Women in combat ban again at issue

THE WASHINGTON TIMES ^ | February 4, 2005 | Rowan Scarborough

[neverdem]

---

The Washington Times
www.washingtontimes.com

---

Women in combat ban again at issue

By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published February 4, 2005

---

The chairman of the House Armed Services Committee has ordered an investigation into whether transformed Army divisions are violating the Pentagon rule against sex-integrated support units embedding with land combat battalions.

    Committee Chairman Rep. Duncan Hunter said that his staff should complete the inquiry soon, at which time he will assess whether the Army is complying.

    "We're looking into this issue," the California Republican said. "We don't have many preliminary results, but the committee is looking at this. It's a serious question and we'll probably have an answer in a week or so."

    The issue has arisen as the Army reorganizes its 33 combat brigades, within 10 divisions, into 40 or more modular "units of action." The goal is for the units to train and deploy as one so they can respond quickly to world trouble spots.

    Critics inside and outside the Army charge that it is violating the embed rule in order to make the units modular. They say Army organizational charts show that for forward support companies (FSCs) to correctly do their job of providing war-fighting units with support in a war zone, as in the 3rd Infantry Division heading to Iraq, these mixed-sex units will have to embed with all-male combat forces.

    The Army disagrees, saying the FSCs are attached at the higher brigade level and do not routinely embed with combat battalions. If true, the arrangement would meet policy restrictions.

    President Bush, in an interview with The Washington Times in January, firmly...

[A Balrog of Morgoth]

Good.

[vpintheak]

Women do not need to be near the battle lines for any reason whatsoever. Anyone who thinks different has never been there, and is flat out wrong.

[Wiz]

Let's see if GI Jane has any objections.

[Jay Howard Smith]

NO... It is un-American, un-Christian, and immoral.

[reagandemocrat]

Bears repeating:

Women do not need to be near the battle lines for any reason whatsoever. Anyone who thinks different has never been there, and is flat out wrong.

[leadpenny]

It's time for this United States to decide.

Any future battlefield can put anyone in uniform in harm's way.

If, as a country, we decide it is unacceptable to risk the lives of women, then they shouldn't be in the military in the first place.

On the other hand, if it is acceptable, we need to shut up about it and move on.

Don't take it personal, ladies.

[neverdem]

"My assessment is that, in our new brigade combat teams (units of action), no women will be assigned to a unit below the brigade level whose primary mission is direct ground combat," Mr. Harvey said. "Neither will women be routinely collocated [the Army word for embedded] with units assigned a direct combat mission.

I think that will give the wiggle room. When manuever battalions engage in offensive operations, these forward support companies will remain at brigade headquarters. When the manuever battalions are in a defensive posture after offensive operations, these forward support companies will advance forward.

[neverdem]

Are any women assigned or attached to any artillery or air defense artillery units?

[leadpenny]

To ensure that all support units in a brigade (combat or combat service) will always be positioned in a rear location is a consideration that commanders should not be burdened with. For instance, as I understand, women now fly the Apache. If a woman is crewing an Apache, should the commander have to take that into consideration when employing her aircraft for a given environment?

[hawk911]

Like somebody else already said many support MOS put soldiers virtually on the front lines, even if there primary function is not combat oriented. And since there is no determined front line in Iraq right now, it means that every soldier in Iraq is on the front line, regardless of male or female, so to try and remove women from danger is going to be extremely difficult in that situation, if not impossible.

Personally, I think that women in infantry would be just fine, as long as male and female units are segregated, for obvious reasons. I think it would be interesting to create a female combat unit, that any woman in the military can sign up for. The important thing in that case would be to not lax any standards and put them through exactly the same training as regular male infantry, and don't do it with an agenda - meaning do it without any extra financial benefits. Just see what happens - hey, if nobody signs up or most can't handle the training, so be it; on the other hand if enough women sign up and perform adequatly - more power to them.

Another big issue for women in the military is that you really need combat/infantry experience to get promoted as you advance through the ranks.

[neverdem]

If a woman is crewing an Apache, should the commander have to take that into consideration when employing her aircraft for a given environment?

