Posted on 10/23/2004 9:39:49 AM PDT by Former Military Chick
ARLINGTON, Va. — The Army is considering whether to formally add women to its new “units of action” structure — which includes combat units — a discussion that had opponents of women in combat up in arms.
Under a 10-year-old ban, women are not allowed to be part of combat units, such as armored cavalry or the infantry.
The Army has no intention of altering the ban against women in combat positions, according to Lt. Col. Chris Rodney, an Army spokesman at the Pentagon.
But as the war on terror has shown, from the Sept. 11 attacks to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, this conflict has no “front lines” from which women can be protected from combat.
Anywhere, at any time, can quickly become a front line, military and U.S. government leaders often point out.
To accommodate this new style of combat, which requires fast, flexible and often very violent responses, the Army is in the middle of “transforming” itself: a plan that places the emphasis on “units of action,” self-contained, self-reliant brigade combat teams that will replace the traditional large, cumbersome divisions.
Part of those “UAs,” according to Rodney said, are “Forward Support Companies” that would be a regular part of the Units of Action.
“The bottom line is, there is no intent right now to lift the ban on women in direct combat units,” Rodney said. “There has been no change to the current policy, and there is no intent to reverse the ban.”
And the issue of whether to make support units including women part of combat units, however, is under discussion only, Rodney said.
“Nothing is final,” Rodney said.
However, there is more to the issue, first reported by The Washington Times on Friday: There is a clause in the ban signed by then-Defense Secretary Les Aspin that says women are not allowed to serve “where units and positions are doctrinally required to physically collocate and remain with direct ground combat units that are closed to women.”
But women are not banned from such tasks as driving trucks, working in mess halls, repairing helicopters, and other jobs that either hold the potential for enemy attacks, or require close proximity to combat units.
And because combat units cannot do their jobs without maintenance and other support assistance, “there have been support units attached to maneuver units” in both Afghanistan and Iraq that include women, Rodney pointed out.
The difference is that such units are temporarily “attached,” to the combat units they support, not permanently assigned.
The plan under discussion by the Army would make such support units a regular part of a Unit of Action, Rodney confirmed.
For now, several female soldiers are assigned to the 601st Aviation Support Battalion, which supports the 1st Squadron, 4th U.S. Cavalry at Forward Operating Base McKenzie, Iraq.
The 1-4 Cavalry is responsible for a large area that includes Samarra, one of the more restive cities in central Iraq.
But Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness in Livonia, Mich., and a leading opponent of women in combat, expressed surprise to hear that female soldiers are, in fact, attached to combat units in Iraq.
Donnelly said that Congress must be informed 30 legislative days (approximately three months) of any changes the Army is considering making to the statute.
“It remains to be seen, definitively, if the Army is violating the law,” Donnelly said. “For any official in the Army to disregard that law would certainly be a serious matter.”
Civilian leaders in the Office of the Secretary of Defense have already been informed of the new … in “lower-level meetings,” according to an Army officer who asked not to be named because participating in such meetings are not part of his responsibilities.
“There are regular meetings that discuss transformation, and this is one of many things that is being looked at,” the officer said.
And Congress “will certainly be consulted if and when” the Army decides it would like to make any changes to the current rules, the officer said.
Since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, 24 of the 793 combat deaths have been female soldiers.
This would not be good for the Army or the U.S.
I know I may receive the wrath of female FReepers but I am entirely against women in infantry combat units.
If I had had a woman in the "hole" with me when I was hit in 1969, I wouldn't be here today. There would have been no way she would have been able to pull me out of the hole.
Face facts people, women do not have the upper body strength of men and women in combat units have already proven to be a morale problem and more of a liability than an asset.
Flame away if you like, I have my asbestos PJ's on this a.m.
Semper Fi,
Kelly
"“The bottom line is, there is no intent right now to lift the ban on women in direct combat units,” Rodney said. “There has been no change to the current policy, and there is no intent to reverse the ban.” "
No intent, that is, until the Democrats retake the Presidency and/or Congress.
I doubt it if Kerry or Hillary would ever come out and say that they intend to force the military to open up combat units to women. Instead, they would push this agenda more through the type of appointments they make to the Defense Dept. They would do it in a more stealth-like manner.
Former grunt here, and I agree with you - unless the Army makes a couple changes.
1) Make EVERY soldier in the Army pass ONE physical fitness test. No variations for male or female, or for age groups.
