Women in Combat Could Blunt 'Tip of the Spear'

CBN News Middle East Bureau ^ | Monday, February 25, 2013 | Lee Webb and Tracy Winborn

[robowombat]

Women in Combat Could Blunt 'Tip of the Spear'

By Lee Webb and Tracy Winborn CBN News Anchor and Producer Monday, February 25, 2013

As the Pentagon pushes forward with plans to fully integrate women in military combat units, many are considering the move a victory for equal rights.

Still, others argue it will hurt our nation's ability to fight and win the next war.

Women currently make up 14 percent of our military. They've served across the board except in infantry, armor, and special operations units, like the Navy SEALs, Army Rangers, and Green Berets.

"Everyone, men and women alike, everyone is committed to doing the job," outgoing Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said in announcing the policy change. "They're fighting and they're dying together and the time has come for our policies to recognize that reality."

That means more than 230,000 positions could soon be open for women.

Former Army Capt. Tanya Dami applauded the decision.

"With this momentous shift, America once again reaffirms its core values of equality and respect, values predicated upon a person's capabilities and demonstrated competence, not an immutable characteristic like gender," she wrote. "This is good for our military, and our country, too."

Pentagon's Double Standards

Ret. Gen. Jerry Boykin couldn't disagree more. A former commander of Special Operations, he is also one of the founding members of the Army's famed Delta Force.

Boykin acknowledges that women have served bravely under fire. But those situations have largely been in support roles, not offensive operations. They have not served in units trained and equipped to pursue, engage, and destroy a hostile force.

"A female that can run a marathon does not necessarily translate into a female who can drag a man, let's just say an average man of 175 pounds, with all of his combat gear," he said. "It is not the average female that will be able to do that. So it's a readiness issue and no one is considering readiness."

The Army's physical fitness standards are currently different for men and women. For example, a 22-year-old male soldier is required to do at least 40 pushups. A 22-year-old female soldier is required to do only 17.

The Pentagon now says that women serving in direct combat units will have to meet the same standards as men.

But Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey offered one big caveat.

"If we do decide a particular standard is so high that a woman couldn't make it, the burden is now on the service to come back and explain to the Secretary, why is it that high?" he said. "Does it really have to be that high? With the direct combat exclusion in place, we never had to have that conversation."

"I don't know if that bothers you the way it does me, but that's frightening," Boykin said in response. "And what that really is saying is if women can't meet the standards, we will lower those standards."

Band of Brothers

Boykin said he believes that will have life and death consequences. A soldier needs to know the soldier next to him will get him off the battlefield if he's wounded.

"That's why we give medals of honor. And if you look at who gets a Medal of Honor, it's normally because he was trying to save a buddy," he said.

The HBO series "Band of Brothers" depicts the rigors and horror of close quarters combat in WWII. Seventy years later it hasn't changed.

The series highlights the one aspect of warfare that another retired general believes the Pentagon is ignoring in allowing women on the front lines.

"One of the things that neither I nor anyone else in the military really understands is the so-called 'band of brothers' effect," Ret. Maj. Gen. Robert Scales said. "It's the buddy-teaming which makes up the essence of cohesion in small units."

"Remember, the American soldier doesn't really die for his country, and he doesn't die for the mission. He dies for his buddies," he said.

Those small units are better known as squads made up of anywhere between nine and 13 soldiers or Marines. They're the "tip of the spear" on the battlefied.

Scales said he believes the Pentagon owes it to them to perform an objective study on the effects of lifting the ban.

"Units that are thrown together or who have bad psychology or that are poorly led, tend to die in hugely disproportionate numbers," Scales explained. "So increasingly the weight of these wars is falling on the shoulders of this very, very small band of brothers and before we break it up and re-assemble it, we better be darn well sure that we're doing the right thing."

Fighting Women

Not all women agree with the plan either. One former army captain and West Point graduate, who asked CBN News to protect her identity, is an airborne-qualified combat engineer who served tours in Afghanistan and Iraq.

She said at one time she wanted to serve in a front-line unit. But she changed her mind because of the wear and tear her body took during five years of active duty.

"I guess I was naive to think I would be invincible forever, but right now I have two small children and my quality of life has degraded because you can only hold them for so long because your back hurts and you need to put them down," she said. "You know, it changes the way I'm able to live."

So what does it say about nation that allows its women to do its fighting for it?

"Right now Congress is working on legislation to protect women from violence and domestic violence and then on the other hand we're turning around and saying to women, 'Fix bayonets, and charge that group of men over there, most of which are stronger than you, bigger than you and capable of killing you,'" Boykin said.

"It is inconsistent with our ethos," he added. "I think the Bible is very clear that we're the stronger sex and we have a moral obligation to protect our women."

