Army agrees no women in combat for now

Washington Times ^ | 1/13/05 | Rowan Scarborough

[kattracks]

The Army said yesterday it is "premature" to say whether the service will ask for changes in rules forbidding women in combat, a day after President Bush said firmly that he opposes changing the rules against assigning women to ground combat.
    The Washington Times asked Army headquarters at the Pentagon whether, given the president´s statement, the service would end a yearlong internal discussion about lifting the so-called "collocation rule" to change the rules prohibiting mixed-sex units commingling with combat units.

Army spokeswoman Lt. Col. Pamela Hart said: "The policy concerning women's roles in the military is still in effect. The Army remains in compliance with the current policy and public law regarding women in combat. It is premature to speculate about whether we will request a change at this time."
    If the Army changes the rule, it would require approval from the staff of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, and notification of Congress.
    Elaine Donnelly, who heads the Center for Military Readiness and opposes women in combat, yesterday said the center applauds Mr. Bush for affirming his support for current Defense Department policy on land combat, but said the White House should intervene to prevent thwarting the commander in chief´s opposition.
    Mrs. Donnelly, who has wide contacts within the military, said the 3rd Infantry Division, based at Fort Stewart, Ga., is intermingling mixed-sex Forward Support Companies with combat battalions. The division, which led the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, is readying to return to Iraq early this year.
    "There is a need for the administration to intervene," Mrs. Donnelly said. "Some Army officials have claimed that the Defense Department policy remains unchanged. But these assertions are mistaken and misleading.

[metalcor]

Somebody define combat for me---I've got a daughter in Mosul and what she is experiencing sounds like combat to me. And what are the 27 women listed as KIA for if there are no women in combat? Why did my daughter get a combat medic badge in 1 week if she isn't in combat? Why is she training her weapon on 5 year old kids on orders if she isn't in combat? How did she see an Iraqi interpreter get blown to bits just 20 yards away if she isn't in combat?

Sorry just venting. The President saying he would never put women into combat reached me just as I got to hear how my daughter's week in Mosul was going

[Minuteman23]

I don't like the "for now" part.

[Lancey Howard]

BUMP

[speed_addiction]

Somebody define combat for me---I've got a daughter in Mosul and what she is experiencing sounds like combat to me. And what are the 27 women listed as KIA for if there are no women in combat? Why did my daughter get a combat medic badge in 1 week if she isn't in combat? Why is she training her weapon on 5 year old kids on orders if she isn't in combat? How did she see an Iraqi interpreter get blown to bits just 20 yards away if she isn't in combat? Sorry just venting. The President saying he would never put women into combat reached me just as I got to hear how my daughter's week in Mosul was going

I hear what you are saying. My daughter lost an eye, the hearing in her left ear and suffered some nerve damage to her left arm after a grenade attack in Bagdad. In the short time she was was there she was involved in several firefights, had a round stike a flashlight clipped to her LBE, kicked a grenade out of the back of a truck, twice was part of an escort detail when it got hit by a roadside bomb, and pulled two MPs from a burning Hummer.

She got her combat medic badge almost as soon as she got there also. She was serving with an MP company. Those poor guys are seeing almost as much action as the infantry. Jazz, my daughter was briefly on CNN once when they were doing a report on women serving in dangerous areas of Iraq. She was providing overwatch with a SAW mounted on a turrent on a Humvee. Not what I wanted to see.

[benjaminjjones]

Maybe I'm a Cro-Magnon, but if I have to go out and hunt humans, I don't need to worry about protecting the women of my tribe at the same time.

[metalcor]

God bless you and her---I'll bet she is just fine with it? I have a hard time keeping myself from telling my girl she is a girl. She knows it, just thinks that it means something different from what I think it means. Kids, who needs 'em?

[metalcor]

I don't know if you are a Cro-magnon, but you are confusing as hell at this hour.

[speed_addiction]

God bless you and her---I'll bet she is just fine with it? I have a hard time keeping myself from telling my girl she is a girl. She knows it, just thinks that it means something different from what I think it means. Kids, who needs 'em?

She is fine. She has complete 100% motion in her left arm, but has some numb patches. She got her prostetic eye a couple of weeks ago. It is the hearing aid that she really does not like. She is really none the worse for wear. She rides her dirtbike almost every weekend and is looking for to softball season (one of her passions). She may have some depth perception isues, but she is stubborn enough to overcome them.

One thing Jazz did tell me was that there are quite a few female MPs in Iraq. They are no less ballsy than the guys over there. May god watch over them all.

[demecleze]

You can't place women in the military without possibly exposing them to combat. The more support jobs they have the greater the chance of combat.

You may restrict them from being in combat units whose primary function is direct contact with the enemy (kind of fuzzy I guess). This will REDUCE the number exposed to said combat (as in Iraq with a relatively low proportion being KIA as compared to men).

It must be also kept in mind that mobile warfare seeks to attack the support units with flanking and exploitation of armored penetrations. If the US is ever up against a nice worthy stand a fight like a man foe (like the Germans in WWII), there may be catastrophic casualties in support units.

And of course during an insurgency the rebels are looking for relatively soft targets and probably go after support units as often as they can.

To me it is about semantics. And talking from both sides of the mouth.

[leadpenny]

Thank you both for raising a couple of fine Americans.

Please pass along my gratitude to them for their service.

[LTCJ]

The President saying he would never put women into combat... the 3rd Infantry Division, based at Fort Stewart, Ga., is intermingling mixed-sex Forward Support Companies with combat battalions

"You have to either change your policies or your preconceptions," Mr.Allard said. "That means, No. 1, you need more people in uniform and you need more men in uniform if you are going to keep the policy. You cannot continue to keep the same size and then have some hope that you're going to be able to make all this stuff work."

The Army is increasingly stretched thin, as it fights wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and maintains a deterrent force in Europe and South Korea, and gives combat units time to rest and replenish at home base before deploying again.

These issues are indicative of what I believe to be a huge political shell game being played with the military by two major groups. On the one hand are high ranking politicians who have a vested political interest in maintaining a smaller force structure in spite of increased operational demands. On the other are those who want to use the military to validate their notions of societal ideals.

Neither group is putting the best interests of the countery, nor the men and women that serve her first, in my considered opinion.

Metalcor, may God bless and protert your daughter.

[DMZFrank]

One of the problems in assesing the impact of this issue vis-a-vis the Iraq war is the fact that we handily defeated them initialy with the forces that were already in place in the invasion phase. Due to a combination of the skill of our superbly trained, equipped, motivated soldiers; and the ineptitude of our enemy (but they are getting better) our casualty rate has been thankfully far lower than we should have been reasonably able to expect given historical precedents. Notwithstanding this the question must be asked as to what would happen should we face an enemy that could inflict the sort of casualties on us has was the case during the fighting in northwest Europe in WWII? The United States Army was forced to comb out military personnel who had been assigned to the Army Specialized Training program as technical personnel (aircrew, radar operators, etc) and convert them to infantry to replace the staggering losses. Since 14% of the Army is not deployable to such duty (women) this does not bode well for such an eventuality.

[marinegrunt123]

My name is Dan and I'm a Staff Sergeant in the Marines, I've been an infantryman stationed at 29 Palms, CA. for over five years, during the last two years I've been deployed to Iraq three times and to be quite honest with all of you I've met many female soldiers and marines that were good to go that I would choose to go into combat with in a minute, more than I would with some of the male marines I've served with. For these guys saying that women can't handle themselves and would only jepordize a unit, well give it a try, while being in Iraq my unit and I found ourselves in a situation we had never been in before, looking to our left and right and having a women in full combat fighting rite next to us.