Posted on 08/16/2009 6:22:34 AM PDT by SonOfDarkSkies
Before 2001, America’s military women had rarely seen ground combat. Their jobs kept them mostly away from enemy lines, as military policy dictates.
But the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, often fought in marketplaces and alleyways, have changed that. In both countries, women have repeatedly proved their mettle in combat. The number of high-ranking women and women who command all-male units has climbed considerably along with their status in the military.
“Iraq has advanced the cause of full integration for women in the Army by leaps and bounds,” said Peter R. Mansoor, a retired Army colonel who served as executive officer to Gen. David H. Petraeus while he was the top American commander in Iraq. “They have earned the confidence and respect of male colleagues.”
Their success, widely known in the military, remains largely hidden from public view. In part, this is because their most challenging work is often the result of a quiet circumvention of military policy.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Nonetheless, as soldiers in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, women have done nearly as much in battle as their male counterparts: patrolled streets with machine guns, served as gunners on vehicles, disposed of explosives, and driven trucks down bomb-ridden roads. They have proved indispensable in their ability to interact with and search Iraqi and Afghan women for weapons, a job men cannot do for cultural reasons. The Marine Corps has created revolving units — “lionesses” — dedicated to just this task.
Fantastic! Lets bring the mothers of our children home in bloodied caskets. Great for morale.
Frankly, unless these ol'gals are willing to hop in the chariots and poke the spears like Boudicca, I'd say these "command positions" really don't mean all that much with respect to their status as warriors.
...I couldn’t read past the first page of this article...it’s a piece of feminist horse sh*t....placing young women in positions to get killed and maimed is nothing to be proud of....it’s a shameful comment on the state of American manhood....wonder if the Times will gush how wonderful it all is in the future when there’s an amputee woman on the corner with a sign around her neck saying “Homeless Iraq Veteran Please Help”
The ancients were smarter than us — even if they waged a war that decimated half the male population that did not seriously affect the next generation (in regards to numbers) since the surviving warriors would be able to procreate with the females in the population through taking additional wives.
Women are necessary for making new members of a culture. The ancients knew they were far too valuable to use in combat except extermination was facing the culture.
The left always championed women in or near combat as a way to decrease the chances of the United States resorting to military force, knowing that people would shy away from getting their womenfolk killed.
Interesting comments for sure. That being said and putting aside the debate about women being on the front lines, there are women out there who will proudly stand beside you and fight for this great country of ours. Patriotism, from either gender, should be admired. Flame away boys.
It is also a massively different issue to have women in actual infantry companies, and that’s what the “gender norming” retards are actually pushing for.
You mix women in to infantry squads and you have a guaranteed disaster. Not only on the physical performance front, but on the psychological/morale/discipline front as well.
Mix young women in with young men in an environment that, when in the field, mandates zero personal space, zero privacy, extreme emotional and psychological compression and constant physical drain, and you’ve got an organization designed to fail.
And to those who cite militaries that either did, or do, have women in infantry, are those militaries expeditionary? Are they expected to carry the preponderance of the defense needs of an entire branch of human civilization? Did they enforce discipline by one the spot firing squads and STILL have massive problems (WW2 Russia), etc and so on?
PS. None of the above is aimed at you, muawiyah. I was simply attempting to agree with you, but add in some details.
How about "failures" are those remaining "hidden from the public view" as well? I don't know the answer to the question, but how many women soldiers turned up pregnant at the start of the war?
Another little bit of fun with these idiots is to suggest that Selective Service be applicable to young women...
Watch the mothers of the Left go nuts on that one.
Interesting perspective!
Of course, women will fight. I’d just prefer that they didn’t unless it were absolutely necessary. Read Grimmy’s #9, for starters.
Forty thousand were in Desert Shield/Storm.
I don’t think I missed your point: Women are patriotic and will fight. What’s to miss?
Why would you expect to be flamed?
I have seen my combat unit,(Engineers). Go from zero females pre 1990, to about 20% currently. They are not allowed combat positions. They are support staff. Medics, Clerks, Supply, Mechanics.... Does this mean they carry less value. No not at all. They are extremely important. They were not allowed on our patrols in Iraq. Only female Medics, and Mechanics were allowed on convoys. Even then, we made sure they went on the less risky ones. All females in combat zones recieve an extra measure of protection. Either physical or implied. It just IS.
An easy way to say thank you to our men and women in the military, The Gratitude Campaign:
I wonder if the Times will report on the number of men who get killed trying to protect battle-incompetent women??!!
Excellent post. I can imagine a 1000 different scenarios that would complicate achieving the mission objective by having women present.
It is pretty simple, men act differently when women are around.
Exactly! We’re in it to win it, and women are counterproductive to the mission.
