Posted on 03/15/2016 9:59:21 AM PDT by w1n1
There are thousands of security contractors operating in high-threat environments and within that group there are a handful of women. They sport the same body armor and equipment, have to uphold the same physical requirements and are expected, by their male peers, to do the exact same work – protect people from danger, up to and including losing their own life.
On the subject of whether women should be in elite military forces, the jury is still out; however females in high-level close protection who cover a range of clients from foreign dignitaries and ambassadors to government and corporate employees and their international guests are holding their own. They are widely accepted within the elite cadre of close-protection specialists and have a significant role to play. The average current ratio is one woman to one hundred men, but it is growing.
In high-threat protection, the primary role is to avoid conflict. This requires a thinking approach. Forethought, flexibility, contingency planning and the ability to seamlessly make changes on the move are paramount. One cannot passively wait for an event to occur and then try to come up with a solution – not well, anyway. This proactive form of protection is all in the training and preparation. Male or female, everyone must be on constant alert and in top physical condition. Read the rest of this female security contractors story here.
There’s no problem with women serving in security positions, such as the Secret Service, the FBI, CIA, etc. Those positions are UNLIKE the combat arms and the special ops which require upper body strength, hygiene deprivation and physical stamina, which most women don’t have on the same level as men. Women in security details works well.
There are some very brave women who take on these roles. But to argue that being a body guard is the same a being a special operator or an infantry solider is nonsense.
Here are a few excerpts from a previous post of mine on the female Ranger School graduates(http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3331276/posts):
“But there are realities of warfare that remain the same as they have throughout history, and there are certain types of units that should and must remain all male. While there are some very physically fit women who can outperform the average man at endurance and strength tests, they are the rare exceptions to the rule. When it comes to the pure applications of “brute force and ignorance” that goes along with closing with and killing other men who are actively trying to kill you, under conditions which require physical exertions that exceed those of any professional sport, men are simply more suited to the occasion. The reality is far different from what Hollywood portrays in the movies.....
This truth of physical strength in martial endeavors applies when carrying 70 to 100 lbs of gear up the side of a mountain at 10,000 feet above sea level to root Al Qaeda members out of caves, when repairing the 3 ton track of an M1 tank in the snow, and to all the tasks related to the movement and operation of a field artillery piece or other heavy armored vehicles.”
On 20 November 1943, during the horrific fighting on Betio atoll during the battle of Tarawa, two Japanese tanks mounted a counterattack against the fragile Marine toehold on Red Beach 3. The Marines were huddled there at the base of a seawall in the face of withering fire from the rikusentai of Admiral Keiji Shibasaki fanatical Japanese Naval Landing Force defenders who were slaughtering hundreds of their 2nd Marine Division comrades in Betio Lagoon during 76 hours of some of the most savage fighting in the history not only of the Marines, but the US armed forces.
Marine anti-tank gun crews were trying to figure out how to get their 912 lb 37MM M3 antitank guns over the 7 foot plus seawall. The battery commander ordered his 5 man crews to LIFT them over. Being Marines who always obeyed even seemingly impossible orders, they did EXACTLY that and promptly knocked out the tanks. They then engaged several enemy bunkers whose dual purpose guns were repeatedly knocking out the approaching landing craft and put them out of action. Finally they routed a local counter attack of 200 or so Japanese against the south shore of Red Beach 3 with canister shot, all of this at a critical and precarious point in the landing.
Familiarize your self with the case of Merrils Marauders in WWII in the China Burma India Theatre. From Feb-May of 1944, the men of Galahad Force were subjected to the most grueling long term commitment probably of ANY US combat unit in history. They were tasked with a long range deep penetration operation behind Japanese lines. At the end of it, almost every man was wracked by dysentery, malaria, scrub typhus, cholera, and any number of debilitating diseases that sapped their strength to far below whatever it was when they began the operation. Their mission had been extended and lengthened several times, and their debilitated condition was not deemed sufficient to allow them relief.
