting females as trigger pullers does not enhance combat effectiveness.
If so, why was it not done a long time ago?
I know we are so much smarter now."

I support it as an experiment.
If it works we will have learned something new, if not, then we will remember why we never did this before.

Here are some key points to remember:

1. The military has promised (crossed their hearts, hope to die, stick a needle in their eyes), promised there will be no reductions in physical or mental standards to let women, or anyone else, pass training.
   I believe them until they prove otherwise.

2. Women must volunteer for a combat MOS, meaning they have to want it, and if they pass the training, you just know they are some bad-*ssed gals.
   Such women are very unusual, but they do exist, have always, in small numbers.

3. So we are talking about a company sized unit -- maybe 200 men -- including a handful of trained women.
   Are these women going to reduce the combat effectiveness of the entire unit?
   Or will they simply free up some men to do more strenuous work?
   I can think of any number of infantry-related jobs which don't require massive upper-body strength -- from drivers to communications to medics.

4. My suspicion is that the right kinds of women in the right kinds of jobs will enhance a unit's effectiveness.
   But we won't know that for certain until they're tested in combat.

phormer phrog phlyer: "It will take a long time to recover from this mess and many lives will be lost, but soon your daughter could be drafted in to the infantry, isn’t that great!"

My daughters are beyond military age, but your point is well taken, since drafting women is the next agenda item.
And since such proposals come from the Left, we know it's just another attempt to degrade and destroy the US military.
Plus make it more difficult to use massive military forces.

But ask yourself this question: under what circumstances would the US use a military draft?
Answer: only under the most extreme life-or-death conditions, a nuclear war or foreign invasion requiring all-hands-on-deck.
At that point we are talking about whole cities destroyed, tens of millions killed and every available citizen needed to do their part.

Bottom line: the United States was founded on the concept of the citizen-soldier, meaning your right to vote was based on your duty to serve.
Those who do serve can vote, and those who vote must serve.
Women have long demanded an equal right to vote.
They should have an equal requirement to serve.

[BroJoeK]

PIF: "Last “learned” professor last seen 50 years ago ... "

;-)

[Ransomed]

I think that is a reasonable post.

But why do you think they haven’t just formed all female smaller combat units and tested them by whatever parameters now exist to test such units? I mean in the chaos of war we how can we expect to women in combat to always have males all around them? What if a re-formed unit from battle happens to consist of all females? Can they carry on their mission from that point or what? Maybe they can, but it seems like it’s an obvious enough question that it should be tested, at least to me.

Freegards

[phormer phrog phlyer]

Good discussion, regards.

[BroJoeK]

Ransomed: "What if a re-formed unit from battle happens to consist of all females?
Can they carry on their mission from that point or what?"

Here's how you need to think of this:

Any military unit is designed, equipped & trained for a set of missions.
When the unit is fully equipped, fully trained, up to strength and highly motivated, then it's at 100% of its intended mission capability.
But anything at all which reduces the unit's capabilities makes it less than 100%.

And the list of things which can reduce a unit's capabilities is nearly endless -- shortfalls in people, training, equipment & morale are just the beginning.
Combat itself can rapidly waste a unit's numbers, equipment, supplies & on & on.
So the issue under discussion here is whether a small number of highly trained women in a combat unit will: a) slow down its efforts to reach 100% of capabilities or b) increase the speed of wasting in combat?

The fact is, we don't know the answers to such questions and so I'd support experiments to find out.

As for your scenario, where all-women remnants of other combat-depleted units might coalesce to form an all-woman unit... well, that sounds like Hollywood to me.

Here are two women who served as soldiers during wartime:

[jpsb]

and

[jpsb]

The reason not to have women in combat is very simple: The enemy knowing it is about to face females in battle would be highly motivate to fight at there absolute best. Defeat would be a disgrace but with victory comes the "spoils" you mentioned. I would not want to be a female captured on the battle field.