Posted on 02/18/2012 7:20:22 AM PST by BarnacleCenturion
Quod Erat Demonstratum
Excellent post but it will fall on deaf ears. The feminists and their useful idiot supporters are clamoring to get both young men and women killed in combat to prove they are idiots. Not that they will be joining as 11B’s of course, nor will their daughters but it is there fervent wish that somewhere soon some Rambolina brandishing a SAW will become their Audie Murphy. And what’s worse is that sooner or later the Pentagon politicos will actually go along with them.
When I was an Lt in F-4s, I had a talk with my Sq CC about the difference between combat and peacetime. We were barely passing an ORE, and I commented on what would happen to us if we had to go to combat.
He laughed. Said that as an Lt, his unit failed an ORI just before deploying to Vietnam, where they flew all their sorties non-stop. To understand the difference, he said, look at those guys loading AIM-9s. See the evaluators watching them, and grading their skills with a loader? In combat, he said, the biggest guys carried the AIM-9s over and held them up for attachment.
Completely illegal peacetime, and you would flunk an ORI that way - but that was why they flew their COMBAT sorties. Because the big guys just carried the AIM-9s (weight a bit under 200 lbs, IIRC)...
Awesome, to-the-point post, MrR.
There is a reason there are no females in professional football, baseball, basketball, and hockey.
Which is part of the reason why, after 13 years, they will go along without me.....and many others I know. America will get what she voted for. But, at least they will get their "diversity" and "equality."
.....Btw, I'm trying to remember what percentage of women attached to the 3D ID got pregnant when they were stationed with us in Al-Anbar.......I'm sure a short handed infantry division had no manning problems after some of their support soldiers were sent home due to pregnancy. And of course, there were no second or third order issues or disciplinary actions after the sires were found out either; further resulting in lowered morale, manning shortages, and combat effectiveness.
Sounds like a good climate for combat units.
Next to the P-51, the F-4 is my favorite airplane. I envy you. Thank you for your service and for the argument today. Out.
A cluster F* (Excuse my language, you are a poster I admire, especially your religious opinions) of epic proportions if females are allowed in combat situations with heavy lifting/ actual shooting war.
If the civilian boards really want females in the front lines, the squads better be segregated by sex; God help the men who are assigned with the fairer sex in hell like conditions.
In the MP unit I was with, quite a few of the female soliders were having relations with the platoon leaders, which made for interesting times.
I was the squad leader, and getting the female to 'carry her share' was a constant struggle.
Anthing she didn't want to do, she would complain to her E-6 boyfriend, who in turn would 'counsel' me.
Needless to say, when I was able to get out, I did.
Let’s put women and gays on the front line. I’m all for that. Keep the men in the rear for a change
I posted this on another thread earlier today:
More at the links, can’t post everything, I’m sure more searching would find even more evidence:
http://www.your-krav-maga-expert.com/women-in-idf.html
Women serve in support and combat support roles in the IDF, recently they have been allowed additional options but they still do not serve in active combat.
Around the world there has been some discussion about whether or not women should serve in active combat. In Israel it is clear that despite the vast contribution of women in the military, active combat is not an option. This decision is based on the physical and biological differences between men and women but also for moral reasons. As Michal, a combat instructor in the IDF, says, “No one wants to even think of the possibility of an Israeli girl falling into the hands of the enemy.” Our history is already filled with too many such stories of atrocities.
The Israeli military has always combined the practically of combat with the morality of our Jewish way of life.
For political reasons women’s groups have tried to break down barriers but the simple fact is that physically women are not capable of doing the job men do. There was an attempt to integrate women in the Search and Rescue units but it was discovered that a great deal of physical damage was caused to them as a result of the increased effort. Even the girls who were integrated into the anti-aircraft unit suffered great physical damage during the long hikes. They suffered more than 30% more stress factors than the boys.
Women serve in many capacities in the IDF such as intelligence, the Border Police, maintenance, supplies, secretarial duties, as well as serving in a variety of technical and administrative support roles. Over the course of the years, the number of military occupational specialties open to women in the IDF has expanded and today most jobs are open to women. Women are limited by nothing but their own ability.