I fear we are losing the institutional memory of having faced enemies that are capable of defeating us on the battlefield. We have not faced such an enemy since the summer/winter of 1950 on the Korean Peninsula. The names of Task Force Smith, the 1st Battles of Taejon and Seoul, the Pusan perimeter the ambush of the 2nd Infantry Division at Kunu-Ri and the 80 mile withdrawal from the Chosen Resovoir seem but distant memories. The cultural marxists now in charge of the Obama administration are indulging in the sort of social experimentation SURE to result in defeat or serious setback against an enemy capable of projecting the sort of battle field power that would lead to the battlefield reverses that the US Armed Forces suffered at Kasserine Pass, the Hurtegen Forest, the Rapido River the US Strategic Bombing Campaign, the 1st Naval Battle of Guadalcanal, (Savo Island) or the Rangers at Cisterna in Italy. Only a feckless nation that is oblivious about facing an enemy capable of inflicting these sorts of battle field defeats would contemplate such a disastrous notion.
I mean no disrespect to the female personnel of the US Armed Forces who have served and ARE serving their nation honorably and well. I respect them as fellow vets and comrades in arms. Policy decisions are above their level for the most part.
But as a matter of POLICY, I think that women should be excluded from the armed forces for the most part, with a few exceptions and COMPLETELY from combat and most combat support roles, particularly when the armed forces are a small percentage of the total population, as is the case now. The use of significant numbers of women should be reserved for large scale mobilization as was the case in WWII. The population base is more than twice as large now as then and there would be no problem securing a sufficient number of qualified men with appropriate incentives for such a relatively small armed forces.
The advantages for the armed forces, particularly the Army would be greater flexibility as to how personnel can be deployed in combat emergencies and other contingincies and a lesser logistical strain as involves clothing, barracks and housing, and innumerable other considerations that are exclusive to the maintainance of large numbers of women. I think morale and discipline would also be improved as well.
The courts have repeatedly ruled that the armed forces are exempted from many of the equal opportunity requirements of the civillian world, and for the very good and sufficient requirements that are unique to the armed forces. This contretemps is being propelled largely by the cultural marxist wing of gender equity feminism who wish for the placement of a leftist Chairwoman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The resultant detriment of the ability of the armed forces to fight plays no consideration in their calculus, other than as an peripheral side benefit.
I know that women have played a vital role during guerrilla, partisan warfare and sabotage/espionage activity. But to deliberately employ them in ground combat units whose primary task is to close with, engage and destroy similar enemy units is the height of lunacy and madness given the effort required to identify the relative few who could qualify even if we ignore the potential detriments to morale and discipline.
This is sheer and utter madness akin to allowing open homosexuals to serve in the armed forces. Oh has that happened too???
Well said.
Didn’t work so well for Kadafi.
GREAT! Until they have to fireman carry a 240 pound man to cover. Then the guy being protected and the body guard can both get killed.
Just like combat, it will only work if the entire team is female body guard(s) guarding another female and has upper body strength to match the others.
President imam zero does not have female bodyguards surrounding him and he’s skinny. *Hint maybe he’ll hire a few but they’ll have to wear bed sheets and cover their faces, unlike the mooch.
DMZFrank, thanks for the interesting history of some very significant battles and the Herculean strength of those manning some very heavy weapon systems.
I am aware of some very brave women who did fight well in some some close fights....While I agree with the need to keep the combat arms branches all male, I have to disagree with you on excluding women from military service all together. They are doing a lot of great and necessary work. — Women do make excellent pilots and in many cases their natural abilities (eye hand coordination and ability to withstand G forces) are superior to mens....
I met a woman once - no details - who was an operator in “hostage rescue”, except she was always deploying overseas to places where there were no hostages. This was before 9/11.
The thing about her was that she was the most seductive woman I’ve ever met. In fact, the reason she was seeing me was because all of her other consultants had just done what she “suggested” (i.e., commanded) them to do, and she wasn’t getting the results she needed.
I never figured out if she could turn it on and off (was it weaponized) or if it was just nature.
Anyway, feminine skills undoubtedly have a role in covert ops, even where danger is involved.
I am afraid that the influence of cultural marxism is so pervasive and powerful as to make these changes that we deplore inevitable should we continue to demand large numbers of women in ANY capacity...I remember the discussion when women were first admitted to the service academies and I said than that this means that we would eventually get to this point in the debate. I was hooted down then as an alarmist.
Perhaps if the nation ever regains it’s sanity, than we might come to a proper understanding, but the environment becomes ever more fanatical.
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.