Death toll of female troops 'troubling'

THE WASHINGTON TIMES ^ | December 26, 2006 | Rowan Scarborough

[Cvengr]

Being a sniper is much more than marksmanship. A woman is lessor qualified than a man after several days of remaining motionless by clandestine camouflage in the field without attracting wildlife by scent.

There are physical and responsive differences between men and women.

[William Terrell]

Tools don't take territory and hold it, the very foundation of of supremacy in war. Tools can only terrorize and support. It is only brute strength that conquers and prevails. War is not a video game; it is facing an enemy and overcoming him.

[jamese777]

"Tools don't take territory and hold it, the very foundation of of supremacy in war. Tools can only terrorize and support. It is only brute strength that conquers and prevails. War is not a video game; it is facing an enemy and overcoming him."

Who's winning in Iraq? Is brute strength conquering and prevailing? Didn't we already return control of the territory to the Shiite government?

[William Terrell]

But women are being put in positions where muscle matters, not button pushing.

[William Terrell]

Brute strenght not always wins. It is just necessary to win. Wars are always lost by someone. You make my point.

[hinckley buzzard]

Of course, I also worry that this will be used to further turn Americans against armed conflict in general.

Which was the whole agenda behind "women in the military" to begin with. The leftwing's plan is beginning to work, and publication of this kind of article is a part of the overall strategy.

[Ben Mugged]

Reference?

[William Terrell]

Reference?

This thread and its article.

[Ben Mugged]

This article does not mention anything about females in combat MOSs in which a reasonable person would expect hand-to-hand combat(Infantry, snipers, reconnaissance, special forces).It does mention that women make up 14% of all combat forces (mostly in support roles) and take about 2% of the casualties and of these only about 1% is due to hostile fire. This seems to me to indicate their role is working admirably.

[William Terrell]

Women that work in units that, through necessary movement, can be expected to come into contact with enemy forces. There has already been deaths and injuries because of that. Even one in such a role is one too many.

If there are 500,000 combat forces, 14% IS 70,000 AND 2% is 1400. Way too many. Or plug in your own number of combat forces and do the math. Women should not be wasted this way; they have another way to serve the Republic altogether, one that only they can do.

Every woman in a unit that can be expected to meet the enemy lessens the effectiveness of that unit with respect to the enemy.

No very bright.

[Ben Mugged]

It's been an interesting, and for FR civil, discussion. During my 20 years of service (1963 - 1983) I saw a lot of social experimentation with the US military. All of it I disagreed with at the time. Some since proved me wrong. I have reinforced my belief that women have a place in our military and if they desire to serve, should serve. Neither of us will ever see it any other way so I shall leave it at that.

Thank you for sharing your opinion with me.