Women have long served in technological positions, intelligence, operations and training. Likewise, women can be found servicing IDF computerized systems, working as computer programmers, smart weapons systems operators and electronics technicians. There is also a women’ soldiers-teachers unit, which teaches new immigrants and children in developing regions.
The bottom line is that in the Israeli Defense Forces, each soldier, male or female, will be assigned to the task where their contribution will be the greatest. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts, the nation is more important then the preferences of any individual soldier. I have found that most soldiers are happy knowing that they are contributing their maximum. There is always an attempt to satisfy the ambitions of each soldier but ultimately the needs of the army come first.
http://www.wnd.com/2001/08/10269/
(Note - this wnd article is several years old, and feminists and other leftists are trying yet again to push women in combat as a good thing.)
It’s time to debunk the myth, once and for all, that Israel’s experience with allowing women in combat was successful and, therefore, should be duplicated by the Pentagon. It wasn’t successful. It was a disaster by Israel’s own admission.
“History shows that the presence of women has had a devastating impact on the effectiveness of men in battle,” wrote John Luddy in July 27, 1994, for the Heritage Foundation backgrounder.
“For example, it is a common misperception that Israel allows women in combat units. In fact, women have been barred from combat in Israel since 1950, when a review of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War showed how harmful their presence could be. The study revealed that men tried to protect and assist women rather than continue their attack. As a result, they not only put their own lives in greater danger, but also jeopardized the survival of the entire unit. The study further revealed that unit morale was damaged when men saw women killed and maimed on the battlefield,” Luddy said.
Writes Edward Norton, a reservist in the Israel Defense Forces: “Women have always played an important role in the Israeli military, but they rarely see combat; if they do, it is usually by accident. No one in Israel, including feminists, has any objection to this situation. The fact that the Persian Gulf War has produced calls to allow women on the front lines proves only how atypical that war was and how little Americans really understand combat.”
“Few serious armies use women in combat roles. Israel, which drafts most of its young women and uses them in all kinds of military work, has learned from experience to take them out of combat zones. Tests show that few women have the upper-body strength required for combat tasks. Keeping combat forces all male would not be discriminatory, as were earlier racial segregation schemes in the military, because men and women are different both physically and psychologically,” said the Feb. 5, 1990, National Review.
(Note: The below is interesting, as Elaine Donnelly is an expert and knows what she’s talking about. Yet the article is in favor (apparently) of women in combat anyway. It’s a sort of “don’t confuse me with the facts” leftist mindset.)
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/is-the-idf-ready-for-women-in-combat-1.219239
Elaine Donnelly is certainly no radical feminist. Quite the contrary. Opponents of the integration of female combat troops in the IDF frequently cite Donnelly, an American researcher who heads a conservative Washington organization called The Center for Military Preparedness. In the early 1990s, Donnelly was a member of the Presidential Commission appointed by President George Bush, Sr. to examine the issue of women in combat. Her research took her to some extraordinary places, from flying in a fighter jet to observing a training session regarding captivity of female pilots, which included a scenario simulating rape in captivity.
“In the collision between the needs of the army and equality for women, the army has to get priority,” she told Haaretz. Donnelly read interviews with the various Yohalan officers and concluded that the IDF tends toward more of an extreme than the British and American armies. “Their priorities are confused. The frequent use of feminist expressions gives rise to demoralization among the male fighters. This kind of attitude can have an adverse effect on volunteering for combat units. It’s important not to break the unit’s cohesion and the soldiers’ trust in the command hierarchy. Without them, there’s no discipline. It’s just a bunch of people with weapons.”
Lowering standards to integrate female fighters detracts from a unit’s preparedness for the reality of battle, she says. “The result is that lives will be lost and missions will be harmed. If the tendency promoted by the Yohalan is accepted, military culture will change. They’re trying to make the army gentler and more sensitive, but this is the only army you’ve got. There is no substitute for it.”
