Posted on 12/26/2006 9:09:21 AM PST by kingattax
The number of military service women killed in Iraq and Afghanistan has reached 70, more than the total from the Korean, Vietnam and Desert Storm wars.
"Some have argued that the women who have died are no different than the men," according to a report noting the 70 casualties from the Center for Military Readiness, which opposes women in combat. "But deliberate exposure of women to combat violence in war is tantamount to acceptance of violence against women in general."
The reasons for the historical high casualty rate are multiple. Women now make up more than 14 percent of the volunteer force, performing a long list of military occupational specialties they did not do 50 years ago. Women in earlier wars were mostly confined to medical teams. Today, they fly combat aircraft, drive trucks to resupply fighting units, go on patrol as military police (MPs) and repair equipment.
What's more, the Afghan and Iraq conflicts are lasting longer than the relatively brief Desert Storm, which featured the first large contribution of American women in a war zone. But the real difference in Afghanistan and Iraq is the battlefield. It is virtually every road, neighborhood and rural village. Insurgents do not just attack front-line combat troops. Suicide bombers and improvised explosive devices (IEDs) strike at any time, meaning that women in support units can be just as vulnerable as men in ground combat.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
Later reading.
Just fyi, the air force portion of your cut and paste job there is rather outdated.
Air Force PT standards: Under 25, 1.5 mile run in 11:57 or less, 45 pushups, 50 situps, 1 minute each.
A good military career requires some time in combat units. Being in a combat unit in peacetime mostly means you get a lot of fun training. In wartime, it's a different story
One positive aspect of rotating all women thru Iraq is you weed out the women who were just using the military as a jobs program
Women have some lower standards for physical fitness, and physical fitness is not the only requirement for any military occupational specialty, and some specialities require less phsyical strength and stamina than others. Our US military women are volunteers and they fill many roles that men would otherwise have to fill, relieving many men for the roles that men excell in.
That statement did strike me as wildly hyperbolic too. Women casualties are inevitable regardless of status as uniformed members or civilians.Their sacrifice is neither greater nor lesser than that of their male counterparts."The last full measure" has nothing to do with gender.
I know a few NCO's over here that may disagree with you on that.
However, I've also witnessed female soldiers (enlisted and officers) outperform their male counterparts, in a variety of situations.
One complaint I've heard, usually from older NCO's, is of "standards" being lowered to allow females to "qualify" for certain MOS's.
The fact remains, if you are in a war zone, (male or female, soldier or civilian ), you are at risk. IED's, mortars, and rockets, don't discriminate.
Regards
I'm sorry if I got testy. The problem, as I see it (and I could be wrong, and I'm sure someone will point out if I am!) is that it is not possible to fully integrate women into all roles, and at this point it is so unlikely as to also be impossible to get them out. We have what we have. I don't think it's good for the purpose of the military, although I'm certain that some women do quite well in traditional male roles, just as the reverse is true.
I'm more bothered by the fact that we are constantly used as guinnea pigs for every idea that our political types think might buy them some votes. And that there are those who also have no qualms about remaking society to fit what they imagine is ideal, with no regard to the consequences. But that's a whole other thread, I suppose.
Have a nice holiday. :)
susie
(My comment was strictly about running, not about disparities in physical capability of men and women.)
Gillingham, Cristy, Schade, Jackson, and Gilstrap also collected research data from the centrifuge. Female subjects in this study had an 88% success rate in the centrifuge, that is 88% of the women completed all the centrifuge training. The men had a success rate of only 81%. However, the experimenters were unable to show that the difference in success rated between the two genders was statistically significant. Motion sickness occurred in 35% of the female subjects and in 45% of the male profiles. Thus, the study concluded, "The inherent G tolerances of men and women, as measured by centrifuge testing with standardized G profiles and tolerance endpoint, are essentially the same" (Gillingham, Cristy, Schade, Jackson, and Gilstrap, 1986). They reported that there is no G tolerance deficiency in women, thus women should not be excluded from the flying world on the basis of G tolerance.
Please note that this study also concludes that there is little or no difference between male and female tolerance.
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/cc/waterman.html
You'll even see patriotic useful idiots doing their dirty work, smearing as sexist those who retain a chivalric view of women.
Military women are now serving double-duty. They're feminism's human shields.
In Israel the women are compelled to serve in their military for twenty-one months. There MUST be a reason why they keep this in practice. I wonder what it is? Could it be the fighting in Gaza?
If we had rockets being fired from the Mexican border 24-7 you can BET the armed forces would be recruiting more women. A woman should serve where her skills can be best used. That is why the military TRAINS its members before shipping them out.
Women don't join the military so they can knit doilies.
"There may be no difference in tolerance, but a wide difference in being able to physically act under multiple gravities. Muscles, my friend, is what wins wars and survival."
An eight year old girl can blow up your muscles by planting an IED. That's what kills one-third of Americans in Iraq. This is not a conventional war. It is an urban guerilla insurgency.
Not protected, and not put deliberately put in harm's way either.
Absolutely.
Part of the reason they push women in combat is to deligitimise combat altogether. Westerners will never be wholly comfortable with women in combat so long as there are sufficient men to do the job. Protection of the women is part of why men go into the armed services.
Not part of why I went into the armed services. It was entirely a thing between my Dad and me. No one I met during my 20 entered for that reason either. Most wanted adventure.
I respectfully disagree. When men fought with rocks and swords, muscles won wars. When men began technological evolution of weaponry, the battlefield began to level. The cannon requires very little muscle to kill the enemy and has been effectively wielded by women. The rifle requires no muscle. The airplane with fly-by-wire controls requires the same amount of muscle regardless of g-force. Women make excellent snipers and man the nuclear button alongside men.
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.