The malcontents have hit the panic button so many times, one wonders who still believes such hype...
"Officials Ignore DoD Rules, Congressional Notification Law The United States Army plans to force female soldiers into land combat units, despite current regulations and a law requiring prior notice to Congress. CMR has learned that some Army leaders believe there might not be enough male soldiers to fill the new “unit of action” combat brigades. They are therefore making incremental changes in policy that will soon force young unprepared women—many of them mothers—to fight in land combat.
Information and official briefing documents obtained by CMR indicate that the soon-to-deploy Third Infantry Division is ignoring a Defense Department rule that exempts female soldiers from support units that collocate with land combat troops such as the infantry. Defense Department and Army officials have also violated a law requiring prior notice to Congress if rules affecting female soldiers are changed.
Left unchallenged, these actions could quickly affect all land combat units, including Special Operations Forces and the Marine Corps.
Since March of 2004, both civilian and uniformed Army officials have been trying in various ways to gender-integrate sub-units of combined infantry/armor “units of action” (UA) combat brigades in the 3rd Infantry Division.
Strategies tried so far have involved violation of current rules governing the assignment of female soldiers in land combat units, unilateral redefinition of those rules, or implementation of inefficient organizational plans that would sacrifice the advantages of self-contained, modular organizations in the Army’s new combat brigades.
In pursuing these shortsighted courses of action, the Army has already violated current regulations regarding women in combat, which were established as official policy in 1994 by then-Defense Secretary Les Aspin. Officials have not provided any rationale for ignoring DoD policy, compromising the efficiency of the new units of action, or forcing female soldiers into land combat units for the first time in America’s history.
Nor has the Army complied with the law mandating prior notice to Congress over a period of 30 legislative days, when both Houses are in session. The 2002 Defense Authorization Act also requires that formal notice include an analysis of the impact of proposed changes on the constitutionality of young women’s exemption from Selective Service obligations.
To CMR’s knowledge, no such notice has been given. Some Army officials have even made the unsupported claim, contrary to plain language in the law, that prior notification to Congress is not required. In fact, they say, formal approval by the Secretary of Defense is not required. President George W. Bush and members of Congress must not allow this arrogant non-compliance to stand.
Courageous female soldiers are serving well in the War on Terrorism, and the nation is proud of them. That pride, however, does not justify acceptance of the illicit arrangement being implemented initially by the 3rd Infantry Division, which is due to deploy to Iraq early in 2005.
Army Moves to Repeal Collocation Rule
The Army’s most recent plans, as presented to House and Senate Armed Services Committee staff members on November 3, 2004, would force female soldiers into support units that are organic to and collocated with combined UA infantry/armor battalions. These plans, which are already in progress, constitute violation of current Defense Department regulations, and an unprecedented departure from sound organizational practices for combat units. They also continue a pattern of dissembling and misleading semantics designed to circumvent the law.
The organizational charts presented on November 3 purport to “move” the forward support companies (FSCs) from the maneuver battalions into the gender-integrated brigade support battalions (BSBs), and thereby avoid the responsibility to report the rule changes to Congress. This is similar to a course of action initiated at Fort Stewart in May, which the Army admitted could be seen as a form of “subterfuge.”
Whether “assigned” or “attached” on paper to one unit or the other, in real life the forward support companies will live and work with the maneuver battalions, 100% of the time. Since the battlefield of today has changed, the collocation rule should be strengthened, not weakened. The only sound policy is to stop the equivocation, keep these units all-male, and apply the collocation rule consistently in all units that are organic to or collocated with direct ground combat forces.
Female soldiers should not be forced to participate in deliberate offensive or defensive actions on land, under conditions where they do not have an “equal opportunity” to survive, or to help fellow soldiers survive.
Policy will Not End With New Land Combat “Unit of Action” Brigades
At the very least, President Bush and members of Congress must insist that the Army comply with the law before new precedents are set that could cost lives in combat. Incremental steps in the wrong direction would inevitably lead to radical change in all land combat units, including the Reconnaissance, Surveillance, Target Acquisition (RSTA) squadrons of the new Stryker Brigade Combat Teams (SBCTs), Special Operations Forces, and the Marine Corps.