Her solution: A return to the Miller High Court petition, i.e., preventing discrimination in admitting women to courses, but not their mass integration into front-line units. “A man can lug 45 kilos and march 30 kilometers. Load that on a female body and what you get are broken bones.”
It has been generations since we were forced to fight a knock-down drag-out war for all the marbles. Not even Vietnam counts in that regard. Someday, we will be forced to fight battles like Normandy, Okinawa, etc. Not of our choosing...
Then, the PC idiots who think that watching “Star Trek” makes them experts on warfare will be in for a rude shock. And we will probably lose, against an enemy like China that would not care if they lost a thousand soldiers a day for years on end.
Well said. See 71 also, please.
You're living the past.
You think we will always get to choose our battlefields? If so, you are living in Lalaland.
Go ahead and do it. Women better be prepared to be drafted when the time comes.
“Seem unnecessary to allow this as our tool of a president wants to cut 78,000 active duty position just for starters in the next 3 years.”
Actually, I think this is the exact reason why it has to be done. Allowing women to serve was originally a “feel-good” social program. But now that the Army is going to be meat-axed to a fraction of the troops necessary for a hot war, they can’t afford to have a large number of people wearing the uniform that can’t be sent into combat.
In addition to your great point about the Israeli military and people not choosing to put women in combat, take a look at the list given of countries with women in “combat” roles:
“A 2010 survey by the British Ministry of Defense listed Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Israel, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania and Sweden as countries that allow women in ‘close combat roles....’”
Other than Israel and a slight possibility regarding Poland, which of those countries actually think they will be in a serious conflict? Is there any difference at all between male Dutch, Danish and French troops and female troops of the same countries? These are just civil service employees who wear uniforms. They are not fit to fight, don’t expect to fight, and frankly, most of them won’t fight.
The simple fact is that most of the countries on the list could have entirely female armies and have the same impact if they are ever called on for real “close combat.”
Post of the Century, really.
And I have forward deployed with an Armor Unit during Desert Storm.
I know that many women Soldiers are tough and can do some jobs well, but that all gets negated when they start sleeping with their boss. Or their bosses boss. Yeah, the boss is a loser as well. It’s a bad mix down at the Real Estate office, and it gets real fun when it is during deployment, etc.
Also, I know this will be uber unpopular, especially if you have a daughter, grandaughter, niece, sister, etc, serving, but many female soldiers use their sex- gender or otherwise- to not do their job or advance themselves.
Some do not. The good ones are good, the very bad ones are awful.
Female officers tend to be cream of the crop, but some of them are losers as well. Female Officers have graduated Sapper school, the Engineer version of Ranger School. Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe any female enlisted Soldiers have.
I know office Army people- and I do not mean that as lesser Army people- serve with women in very controlled environments. It’s not a life or death situation and it seems totally irrational and hypocritical to post such things about our brave Soldiers. I am sorry it seems as if I am a harsh person.
But the truth is just the truth...and it is better for women to stay away from combat. Far away as they can.
Yes, I know many women have served, and some have died in Iraq and Afghanistan. I support them 100%, as our Military needs our support.
But the combat arms lifestyle, job, mission, etc, does not need the “help” of women. There is no way no way no way no way women can do what male Soldiers do physically or mentally. Many people here will disagree with me, and I will not waste my time, or theirs- arguing about it.
I have been a female Soldier, and supported my husband for over 20 years, through multiple combat deployments, lived on Military posts, known and known about hundreds of female Soldiers.
Good post. For me it weighs down to this:
Would you, as an enemy, rather fight a mixed sex unit or an all male unit?
When I was in Afghanistan in 2007, it was tough getting anyone to agree to take me outside the FOB. Why? Let’s see - apart from rank, I was a 49 year old guy with bifocals. That made me the weak link, and the guys going out understandably didn’t want to bring a long a weak link.
I understood. Apparently many women do not.
My brother says in the Army Reserves he’s in there’s a 40 yr old female who sleeps but 4 hrs a might (masked PTSD) who was at the 50 cal on a Humvee.
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.