[robowombat]

At the risk of being labelled a misogynist, my observation of women in the US Army over a period of a couple decades is that most enlist to get a comfortable job behind a desk with good childcare benefits. many of these females do a good job as women tend to be detail oriented and like things to be orderly and uniform. In support units in field situations they are not worth the trouble they cause. Female soldiers have a higher sick rate than males partly because they are more prone to getting infections and partly because there is no 'suck it up' ethic among women so if they get the sniffles or have an the trots then they have to hurry off to see the medicos and get a few days light duty or bed rest. On top of this every woman i have ever known is morose, sick, or just plane crazy for a few days every month due to PMS. In an office it is no big deal in the field it means more days of duty lost or degraded by the female soldiers. In combat arms the relative handful of enlisted females that will sign up are likely to be more dysfunctional and maladaptive than the run of the mill soldier and have a big chip on their shoulder looking for an opportunity to run to the 'social actions or EEO officer' to whine about some chauvinistic outrage by one of the male soldiers. Just imagine a younger Roseanne Barr as a female soldier in your platoon. On top of this sour atmosphere an infantry platoon or a tank section with two or three women soldiers suffering from PMS is a picture of a bad accident waiting to happen or in combat real degradation of combat capacity. As several military friends have noted the elites who dream these social experiments up don't much care. If straight , mostly white, men get to endure more BS or have their careers harmed or even get killed as a result of one of these experiments then too bad , they are just stupid expendable oafs. What is that compare with diversifying the general officer ranks so that some women pseudo-soldier officers can get some brief combat arms career punches so they can get to fill command billets and become generals. In fact it would be hard for any of these would be Hillary Generals to be worse than the current turkey, Martin Dempsey who is CJCS.

[Squantos]

Key is set a standard ..... Male or female. If the six mile run is 38 minutes then everyone regardless of sex meets that standard.

Same for all qualifications be they physical or mental.

Can’t wait for fat out of shape weaker wannabes when your getting shot at. That’s why some males fail the courses now.

If the standards are lowered on mere PC basis then “special” or “elite” etc is just a lable versus ability.

Meeting physical standards set forth is the key. Do not lower the standards . If a troop, again, male or female , can meet the standards then they should be allowed in.

My opinion...

[Chainmail]

Completely agree with you: with rare exceptions, adding women to the combat arms will degrade any efficiency and just be a millstone around the neck of the unit. Women aren't suited to true combat and can't be made to be and the interactions within the unit will destroy any unity.

The female senior officers have been uniformly useless in any combat arms capacity and the few I have served with in the Marine Corps never understood what the Marine Corps was really all about: killing people effectively. This isn't about "job creation" for women - it's about the survival of our armed forces and our country.

[don-o]

There is a tipping point as to how much of this PC nonsense can be crammed down the throats of our warriors. At least I hope so.

[Jim Noble]

If you still think this is up for discussion, have at it.

To me, the concept is absurd. Discussing it - at all - is to become delusional yourself.

Either there will be ground combat in the future, or there won’t. Either we will allow females to lead fire teams, on up to platoons, companies, etc., or we won’t.

If there is combat and if we do allow that, we will be crushed by enemies who are not delusional themselves.

Everything else that is being discussed is beside the point.

Don’t waste your time.

And why excuse yourself by your “at the risk of being labelled a misogynist..” intro? What do you care if they label you? They will label you whatever you say, if what you say is the truth. F*** ‘em.

[Jim Noble]

If you still think this is up for discussion, have at it.

To me, the concept is absurd. Discussing it - at all - is to become delusional yourself.

Either there will be ground combat in the future, or there won’t. Either we will allow females to lead fire teams, on up to platoons, companies, etc., or we won’t.

If there is combat and if we do allow that, we will be crushed by enemies who are not delusional themselves.

Everything else that is being discussed is beside the point.

Don’t waste your time.

And why excuse yourself by your “at the risk of being labelled a misogynist..” intro? What do you care if they label you? They will label you whatever you say, if what you say is the truth. F*** ‘em.

[SJSAMPLE]

Former Army Capt. Tanya Dami NEVER met the men’s standards.

She got by by meeting the lower female standards.

Unless ALL women in the military are forced to meet the men’s standards or GET OUT, there won’t be true “equality”.

Of course, men and women are different.
Forcing TRUE equality upon them would victimize them.

[lacrew]

“Do not lower the standards”

That statement assumes the standards haven’t already been lowered.

As one example, the Army Physical Fitness Test has had two sets of standards for around 3 decades. Due to political pressures, the military is simply incapable of keeping equal standards. They never have been able to do it, and they never will.

