Wrong on Women Warriors (The new policy to place women in combat units is a mistake)

National Review ^ | 01/24/2013 | Heather MacDonald

[SeekAndFind]

Here's a 9 letter word that people tend to forget : STANDARDS.

If a woman MEETS or EXCEEDS the required physical and mental standards needed to do the job for combat, why not let them?

CAVEAT: Don't LOWER the standards simply to accommodate women.

[microgood]

If men can be forced into a combat role after they have enlisted but women can only be called to combat when they volunteer, then we have an inherently unfair situation.

[Steamburg]

I think the logical thinkers have this one wrong. The left has long believed that women are driven by emotion and therefore will ignore the Constitution and will follow the orders of their father in Washington.
Remember “Soccer Moms” or do we have to go farther?

[JoeProBono]

[USAF80]

Very few women will even meet todays lowered standards. They will lower the bar as always. The service chiefs will make it work as they always say.

[SeekAndFind]

The fact is, as this Wall Street Journal article points out, that 152 women have died in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that women already serve in forward areas, on Navy ships, and as combat pilots. It's not as big a change as some are making it out to be.

The change is an acknowledgment that women on modern battlefields already are in the fight-152 women have died in Iraq and Afghanistan-and that military rules need to be updated to reflect realities of the current-day war zones. At the same time, the shift establishes a process that could take years to complete.

As your picture above shows, Israeli women have served in combat roles bravely for decades. Canada, Australia, and New Zealand also allow women in combat roles.

Here's my bottom line concern: Will it make the military a better fighting force?

The question here is whether this change will actually make our military better at operating in combat and killing the enemy, since that will be the women's job, too

We ought to answer this question honestly instead going all politically correct once again.

[Resolute Conservative]

So is the next step letting boys who get cut from the varsity athletic team play on the girls team. That would be equality... yeah right.

This PC crap is getting far beyond annoying.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: If men can be forced into a combat role after they have enlisted but women can only be called to combat when they volunteer, then we have an inherently unfair situation.

I guess with this new policy change, WOMEN CAN AND SHOULD NOW BE CALLED FOR COMBAT ROLES AFTER THEY HAVE ENLISTED.

But again my caveat -— IF THEY MEET THE PHYSICAL and MENTAL STANDARDS.

Here’s my personal take on this ( agreeing with Rick Moran of the American Thinker ):

This change in policy won’t dramatically effect the military immediately. My guess is any expanded role for women in combat will be AT THE MARGINS and not directly impact our fighting capabilities.

[Iron Munro]

Put them all in a few batalions of she-men and send ‘em out to deal with the crazy muzzies.

[Venturer]

I don’t know about the rest in here, but I love women.

Tender,soft, caring,sexually provocative,feminine.

If I wanted a tattooed hard ass killer with a trash mouth I would turn queer.

That aint gonna happen.

[jesseam]

We already gave females in combat situations that do not require the same physical standards that men do. My unit had female helicopter pilots and at least one female door gunner. Females should not be on combat patrols etc. OIF vet.

[xzins]

If a woman MEETS or EXCEEDS the required physical and mental standards needed to do the job for combat, why not let them?

They don't use the same physical standards and they never will since it shows the foolishness of their position.

[mkboyce]

Want equality?

All women must register for the Selctive Service by age 18...just like the men.

[circlecity]

I wouldn’t want to trust my six in combat to anyone who can’t do 10 pull ups. That leaves out 95% of women.

[JoeProBono]

She Went to the Field: Women Soldiers of the Civil War tells the little-known, true stories of the brave women who boldly challenged gender boundaries during The War Between the States. Whether disguising themselves as male soldiers or participating in related military capacities as spies, nurses, and vivandieres, these heroic women deserve to be recognized both for their contributions to the war and to women's rights.

[USAF80]

Argument=Not much use for pull ups in a combat situation.

Next....

[karatemom]

Anecdotal story here: I am in my late ‘40’s but have worked out all my life. Lifting, running, heavy bag workout-you name it, I’ve tried it.
My 20 year old son was home on break. He is tall and broad-shouldered, but does not have time to work out.
He gives me one of those side bear-hugs-grabbing my right shoulder- and pulls me in. In an effort to show how much he loves me, he pulls tightly and I drop to the floor in excruciating pain. I still do not have complete movement of my shoulder, and he meant no harm. He didn’t even apply the full measure of his strenghth.
Although he instinctly knew that women break easier than men do, he saw it firsthand.

[Venturer]

Things are a bit different in Israel.

They are fighting for their lives and the women there know what will happen to them if the Muslim hordes swoop in. They need to be able to defend themselves from the monsters surrounding them.

Hopefully America never reach’s that point.

[kevslisababy]

Having seen the results of a son injured in Afghanistan; I think all these women who are considering combat should tour some of the hospitals where our wounded are being pieced back together, and sometimes missing parts.

[newzjunkey]

Here's my bottom line concern: Will it make the military a better fighting force?

We're not fighting wars like the early last century. That needs to be kept in mind. Further, it appears the rules of engagement are causing more trouble with regards to the effectiveness of the fighting forces when deployed than other factors.