The vision of transformation in the Army should be allowed to proceed and be tested in combat without the burden of social friction and operational inefficiencies. The Army should be making combat units and all forms of training more efficient and effective, not less so.
The Center for Military Readiness has issued a CMR Policy Analysis of the Army’s latest plans, and sent it to President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, House and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairmen Duncan Hunter (R-CA) and John Warner (R-VA), Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and other high-level civilian and uniformed officials in the Departments of Defense and the Army. That document is posted on CMR's web site at the link provided at the end of this article.
In response, the Army issued a three-sentence non-denial that tried but failed to conceal the truth. (See link posted here.) With all of the controversy about whether there are enough troops in Iraq or not, it is disheartening to see officials of the US Army planning to send female soldiers into land combat. The same people who retained counter-productive gender recruiting quotas to meet Clinton-era social goals are now forcing unprepared female soldiers to pay the price for their short-sighted, poor judgment. In doing so, they are knowingly compromising combat efficiency in the new unit of action combat brigades, which don’t deserve to be saddled with unprecedented social burdens in a time of war.
Americans who care about men and women in the military, and oppose policies that will make their jobs more difficult and more dangerous, should call or write the Chairmen of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA, 202/225-5672) and Sen. John Warner (R-VA, 202/224-2023).
President George W. Bush, who can be reached through the White House Opinion Line, 202/456-1414, should be asked to intervene immediately to bring the Army back into compliance with law and policy. Forcing female soldiers into land combat should not be allowed to stand as the first major policy change in President Bush’s new administration."
http://cmrlink.org/WomenInCombat.asp?docID=241
CMR
The malcontents have hit the panic button so many times, one wonders who still believes such hype...
| policy that will soon force young unprepared women—many of them mothers—to fight in land combat.
|
In the past, the Pentagon was 'the Pentagon' and the Senate was the Senate and the President was the President.
Now, it is BUSH'S PENTAGON, even though this alledged policy change in one branch of the military is likely being done without the President's knowledge or approval.
If it is being changed to limit the women and the cost of fixing it, then their would obviously be an equal rights issue, and therefore it is not something you tell your boss. It is something you thought that could be claimed as only a technical rewrite by the legal branch, and go unnoticed.
"policy that will soon force young unprepared women—many of them mothers—to fight in land combat."
And with one arm tied behind their backs, they'll do a much better job than any pencil necked lib Dem wannabeguy.
Army says number of black enlistees is way down. Women are needed to fill the ranks, and this is rather odd. Rummy and Bush say we have plenty of troops.
..but what's with Elaine Donnelly blaming the Bush administration?!
It was Clinton who pushed & promoted this....
Also, I agree with many of you......when a woman signs up, she has to know it will disrupt portions of her life ....including family life and babies.
...but we don't have a draft, so the choice was hers.
I'm not hardhearted, but the feminazis have been beating this drum for years.....women in combat....women in the military doing the same job as men....
..and the Elaine Donnelly's have tried to counter this movement the best they can...
...but I repeat, why in the world is she hammering on the Bush administration?
Any nation that places their women on a battlefront isn't worth defending!
Women already are in combat, as fighter pilots and as military police.
BUSH OFFERS WOMEN OPPORTUNITY TO FIGHT IN COMBAT
A more appropriate headline that we will never see.
The best way to solve the problem of women in the military is to place them in combat. The over reaction will result in cleansing them out altogether.
In my opinion a woman should be allowed in combat IF she can pass all the tests and requirements that the men are required to pass. There should be NO allowances made for her because she is female. Most women and some men are not fit for combat. If they want to join military then they could be put in non-combat positions, if a position is available for them. The pay should be according to the type of job, just like the private sector. Combat troops should be paid the most. I would gladly see my taxes raised if I thought it was going to the combat troops and their families. I'm ashamed that they are paid so little and sacrifice so much. God Bless Our Troops!