[blueunicorn6]

Politics is about rewards. There is no rationality in it. The Democrats are fine with this because they think it appeases the feminists and will bring the Democrats money and votes. Turn it around on them. MAKE women be in the Infantry. Use their favorite policy of Affirmative Action and make all women register for the draft, and then draft them until the Infantry is 60% female. There’s no glamour in the Infantry. Any woman who says she wants to be in the Infantry because it’s so cool and fun and high-paying is a liar and an idiot. The Democrats want to play this game, then rub their nose in it. How many women do you know who want to live in a hole and get their brains blown out? Well, too many women have been voting Democrat with no fear of the consequences. Let’s let them have some of the fear that men have had.

[sr4402]

Either there will be ground combat in the future, or there won’t. Either we will allow females to lead fire teams, on up to platoons, companies, etc., or we won’t

Yes, the Progressives will have pregnant women in combat and fought over by the men for sex. Not only that but they must be salivating over the idea the Mommy can be drafted.

Brave new World, Huh?

[sr4402]

Either there will be ground combat in the future, or there won’t. Either we will allow females to lead fire teams, on up to platoons, companies, etc., or we won’t

Yes, the Progressives will have pregnant women in combat and fought over by the men for sex. Not only that but they must be salivating over the idea the Mommy can be drafted.

Brave new World, Huh?

[Ezekiel]

In combat arms the relative handful of enlisted females that will sign up are likely to be more dysfunctional and maladaptive than the run of the mill soldier and have a big chip on their shoulder looking for an opportunity to run to the 'social actions or EEO officer' to whine about some chauvinistic outrage by one of the male soldiers. Just imagine a younger Roseanne Barr as a female soldier in your platoon.

Or worse:

[Let's Roll]

Blunting the tip of the spear is the purpose behind this ridiculous order.

Our military was getting the job done in spite of the outrageous ROE etc. they were saddled with, so the marxist/muslim cabal had to come up with something they plan to sell as “fairness.”

[robowombat]

I do have a personal reason about what you feel is an obsession. When I was just a boy my second cousin was a GI. One of those who enlisted and wasn't a draftee. He was assigned to the 8th Cav Regiment in the 1st Cav Div on occupation duty in japan. This fellow was a sort of recruiting poster soldier, bright, well motivated and to the degree he could prepare himself combat ready. He was also a genuinely nice fellow. I remember him spending a fair amount of one afternoon, when he was back in the states on the last leave he got to come stateside (that must have been late summer 1949) trying to teach me how to throw a curve ball. I remember eavesdropping on the ‘adults talking’ and my cousin describing how housed up US Army units in Japan were. Flabby, out of shape, corrupt NCO’s, careless officers and more emphasis on seeing that the Doolittle Board's findings be implemented than even training people to field strip and dry fire their weapons. Even a kid like me was impressed hearing that senior NCO’s that had been in the pre war US Army made derogatory remarks that even in the late 30’s soldiers might not have gotten in much range time but they at least had to disassemble and put their rifle back together within a fairly short time frame. The cav, of course , was one of the first three US division committed when the North Koreans invade the south in 1950. My cousin was one of those hundreds of 8th Cav soldiers who was killed in the ambush of that unit at Unsun in october 1950. His body was never recovered. Years later i read ‘This kind of War’ by Fehrenbach and understood what my cousin had been talking about. The pukes who are busy gutting today's army are setting it up for another experience like the summer of 1950. My granddaughter's fiance, another decent young man who wants to make something of himself, is trying to arrange a delayed enlistment and wants to go infantry/airborne, ranger and use that as a path to the SF. All i can tell him is to be forewarned and i have given him a copy of ‘This kind of war’ . Yes, i suppose i could be said to be obsessive on this topic.

[Beagle8U]

Well, the ‘new’ Army is progressive and inclusive. Join up and you have a good chance of sharing a foxhole with a bulldyke, a hairdresser, and a florist or two.

Won't that be fun?

[Rebelbase]

I don’t think menstruating female navy seals having to operate in shark infested waters would be a good idea.

[robowombat]

Yes, it does sound amusing. But the reality of women and queers being treated as
special classes’ in a fighting force means fatal cracks in unit cohesion. When the Army was committed to the Korean battlefield the problems with not being able to trust the people on your flanks or even in the next fighting position immediately appeared. No one expected a third rate country like to north Korea to field a first rate (and vicious) ground combat force. The anals who are doing these things to our Army today are setting it up for another similar experience in some other country most Americans can't even locate on a globe.

[Red Steel]

Generals to be worse than the current turkey, Martin Dempsey who is CJCS.

A total turkey.

Boykin acknowledges that women have served bravely under fire. But those situations have largely been in support roles, not offensive operations. They have not served in units trained and equipped to pursue, engage, and destroy a hostile force.

Boykin is correct. Women will drag down our offensive capabilities leading to unnecessary death and possible defeat and all for PC-ness. Dumb.

[Jack Hammer]

Women in combat = mistake.

BIG mistake.

[yuleeyahoo]

It’s a sick society that sends mommies out to kill people. Mommies are supposed to be kind and nurturing, not killers. That is what daddies are for.