AHHHHHHHHHH ! Equality....we're talkin' equal rights here! How dare you?
/sarc
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 ...
AHHHHHHHHHH ! Equality....we're talkin' equal rights here! How dare you?
/sarc
This wouldn't be happening if we just ran wars in a female sort of way. First, we would all gather together and discuss it from every point of view. Then, we would all agree on the best course. Then, we would all split up and start backstabbing and badmouthing the others. Then we would just do things our own way and ignore that it wasn't working.
Hey, come to think of it, that describes the super effective methods of the U.N.
First off, it speaks badly of our culture and civilization that we can't scrounge enough male volunteers to defend our women.
Second, women warriors do need to be protected by male warriors. That's why units are integrated, with low numbers of women and high numbers of men. You'd never see an all female infantry unit, for example, perform well against an all male infantry unit. Even a platoon of female mechanics wouldn't perform well against an all male one, because of the physical attributes required in the job. Ground operations require different strengths than most women possess. While they are adequate to fill out the ranks, they're simply not on par with males.
Women, of course, make good medics, analysts, and similar skill based MOSs. I've worked with many, and learned a lot from them as far as technical skills. They're just not ground pounding trigger pullers, by natural design.
Thank you for correcting me! :-)
Okay. I admit it. I need protection.
Those poses remind me of my 2-year-old when nobody's reminded him to go to the bathroom.
That's pretty much what I said. I don't have to support the concept of women in combat roles to recognize that it is happening, and with a 360 degree combat zone, it will continue.
The unintended consequences are always the most significant.
Yes, it's unfortunate that today's media still fails to recognize the changing face of warfare, and the concept of how success is measured. They still cling to the Vietnam "body count" exercise as the only measure they understand. But today's liberal media only counts one side in the body count exercise.
Indeed.
Very well said. And thank you for your service!
Very true.
Or if she had to carry the wounded how would she do?
I had two female paramedics take care of me one time. Another time I had two male paramedics (ambulances). It was obvious who struggled more. I would hate for my injured son to have to rely on a woman to get him out of harm's way.
A little light reading might be in order.
Brower, J. Michael. "Undermining Old Taboos: US, UK Studies Say Women Can Meet Physical Demands Of Combat." Armed Forces Journal 133.10 (May 1996): 13. This is a very short article wherein the author concludes that based on two new studies (US and UK), women are just as capable as men of similar size for training and enduring the rigors of combat. Both studies were conducted in 1995 with civilian women as test cases who were required to run with 75 pound rucksacks and perform various other strength training, resulting in improvements of over 33%. These results help defeat arguments that claim that women, because of their generally smaller stature, are therefore automatically disqualified from assignment to combat MOSs.
Actually, a lot don't. My nephew is a helicopter pilot and he laughs that a lot of the women can't load their own gear. What does that tell us?
Part of the problem, Mrs. Donnelly says, lies in the Clinton administration's 1994 decision to rescind the so-called "risk rule." It kept females out of support units that would likely expose them to hostile fire or capture. If this rule were still in effect, female casualties would probably be lower, Mrs. Donnelly said.
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.