2) Have the same grooming standards for males and females. No more women with long hair, no more female PAC clerks who got their "nails did."
If the Army made those two changes, I think we'd find most of the women in combat questions answering themselves.
Now, instead of reporting on the heroism of our soldiers, the media focuses on nothing but glurges on the likes of Jessica Lynch, whose primary military experience would be deemed as an absolute military failure in every respect.
Indeed, the only military success in that entire mess was the rescue operation that got her out. But for some reason, in the doe-eyed reporting we get today, the rescuers were ignored and Jessica was named the "hero."
Sorry...there ain't nothing heroic about getting lost and captured by the enemy.
If we put women in combat situations, it's only going to get worse from here. Maybe my view isn't popular, but just look at how quickly Israel took women out of the combat zone after they saw its deleterious effects first-hand. That's something we cannot ignore, particularly when people want to put political correctness ahead of reality.
No offence taken, Kelly. I am a 44 year old woman and I agree.
Frankly I understand your point of view. So I will offer my thoughts and you can offer thoughts on the following post:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My remarks might put me at odds with either the women or the men, needless they are my humble thoughts.
I do believe a woman can do almost anything her counterpart the male can do. Many have served honorable in the military along side men. I for one had. But the issue of combat is much more different.
Men are in closed quarters. This is not about building barracks. These folks are on the move living in tents, showering where they can find water and sleeping where they can grab shut eye.
To integrate women would cause trouble in order and discipline. Not just for the above reasons but that men do defend women. That is in their nature. At least the fine men I knew in the military and those I have become aquatinted with after I left the Air Force. They are to cover their fellow soldiers six, and for most they assume their male soldiers can hold their own but will be there in a heart beat, it is true, you never leave a man behind.
I actually some of the same logic on the subject of gays in the military. I know that they can do a terrific job, many have served and made it to retirement, I applaud those folks but many do not understand the problems this causes.
From a combat issue that I remarked on in the above, it remains true for Gays. It is difficult to afford privacy while at war.
For the women, and men, we do not have private showers. That comes when you make enough to move off post. So, do I want to shower with men, my ego says no. I do not want to be oogled in the shower, but, being amongst women, that threat is gone. Unless someone is gay. You see, we do not combine sexes where there is normal sexual tension. Nobody thinks that they are a gift to men or women. It just makes folks ill at ease.
These are just my thoughts.
terrific post, you might be interested in post #8
Please do not take this as a flame. I agree as a general rule, that women do not make good infantry. There are exceptions to every rule, however. My beloved wife, for example, a member (not auxiliary) of VFW, DAV and Past Commander of our American Legion Post is an 8 year veteran, an expert with weapons, and can bench press over 200 lbs. I assure you, that while she is very feminine and quite good looking, she is also someone you would not want to meet in combat, and she'd never leave a buddy behind.
Thanks, FMC. Post #8 was just the tonic I needed this morning, too. : )
It seems that we no longer have combat units. We now have "units of action".
And God bless her.
But she is one in a million!
And eventhough she has unusual upper body strength, the mere fact that she is a woman, I would not want her in my combat unit.
Every man in the unit would be distracted and tempted.
I am sure I don't have to explain any further.
And combatants have enough to keep them focused on without having the distraction of a woman in the unit.
Again, as I said earlier, it is a morale problem.
The liabilities overwhelm the assets!
There are plenty of able bodied men in America to fill the slots in combat.
Semper Fi,
Kelly
That was kind of my point. I don't particularly care for the GI Jane look, and most women don't either. Standardizing grooming and the PT test would have the effect of making sure the only women in combat arms were women who *really* wanted to be there, and who could *really* cut it. Most guys, myself included, don't mind serving with women when they can pull their weight. Shibumi, your wife sounds like the kind of soldier I wouldn't be horribly adverse to having. The problem is, most women in the Army aren't like that, in my experience. Nobody minds the females who are in good enough physical condition to truly keep up with their male counterparts.
You are most welcome. I suppose I should have read it out loud before posting. But, sometimes I just get to anxious and hit post before I review. Not a good habit.
I always appreciate your point of view. Thank you kindly!
I just have to agree with the Corps.
We don't have co-ed boot camp and we don't have women in grunt units.
Semper Fi,
Kelly
"These are just my thoughts."
And I couldn't have put it better myself.
Semper Fi,
Kelly
"Part of those “UAs,”"
These units are no longer called "UA's" The pentagon has finally made the decision to call them BCT's -Brigade Combat Teams.
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.