Posted on 10/23/2007 8:08:10 AM PDT by TigerLikesRooster
You have proved that admirably.
If having women on combatants for the last fourteen years has degraded combat readiness show me proof. Not your opinion, not your biases, not the word of your profane Navy buddies, not your theory, not your conjecture, not your so obvious personal disdain. Objective proof. You can’t because there is none.
In fact, all evidence is to the contrary. In a recent well-researched article in the Duke Journal of Law and Gender, Col. Martha McSally, USAF states,
“B. Women’s Performance in Iraq and Afghanistan
Policy discussions must consider the performance of women in recent conflict. Women are displaying great courage and skill in ambushes, firefights, and battles on the ground. They are not just surviving, but earning medals for valor in combat. On March 20, 2005, Army Sgt. Leigh Ann Hester was in a convoy of twenty-six vehicles that came under enemy ambush by fifty insurgents. (23) Sgt. Hester “led her team through the ‘kill zone’ and into a flanking position, where she assaulted a trench line with grenades and M203 grenade-launcher rounds. Sgt. Hester killed at least three insurgents” (24) and was awarded the Silver Star for her bravery under fire. In 2003, Army Airborne Capt. Kellie McCoy earned a Bronze Star with a combat “V” for Valor for her actions in Fallujah: (25) “Leading a patrol that got ambushed and took casualties, she hopped up into the Humvee’s machine gun turret, killed a couple of the attackers, then led her men to safety.” (26) As of December 18, 2006, the Army had awarded women warriors one Silver Star, seven Bronze Stars with Valor, thirteen Air Medals with Valor, and sixty-eight Army Commendation medals with Valor. (27)”
So much for women running around in a panic when things get dicey. As for strength:
“Air Force women fighter pilots have earned sixteen Distinguished Flying Crosses in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001. (125) Critics who claimed that women do not have the strength and stamina to be fighter pilots in combat have been proven wrong by women’s actual performance. Some, like Elaine Donnelly, were eventually forced to concede that women fighter pilots “seem to be serving very well” and “appear to be competent and well qualified, and by all accounts are doing well.” (126) Despite this positive experience with female fighter pilots, critics continue to use arguments based on physical strength and stamina as justifications for keeping the current combat exclusions in place.”
As for readiness:
“In 1999, the GAO conducted a report on perceptions of readiness in selected units. The report concluded: ‘Our survey on the perception of readiness of units opened to women since 1993 showed that both men and women had a positive view of their own readiness. Furthermore, most men and women agreed that women either affected readiness no differently from men or affected readiness positively or very positively.’” (142)
While I don’t completely agree with all of Col. McSally’s conclusions, she has based them on exhaustive research and fact.
Were I a biased, bigoted anti-male woman I might point to the recent spate of submarine commanders (five at last count) who have been relieved of duty. I would jump on that anecdotal evidence and extrapolate it to large numbers of men, accusing them of incompetence and derelicition. After all, no female COs have been relieved for cause. Must be proof that women make better skippers than men. But I am not a biased person, and I don’t use rare, individual incidents to smear large groups of people. I look at people as individuals and judge them on evidence, not gender.
And the factual report card of women in combat and combat-related situations is very, very good indeed.
I served, and I’m with you.
One of my last duty stations in the Navy was working in manpower in DC collecting data fleetwide to study the “women on combatants” issue.
It’s a horrible disaster. It’s a Clinton legacy. He hates the military and probably hates them less than his horrible faux spouse.
The women on combat ships issue has horribly, horribly, undermined readiness at many levels.
Since, despite the hysteria, women only make up 15% of the Navy right now, I think the difficulty in finding enough women with the right mix of expertise at the right points in their careers precludes an all-female ship. Perhaps in the future.
As for submarines, the cost of refitting them to berth women is prohibitive. There is also a very small but real risk of radiation injury to womens’ reproductive systems.
To help amplify the information... Yes he was a master at arms just about all of them in the Barracks are. The barracks are co-ed so ANYONE has access to them. As for getting through the door one of the two had to open it. Then him having a gun well he probably was on break or something getting off of watch. There are people who walk around with guns by themselves all the time making it very easy for this kind of situation to occur. Hope this helps out a little more.
Good info. My wife is a pilot, and flew aerobatic aircraft in high G manuevers. I have no doubt that she would have made a fine fighter pilot. However, she would not cut it as an 11C(mortars)That takes a lot of physical strength. You can sneer at that statement all day long, but it doesn’t change the facts. My unit was a heavy mortar platoon using 4.2 inch mortars. The rounds weighed 27 pounds, each. The weapon weighed hundreds of pounds, and was a pain in the ass when ground mounted. We also had our personal weapons, ammo, etc. When mounted in the M106 mortar carrier, you had the additional joy of changing tracks, etc.
As far as issuing out medals, I’m not impressed. I’ve seen the army hand out ARCOMs to women for things a guy wouldn’t even get a comp letter for. Sgt Hester however, sounds like an ass kicker.
I think they are minorities, so America is safe.
Thank you. And I know that some of the young sailors over there are having a hard time right now. Please know that my prayers are with you all.
I’ve been told by aviator types that women, because of the higher fat content of their bodies and a lower center of gravity, take Gs better than men. Don’t know if it’s true, but that’s what I was told.
As I stated on this thread, I don’t support women in direct ground combat. Physical strength is one reason, also, I think it’s a rare woman who can kill another human being unless it’s in self defense or the direct defense of another. I could kill someone threatening me, and I pity the fool who threatens my children. But in combat, if someone said,”There’s a bad guy, shoot him,” I don’t know if I could, and I believe most women are the same.
Where women don’t belong, they don’t belong, and I don’t have a problem with that. But where they do and can pass the required training, they should have the opportunity to prove themselves and serve their country alongside men.
As for medals, anecdotally, I’ve seen men get them for political reasons, too, when commanders wanted to highlight a particular accomplishment that also made them look good, for instance. There’s no way to know if it happens more in the case of women or not.
As usual, your posts are succinct, to the point and reasonable.
Your last paragraph is true, as well. It all depends on the command staff. I despise political types and the PC idiots. They do far more harm than can be related in a few sentences. Unfortunately, they will always be with us.
For a squid, you are ok. LOL.
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.