May this be a ruse to get women out of the military integration with men
Scare them away( and rightly so )
"WE ARE EQUAL MAKE US EQUAL"
"But I don't WANNA fight boys hand-to-hand!"
"WE ARE EQUAL MAKE US EQUAL"
"But the draft isn't fair for women cuz uh..."
"WE ARE EQUAL MAKE US EQUAL"
"OH NO! They might make me pull my weight...aren't you going to *do* something?????"
The differences between the second Bush Administration and the Clinton Administration, which preceded it, are far less significant in the fight to preserve Western values in general and American values in particular, than are the similarities. This report should outrage and disgust every Conservative, but some who need to defend almost anything labelled Republican, will doubtless try to defend what is going on.
The issue here, however, is infinitely larger than anything related to Democratic or Republican politics. At stake here is the whole Chivalric tradition, hammered out over more than a thousand years, on the battle fields and in the thought centers of Western Man. Of course, most ancients understood the same principles.
For those who embrace the intellectual quackery which would pretend that sex roles are unimportant, I challenge you to answer my argument in The Feminist Absurdity. For all, who would uphold both common sense and traditional values, I urge you to let your voices be heard, at every opportunity.
William Flax
Who, or what, is the "Center for Military Readiness?"
The Center for Military Readiness has issued a CMR Policy Analysis of the Army’s latest plans, and sent it to President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, House and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairmen Duncan Hunter (R-CA) and John Warner (R-VA), Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and other high-level civilian and uniformed officials in the Departments of Defense and the Army. That document is posted on CMR's web site at the link provided at the end of this article.
In response, the Army issued a three-sentence non-denial that tried but failed to conceal the truth. (See link posted here.) With all of the controversy about whether there are enough troops in Iraq or not, it is disheartening to see officials of the US Army planning to send female soldiers into land combat. The same people who retained counter-productive gender recruiting quotas to meet Clinton-era social goals are now forcing unprepared female soldiers to pay the price for their short-sighted, poor judgment. In doing so, they are knowingly compromising combat efficiency in the new unit of action combat brigades, which don’t deserve to be saddled with unprecedented social burdens in a time of war.
Americans who care about men and women in the military, and oppose policies that will make their jobs more difficult and more dangerous, should call or write the Chairmen of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA, 202/225-5672) and Sen. John Warner (R-VA, 202/224-2023).
President George W. Bush, who can be reached through the White House Opinion Line, 202/456-1414, should be asked to intervene immediately to bring the Army back into compliance with law and policy. Forcing female soldiers into land combat should not be allowed to stand as the first major policy change in President Bush’s new administration.
==============
There seems to be an awareness that the "Bush Pentagon" is not made up only of "Bush appointees" but continues to be stuffed full of Clinton holdovers who just may still exert some influence.
Frankly, I agree with these concerns wholeheartedly but think the title including "Bush Pentagon" is ludicrous.
Female soldiers should not be forced to participate in deliberate offensive or defensive actions on land, under conditions where they do not have an “equal opportunity” to survive, or to help fellow soldiers survive."
Once you let the camel's nose under the tent, you are soon sleeping in camel doo-doo. This was predicted by everyone with a lick of sense. Given a battlefield like Iraq with no front line, how could it be different once you open up most of the military specialties to women.
But the feminist fringe wanted equal 'everything' including the equal right to die for their country and now its happening. Remember that the 'right' of women to fly combat fighters was settled some years ago.
O what a brave new world we face.
Waiting for more info to come out, before commenting.
For cryin out loud, either get them completely out, or treat them as any other soldier.
This game playing needs to come to a screeching halt.
They have everything from shipboard life to military academies screwed up royally and you can do some creative guessing to figure out what side of the issue I am on.
What I suggest is that if women want to serve, that they resurrect the WAC and other female units that are purely support in specific non combat areas, and that military academies drop the co-ed crap and get back to the business at hand.
Elaine needs to turn her job over to some chivalrous man. I will tolerate hearing that crap from a member of my own sex, but coming from her, it just sounds like a Brahmin whining that she got what she wanted.