Posted on 02/27/2006 5:39:04 AM PST by aculeus
TALL AFAR, Iraq -- Buzzing over this northern Iraqi city in her Kiowa scout helicopter, a .50-caliber machine gun and rockets at the ready, Capt. Sarah Piro has proved so skillful in combat missions to support U.S. ground troops that she's earned the nickname "Saint."
In recent months of fighting in Tall Afar, Piro, 26, of El Dorado Hills, Calif., has quietly sleuthed out targets, laid down suppressive fire for GIs in battle and chased insurgents through the narrow alleys of this medieval city -- maneuvering all the while to avoid being shot out of the sky. In one incident, she limped back to base in a bullet-riddled helicopter, ran to another aircraft and returned to the fight 10 minutes later.
"They call her 'Saint Piro' -- she's just that good," said her co-pilot, Chief Warrant Officer Todd Buckhouse, a 19-year Army veteran who has worked with Piro on two tours with the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment in Iraq.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Pat, is that you?
EVERYONE seems to miss the boat on this issue. It boils down to this. The fundamental function of an Army is to fight and defeat the enemy. To the extent that women can enable this mission they should be utilized.
I believe that the present policy is, or has the potential to be; couterproductive to the army's fundamental mission. Every soldier needs to be fundamentally interchangeable in the combat mission, should it be necessary to "plug" them into it in an emergency. During the fighting in northwest Europe in WWII, The United States Army was forced to comb out personnel who had been assigned to the Army Specialized Training program has technical personnel (aircrew, radar operators, etc) and convert them to infantry to replace the staggering losses in the post Normandy breakout and the Huertgen Forest debacle. Since 14% of the Army is not deployable to such duty (women) this does not bode well for such an eventuality. While we can continue to pray that we will never again face an enemy that will be able to attrite us as the German and Japanese Armies did, we MUST not plan as though it will never again happen. The Iraq war as it is presently playing out IS NO TEST OF THIS PROPOSITION. Additionally, these women are only expected to meet a gender normed standard of physical readiness, and cannot be expected to perform generally as well as a simarly situated male soldier would.
Despite all radical femist attempts to decry the disheartning (to them) tendency to place a higher value (or at least to shield from harm) on women's lives for most of Western civillization's history, this predeliction will cause a greater demoralizing effect on the nation than an equivalent number of dead or wounded men. The potential effect on national policy must be considered as to it's political fallout and negative repercussions.
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. (Don't forget that the Soviets only did it because of the hugely staggering quantity of casualties that they suffered, on a scale that we can scarcely concieve of) That is not the case now as most personnel 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.
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.
In situations of full mobilization, women 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.
I believe having such large numbers of women in the military should be reserved for cases of full mobilization, where they are essential; but I realize that the present situation is largely impelled by PC and gender politics, and the defense establishment is yielding to that reality.
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.
Tell that to the crews of all of the helicopters and the RAF C-130 that have been shot down, most of which were downed by small arms and RPGs.
'Nuff said, Frank. Amen.
Thanks for your service and thoughts here.
Amen. If you read the entire article (Sarah's leaving the service in 2007), and consider that this is a Washington Post piece, I think we may be talking about an '08 Democrat candidate for Congress.
I've read - and unfortunately heard - old arguments that the races have different capabilities. We know differently, now.
There should be one physical test for both men and women in the combat forces. The two standards are, as you have both said, discriminatory and only serve to artificially balance the numbers of men and women and could endanger all. I do not agree with that policy. If women can't pass the combat-level test, they should be assigned to an "auxiliary," as they were in the past. (However, those women should be trained in order to protect themselves and others if necessary.)
Speaking as a former Marine, I have no problem with females filling any slot they can qualify for. I've met a lot of males I wouldn't trust to park my car let alone watch my backside in a combat zone.
OTOH, I've met a few females that I'd willingly ruck up with any time, any place. I served with some WMs who would have been more than happy to tear of peoples heads, fill 'em with C4, and toss it back at the bad guys. They could've done it, too.
My perspective on the 'problem', and I am not saying there is one, is that the other less professional services (read Army, Navy, and Air Force) do silly things like train men and women together, and have different standards for their performance.
If the other services would train men and women to the same standards then there wouldn't be a problem.
