We Few, We Happy Few - The Band of Brothers Bonding is no Myth

US Defense Watch ^ | December 9, 2015 | Ray Starmann

[Louis Foxwell]

The administration’s insistence upon homosexuality in combat is interesting if not absurd. There was substantial homosexual involvement among the forces of Alexander as they marched their way across all of the known world. Homosexuality in the modern army is something entirely different where camaraderie is broken down by sexual intrigue, whether by queers or women. Clearly the administration is seeking to dissemble the finest fighting force in the world.

[ohioman]

Having our women in combat is a complete joke and should never be accepted. This needs to be repealed.

[Forward the Light Brigade]

New CSA will be the Constutional States of America and have nothing to do with Slavery and may well exist in the west as well as parts of the east—centered on Texas. They will abide by the real Constution not the cut and paste thing King Obama uses.

[TADSLOS]

Screw you.

[BroJoeK]

Southron Patriot: "The Israeli's tried coed Combat Units just before the Yom Kippur War and those units that had been integrated fell apart and most were either captured or killed."

Obviously, that experiment failed.
But I am not prepared, yet, to believe that the US Army has been totally corrupted and degraded by today's political correctness.
I am fully prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt, that they can pull this off and be better for it.

I've now pointed out several times that qualifying for the toughest, most dangerous jobs must necessarily be limited to the best of the best men, to say nothing of women.
If standards are maintained, there will be very, very few women who qualify, and those that do will be, ahem, tough as nails.

Then we still have to learn if they can function well in a cohesive, effective unit.
If they do, I have no problem with it, if not, I would expect the experiment to end, at some point.

Southron Patriot: "ONLY 1 woman out of the dozen or so could do their job and she was the exception (Irish girl from Minnesota who was tough as nails, what an Irish temper..."

Exactly, that's the Army of One I'm talking about.

[BroJoeK]

ohioman: "Having our women in combat is a complete joke and should never be accepted. This needs to be repealed."

In fact, some women have effectively been in combat going back to WWII.

Statistics for the recent Iraq war say women were 15% of US forces there and suffered nearly 1,000 deaths or wounds.
So, I'll say it again: the number of fully qualified for combat women must necessarily be quite small, but if the experiment succeeds, I have no particular problem with it.
And if the experiment fails, then that'll doubtless be the last we hear of it.

[ohioman]

I am talking about combat positions. Do us a favor and STFU.

[BroJoeK]

Ohioman: "I am talking about combat positions"

No, you are blathering nonsense.

Ohioman:"Do us a favor and STFU."

Do us a favor and STFU.

[ohioman]

Well, anyone who is fine with having our women in combat positions can GFT and that includes you.

[BroJoeK]

ohioman: "Well, anyone who is fine with having our women in combat positions can GFT and that includes you."

Women who volunteer, women who qualify in training, women who increase their unit's combat effectiveness.
It may well turn out there are no such women -- none -- and if so, then we'll soon know that biology can only be stretched so far.
But I wouldn't cancel this experiment until it's results are fully known.

Now, FRiend, go "GFT".

[ohioman]

This will eventually morph into our communist Government drafting our daughters, which is a disgusting thought.

[BroJoeK]

ohioman: "This will eventually morph into our communist Government drafting our daughters, which is a disgusting thought."

First of all, just so we're clear on it: I totally agree with you that Dems are hoping to destroy the US military as an effective fighting force.
Social welfare, political correctness and quotas by group are what they want, winning wars is the last thing on their minds, and even the draft itself, when Dems propose it, is intended as a tool for destroying military cohesiveness.

In Democrat ideology, the perfect, ideal, model soldier is, yes, of course, "Sgt." Bo Bergdahl.
That's who they want more and more of.

No argument on that.

That's why I believe there will not be another military draft short of World War Three, and if/when that happens, we will be looking at mass casualties on a scale beyond even WWII numbers.
It will then be "all citizen to your battle stations", including whomever is qualified to do the job -- male, female, whatever.

So I consider what's happening today an experiment, one which will either confirm or falsify the hypothesis that some women can be fit, trained and qualified to serve in active combat units.
In a few years, we'll learn how well it works.
If gender-integrated units do prove capable in actual combat, then I don't have a problem with it.