I’m with you on this.
Just to be clear, Im not such a knuckle dragger that I don’t believe there’s a good solid reason to allow women in line units for military organizations that are only national self defense forces.
In such cases, everyone should have a right and a requirement to stand the line and fight.
A tribute to the United States Air Force. God bless our military.
I assumed that you’re not a knuckle dragger.
The Israelis had a lot of experience with women in front-line units during 1949. They didn't do it after that. They had too many problems with the reactions of men towards women being in danger or getting killed in front of them. In the former case, men put themselves at increased risk to protect the women. In the latter case, having a girl killed in front of them produced extreme rage towards the enemy that was counterproductive to clear-thinking military operations.
Women ARE given training in Israel, but primarily as support and as last-resort defense of their homes in case the enemy gets past the men.
The problem with women in combat isn’t the women as much as the reactions of the men. See my #27. Men react strongly to a young woman getting her head splattered all over them.
Iirc, it is also the case that line units that include women tend to be more prone to committing atrocities on captured and/or wounded enemy.
All that’s required is a rumor of the enemy raping a woman soldier they captured and it’s game on with payback.
“Patriotism, from either gender, should be admired.”
True, but in combat, sometimes size and muscle counts. If all the women were, say, 5’6” or taller and had 150+ pounds of muscle, I wouldn’t mind. It is the 5’0”, 100 lb when wet noodle that I can’t abide in the military - apart from non-combat roles.
I beg your pardon, ma’am! But I’ll have you know I can drag my knuckles with the best of em, if the appropriate subject presents itself.
Enjoy the day :)
?
Well said.
"Even weamin had firelocks. One was seen to fire a blunder buss between her father and husband, from their windows...." THE SPIRIT OF 'SEVENTY-SIX 78 (H. Commager & R.B. Morris eds. 1967).
If women have earned the respect and acceptance of the men they are fighting alongside, then I say "more power to them."
I'm sure there are many trained women in the armed forces who can outshoot and outfight a mere member of the unorganized militia such as myself, not to mention some of their fellow male regulars...
bump
But females in combat does not say anything nice about womanhood in America.
The precedent, however, for women in combat is now being set, so that if a draft is ever re-activated, it will be hard for Congress to not draft women as well.
This will make living in America for traditional Christian families increasingly miserable. It is another tactic of the Devil and the Dems to further destroy our nation's heritage, and destroy families.
Folks, we just do not send our women folk to die in combat zones. We just do not. Depriving children of their fathers in time of war is awful enough. To have young children face the caskets of their mothers killed in combat is more than this nation should ever have to deal with.
And if the enemy thinks you're not going to be nice to them if they surrender, then they won't surrender. They'll fight to the death, producing more casualties on your side. And they will be even LESS likely to take prisoners.
Back then the guys were more protective even if you could not only pull your weight but then some. That's not a bad thing it just can't be there on the battlefield. Maybe things are different today, but human nature is what it is.
G.I. Jane Breaks the Combat Barrier as War Evolves
War.
Does.
NOT.
Evolve.
I agree. Where are the men?
You mean, like the battle-incompetent men who killed the Cardinals’ safety?
Yes, in times past you might lose half your warriors. That just meant each surviving man had to take two wives.
A society willing to place women in harm’s way is just plain stupid and deserves to perish for lack of offspring.
It's been happening for years now. Where have you been?
The moment the women show up, the focus of the men is to get in their pants, not the job at hand.
But while I have not stated an opinion...I personally would not want to deny any woman a chance to reach for what she, in her heart of hearts, wants.
There are some women that are so powerful and destined to lead, that men would not dare think of getting in their pants.
Well, I guess that is where we part ways. What a woman wants in her heart of hearts is irrelevant when you need an army of warriors to smite the enemy. Her dreams, aspirations, wants, whatever be damned.
The cause of self-defense will always be more important that some individual's career dreams.
Those of us who have seen the grim horror at the sharp end of infantry combat (as I did in a Mech Infantry outfit in Vietnam) are concerned at the rhetoric of many of those pushing the women in combat agenda. Daily we are regaled by the sight of 110 lb. women routinely beating the stuffing out of 250 lb male behemoths in choreographed entertainment fantasies like Buffy the vampire Slayer, Dark Angel, Tomb Raider and the Matrix Reloaded. We all listened breathlessly to the initial (later revealed as inaccurate) reports of brave little Jessica Lynch mowing down hordes of Iraqis.
It is only natural that with this continual barrage of opinion shaping that an attitude will begin to form that women are just as generally capable of participating in infantry combat as men are, with a comensurate erosion of the rationale for excluding them in the first place.