Not if she's been rated to fly it. It's an attack aircraft.

It's my understanding that women fly combat aircraft. I could be wrong that they are unrestricted, but IIRC, I saw footage of them on AC-130 gunships, Spooky and Spectre types, and stories about their qualifications, or lack thereof, for flying off of aircraft carriers. But I'm just a former grunt. Any corrections will be appreciated.

[leadpenny]

I sure don't have the answers but, as a country, we need to decide.

Gotta go make a buck.

[M-cubed]

Women do not need to be near the battle lines for any reason whatsoever. Anyone who thinks different has never been there, and is flat out wrong.<<<<

RIGHT ON!...might look good on paper...but the realities of war should forbid it...

[Darksheare]

Usually as admin of one kind or another.

[DMZFrank]

Those of us who have seen the grim horror at the sharp end of infantry combat (as I did in a Mech Infantry outfit in Vietnam) are concerned at the rhetoric of many of those pushing the women in combat agenda. Daily we are regaled by the sight of 110 lb. women routinely beating the stuffing out of 250 lb male behemoths in choreographed entertainment fantasies like Buffy the vampire Slayer, Dark Angel, Tomb Raider and the Matrix Reloaded. We all listened breathlessly to the initial (later revealed as inaccurate) reports of brave little Jessica Lynch mowing down hordes of Iraqis.

It is only natural that with this continual barrage of opinion shaping that an attitude will begin to form that women are just as generally capable of participating in infantry combat as men are, with a comensurate erosion of the rationale for excluding them in the first place.

This is not to say that women can not serve in positions that enhance military capability, they are already serving in them, and serving well and honorably. It was Nazi Armament Minister Albert Speer who cited the German failure to mobilize their women in the manner that the Allies did in WWII as a significant factor in the Nazi defeat. In situations involving large scale mobilization, they are essential. That is not the case now as most pesonnel requirements could be met with the available pool of qualified males. Today, the issue is clouded by feminists and their societal influence ranging from lefist cum Marxist to liberal gender equity advocates. All too often combat readinesss, morale and unit cohesion is secondary to remaking the military institution into one which advances a radical social agenda. The decision to incorporate such large numbers of women into today's military is a political decision, not one of military necessity has was the case with the Soviets during World War II.

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 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.

Many commentators are relentless in their determination to ignore the considerable body of factual evidence indicating that the present policy of sexual intergration is inconsistent with certain vital forms of combat readiness. Study after study (reinforced by my 20 yrs of anecdotal observation in the active duty military and NG) highlight the physical unsuitability of most women for the tasks of the combat soldier, and often even the support soldier. My personal observations include the inability to change the tires on military vehicles, clear routine stoppages on M60 medium MG's and .50 cal HMG's, carry heavy loads any appreciable distances at necessary speeds, lift and evacuate casualties, and an inordinate disposition to injury. The reason that the military adopted "dual physical training standards" was to ensure politically acceptable numbers of women, since 40-60% of them would be washed out if they were required to meet male physical training requirements. My son, a reservist in a NG chopper unit, is contemptuous of what he describes as continual coddling of female soldiers. He is planning to transfer to an infantry unit.

Again, Nazi armaments minister Albert Speer said that a significant factor in Germany's defeat was the failure to mobilize German women in the same manner as the allies did in WWII. In situations of full mobilization, they are essential. I believe that women are a militarily valuable asset, provided that asset is used in a manner that makes the military ready to fight, and subordinates feminist social engineering to that end.

Hundreds of thousands of women have served and are serving their country honorably and well. I honor them for their service and accept them as comrades and fellow veterans. We can only hope that their service will be continued in such a manner as to enhance the ability of the military to fight. The potential consequences for the individual soldier and the military's mission are too serious to subordinate to social engineering.

[mad_as_he$$]

Umm with all due respect. Revisionist, feminist, POS, no way, total cr$p, not gonna happen, piece of Hollywood drivel. I have know several very tough SOB's that failed BUDS, NO WAY any woman survives (without lowering the standards).