[mac_truck]

Women serving in combat is idiotic.

Stop pushing the lefts agenda.

[BroJoeK]

Mac_truck: "Women serving in combat is idiotic. Stop pushing the lefts agenda."

No agenda here.
Your hypothesis is being tested and will be either confirmed or falsified.
My guess is it will be confirmed under some circumstances, falsified under others, and the military will learn the limits of human nature and physical abilities.
The question is, how many extra lives must be lost in the process?

But let me put it to you this way: if I had a choice between a qualified motivated woman soldier on the one hand, and a Bergdahl or, let's say, Lt. John Kerry on the other, I would order the women soldiers to shoot the traitors -- after all due process, of course.

What's your problem with that?

[ohioman]

I will always have a problem with women in combat. The military is no place for social experiments.

[BlueLancer]

"Those who volunteer will either qualify or they won't, most won't.
Those who do qualify will either serve with distinction, or they won't -- most will, and they will be the bad-assest of the bad-asses, and you will not wish to mess with them, not just on their one day a month, but every other day too."

The problem with starting down that road is that it won't stay that way. When the powers-that-be find that most, if not all, of the females who volunteer wash out because they can't meet the mental or physical requirements to perform the job, they simply move the goal-posts and change the requirements downward to facilitate meeting their quota of women succeeding.

I don't know whether you actually served in the military or not, but I spent five years in the infantry and then 15 in combat-support and still currently work on Fort Hood as a DA civilian. I see it all of the time where the standards are adjusted downwards to meet some "social criteria" of assuring that their "diversity quotas" are met. PT standards have fallen across the board even in combat-support outfits to ensure that only the utterly worst fail. Even in my position as a court reporter/court stenographer, the standards for newbees have fallen drastically and the resulting output from those who "succeed" in their training reflects that downward trend.

In general, that's what I believe to be the reason for most of the pessimism shown by male military personnel, retirees, and veterans toward this sort of thing. We see that lip-service to "meeting the standards" is a mirage; the standards just keep slipping until their quota is met.

[BroJoeK]

ohioman: " The military is no place for social experiments."

Going all the way back to the American Revolutionary War, the US military has always been a place for "social experiments".

1. In the Revolutionary War, some women served in combat -- the name "Molly Pitcher" comes to mind as representing several women.

2. More significant, George Washington used many freed black soldiers in integrated units -- at Yorktown a British officer noted about 1/4 of US soldiers were black.

3. During the Civil War, the Union Army enlisted nearly 200,000 black soldiers, freed and runaway slaves, some of whom served with distinction in combat.

4. During WWII, President Roosevelt stood up the Tuskegee Airmen, who demonstrated that blacks could pilot planes with the best of them.

5. In 1948, President Truman ordered an end to segregation in the military despite objections from the Secretary of the Army, and others.

6. Women in the military have slowly, slowly expanded the number of MOS's they can fill -- to the point where today there are only a handful of "men only" specialties restricted to them.

7. As I've said before: the current experiment will demonstrate where, exactly, are the limits of human nature and physical capabilities.
   My guess is that few women will volunteer for combat, and those who do will be some very tough cookies.

1) Molly Pitcher, 2)Black US soldier at Yorktown, 3) Truman desegregates military, 4)today:

[ohioman]

Give the Mr. Last word crap a rest. We will never agree. Women do NOT belong in combat positions.

[BroJoeK]

BlueLancer: "I don't know whether you actually served in the military or not..."

Yes, I did serve,"Vietnam era", right when the last of the draftees were being replaced by all-volunteers.
I could immediately see a huge difference in quality and motivation.

My guess is the military today is somewhat analogous to the one I knew after Vietnam, and before Reagan rebuilt & restored it.
One thing I know for certain is that the military responds to leadership, both good and bad.
So, when current insanity is replaced by really good leadership at the very top, our military will again be a force we can be proud of, and depend on.

Whether that will include some women in some combat units, I don't know, but would not automatically rule it out.

[BroJoeK]

ohioman: I will "give the Mr. Last word crap a rest.
We will never soon agree.
Women do NOT We will learn if women belong in combat positions."

There, fixed it for you.
You're welcome.