Now that I've no doubt pissed everyone on the thread off, please allow me to thank you for your service to our country ma'am.
Semper Fi.
L
Navy Women Head to the Sick Bay Much More Than the Men
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a78fc3b6e1e.htm
LOL wow what a gal! :-)
"If she balls it up and she is the only one able to pull my burning body from the wreckage then she better be ready to haul what the weight and balance on file says is the weight of the average crewman. We use to figure ours at 280 (gear included, extraction gear, body armor, flight vest and supplies in the back). Does she look like she could haul 280 lbs away from a burning airplane?"
Hmm fair point here, not being in military service myself i could not comment, but it seems like a logical requirement. I am all for women entering service where there is a a possibility they can perform a given role, if they cannot physically meet requirements for that role, then so be it.....
Hey I am no combat shooter no doubt of that lol
My husband makes the same points as you BTW
I think you are making a massive assumption and generalization based on left wing perspectives. At FreeRepublic we don't hold those opinions, so please stop tagging them onto any woman that opens a dialog on the subject.
That said a combat role is not necessarily a physically demanding one these days. Pilots and technical weapons officers are examples of these applications.
tailhook, eh?
Ah, for the days when men could slug it out like men. nope, can't do that with the girls who go to daddy JAG bullsierra lawyers.
I have no doubt that there is some tiny fraction of women that could do just that. The problem is that rules are based upon “norms”, not on exceptions, and the norm is that women are physically inadequate for combat roles (for the many reasons given above).
My perspective on the 'problem', and I am not saying there is one, is that the other less professional services (read Army, Navy, and Air Force) do silly things like train men and women together, and have different standards for their performance.
Well, I’ll say there’s a problem. And it’s not only with the other services you’ve just slighted. Relationships develop between men and women that are wholly unlike the fraternal bond that holds units together, as it has for millenia of human combat. I can be brothers with all the guys in my foxhole, I can be a loving protector of only one that I have a unique relationship with. That destroys unit cohesion and trust. Think that couldn't happen in the "professional" military? Look at the ridiculous numbers of pregnancies that are overwhelming military doctors right now. Again as a rule, romantic relationships destroy unit cohesion. This is the very reason why the military establishment is so reluctant to allows gays unfettered access.
Aside from differences of physicality, this is the most compelling argument against allowing women in the combat theater. The problem is that few try to understand it, and many, Like Pat Schroeder don’t want to hear it. Pretty soon, these offended feminists are accusing you of taking away their right to vote and you end up “off their scope”.
I'm not against women in the military per say, heck, if it were me, seriously, they'd fly 50 caliber sling helos as citizens owning them, and not this pseudosupport for women paying with their lives & progenitures for a shot in the military.
Government work for women is inherently evil because the government has an interest in controling & limiting reproduction.
It has nothing to do with skills for women, it has to do with ethics in the usage of emotionaly & politicaly vulnerable women by the government and lawyers who do not want responsibility but plenty of child sacrifice for their sakes.
I was dealing with the general social attitude that is allowing women to assume the role that God had not intended her for.
I did not tag anyone with anything.
That said a combat role is not necessarily a physically demanding one these days. Pilots and technical weapons officers are examples of these applications.
And you are really are in a state of delusion if you believe that!
The basic principles of combat still hold, a very high state of physical fitness, mental toughness and unit cohesion are all still crucial to any combat success.
So it would seem that you have brought into the Feminist propaganda despite being on the Free Republic.:>)
"The basic principles of combat still hold, a very high state of physical fitness, mental toughness and unit cohesion are all still crucial to any combat success."
Sorry that is just not the case, our faculty myself included have all been targets for USAMRIID are you implying that as a virologist responsible for managing various biological strategies that I would have to be some kind of steroid popping GI Jane?
"So it would seem that you have brought into the Feminist propaganda despite being on the Free Republic.:>) "
the very definition of tagging us all with the same generalizations
Are you going to combat?
If you are going to be under enemy fire the principles that I listed hold true.
"So it would seem that you have brought into the Feminist propaganda despite being on the Free Republic.:>) " the very definition of tagging us all with the same generalizations
Funny, how 'you' becomes 'all'?
I am sure that there are many women on FR who agree with me that women have no business in combat.
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.