This is not to say that women can not serve in positions that enhance military capability, they are already serving in them, and serving well and honorably. It was Nazi Armament Minister Albert Speer who cited the German failure to mobilize their women in the manner that the Allies did in WWII as a significant factor in the Nazi defeat. In situations involving large scale mobilization, they are essential. (Don’t forget that the Soviets only did it because of the hugely staggering quantity of casualties that they suffered, on a scale that we can scarcely concieve of) That is not the case now as most personnel requirements could be met with the available pool of qualified males. Today, the issue is clouded by feminists and their societal influence ranging from lefist cum Marxist to liberal gender equity advocates. All too often combat readinesss, morale and unit cohesion is secondary to remaking the military institution into one which advances a radical social agenda. The decision to incorporate such large numbers of women into today’s military is a political decision, not one of military necessity has was the case with the Soviets during World War II.
One of the problems in assesing the impact of this issue vis-a-vis the Iraq war is the fact that we handily defeated them with the forces that were already in place in the invasion phase. Due to a combination of the skill of our superbly trained, equipped, motivated soldiers; and the ineptitude of our enemy (but they are getting better) our casualty rate has been thankfully far lower than we should have been reasonably able to expect given historical precedents. Notwithstanding this the question must be asked as to what would happen should we face an enemy that could inflict the sort of casualties on us has was the case during the fighting in northwest Europe in WWII? The United States Army was forced to comb out military personnel who had been assigned to the Army Specialized Training program as technical personnel (aircrew, radar operators, etc) and convert them to infantry to replace the staggering losses. Since 14% of the Army is not deployable to such duty (women) this does not bode well for such an eventuality. While we can continue to pray that we will never again face an enemy that will be able to attrite us as the German and Japanese Armies did, we MUST not plan as though it will never again happen. The Iraq and Afghan wars as they have played out ARE NO TEST OF THIS PROPOSITION.
Many commentators are relentless in their determination to ignore the considerable body of factual evidence indicating that the present policy of sexual intergration is inconsistent with certain vital forms of combat readiness. Study after study (reinforced by my 20 yrs of anecdotal observation in the active duty military and NG) highlight the physical unsuitability of most women for the tasks of the combat soldier, and often even the support soldier. My personal observations include the inability to change the tires on military vehicles, clear routine stoppages on M60 medium MG’s and .50 cal HMG’s, carry heavy loads any appreciable distances at necessary speeds, lift and evacuate casualties, and an inordinate disposition to injury. The reason that the military adopted “dual physical training standards” was to ensure politically acceptable numbers of women, since 40-60% of them would be washed out if they were required to meet male physical training requirements. My son, a reservist in a NG chopper unit, is contemptuous of what he describes as continual coddling of female soldiers. He is planning to transfer to an infantry unit.
In situations of full mobilization, women are essential. I believe that women are a militarily valuable asset, provided that asset is used in a manner that makes the military ready to fight, and subordinates feminist social engineering to that end.
Hundreds of thousands of women have served and are serving their country honorably and well. I honor them for their service and accept them as comrades and fellow veterans. We can only hope that their service will be continued in such a manner as to enhance the ability of the military to fight. The potential consequences for the individual soldier and the military’s mission are too serious to subordinate to social engineering.
For you not to realize the fact that friendly fire is a fact of modern warfare tells me you know little of it. In one of our armed forces finest hours, WWII, 30+ C-47 transports and gliders were shot down in the invasion of Sicily, killing over 300 paratroops and glidermen. 200+ men were killed and hundreds wounded, to include General Lesly McNair, commander of US Gound Forces, during the saturation bombardment preceding Operation Cobra, the breakout from Normandy. In EVERY war and with EVERY army, friendly fire deaths are commonplace. Your attempts to malign SP/4 Pat Tillman’s comrades is calumny of the worst sort, given the chaos of the battlefield which can affect even the most PROFESSIONAL of troops..
I tend to agree with what you said, across the board, especially the current cultural influence. What to do about it? Go Old Guard on em. Keep pointing the actualities out to the “formers” and currents. Put the proper bug in the ears of civvies when the issue is discussed. Don’t let the bullshit ever go uncontested. Ever. Close with and destroy it, by means of aggressive verbal/written communications.
Where I might disagree with you, and my disagreement is most likely a misread on my part, is in the women aspect to full mobilization.
I see it as a potential bonus. Our REMF and support elements (the pogues) will have the benefit of experienced personnel still on station if there’s need to cull for grunts from those areas.
Im not all or nothing on this, personally. I do believe that any citizen of the US who meets the legal and moral standards required should be allowed to serve their country in uniform. And, I do believe that it should be meaningful and with as many areas of service as practical included.
Infantry and direct combat support just aint practical.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.