Replies

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.