Female Warriors Engage in Combat in Iraq, Afghanistan

ABC News ^ | 10/25/2009 | Martha Raddatz

[wardaddy]

you’re a piece of work hon...do you listen to Helen reddy while you freep dear..

you can have last word...I’m married a long time ...learned that much

[CholeraJoe]

[Travis McGee]

Terrific post at 53, thanks.

[Mr Rogers]

“It is not always what you know, but who you know.”

And I knew 2 A-10 pilots working in test. Talked to them on the flight line one day, and passed on what they said.

If you can cite someone as an example of why women in combat is a good idea, I can point out that what the media (and Pentagon) says - particularly about female ‘warriors’ - doesn’t always match reality.

Now, were the 2 A-10 pilots I talked to telling the truth? Well, maybe they were jealous of her. Then again, maybe they were telling an aging WSO/EWO what they actually thought. Folks reading this thread can decide for themselves how much weight to give it.

Maybe they will weigh it the way I weigh posts from FreeRepublic’s resident Prophet of God (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2364842/posts).

Or maybe they will believe it. But YOU do not tell ME what I am or am not allowed to post, nor do I disgrace the USAF by posting it - no matter how many Freepmails you send me to the contrary.

Meanwhile, my ex-Marine oldest daughter says women don’t belong in combat because very few have the strength to support the Marines around them. Her ex-Marine Infantry husband agrees.

That is why we also don’t have a bunch of 60 year old men in the military...after 30 years, and usually sooner, you’re out. Having gone to Afghanistan while pushing 50 really hard, and walked around in 100 deg heat wearing a fairly light 60-70 lbs of gear - infantry carry more, and my ‘walks’ were primarily to a Humvee - I agree. Ground combat is for young men, who don’t wear bifocals, whose knees don’t buckle so easy, and who have the stamina and body strength to make it work. Anything else betrays the other men who count on you in combat.

[LuvFreeRepublic]

Here is an example of another women pilot who has earned her wings. Feel free to say a few anonymous pilots think she is a pee-poor pilot as well.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16158290/

[Travis McGee]

Not to mention those “seasoned” knees of ours, that you can hear snapping and klicking a klick away.

[Travis McGee]

You seem fixated on aviatrixes, when the article is on women in combat—ground combat.

Care to comment on post 53, and the harsh reality of a “major” war on the scale of NW Europe in 1944-45, as opposed to small operations, circa today?

[LuvFreeRepublic]

My comment to Mr. Rogers was based on his comment about a female fighter pilot, which was based on anonymous sources. Her record is out there for those desiring more information. No pee-poor pilot makes to the level of being a combat fighter pilot. There is too much at stake.

I don't care to comment on the merits of women in ground combat positions. My comment has to do with respecting those, including women, who have served this country admirable and who have put their life on the line for U.S. Whether women should or shouldn't be in the military is irrelevant to my position.

[Travis McGee]

From the Navy Times
Report outlines pregnancy policy concerns
By Andrew Tilghman—Staff writer
Posted : Monday Oct 19, 2009 6:18:09 EDT

Some shore commands in the Norfolk, Va., area report that up to 34 percent of their billets are filled by pregnant sailors, and commanders are complaining about a “lack of proper manning to conduct their mission,” according to a Naval Inspector General report.

The IG has asked Navy personnel officials to review the new rules for Navy mothers-to-be and consider the work conducted by each rating and how pregnancy affects a sailor’s ability to do that work.

The spike in pregnant sailors assigned to some units comes after the Navy changed its rules for handling mothers-to-be. And it’s compounded by a baby boomlet in the Navy community.

When sailors on sea duty become pregnant, they are transferred to shore-based commands that fit certain criteria, such as being close to a Navy medical center. The length of that assignment changed in June 2007, when the Navy extended the postpartum tour from four months after a child’s birth to 12 months. Combined with a nine-month pregnancy, that puts expectant mothers on limited duty for up to 21 months.

Now, shore industrial and aviation commands say they are receiving more pregnant sailors—from 15 percent to 34 percent of authorized billets, in some cases—who are unable to fulfill essential duties because of their pregnancy, according to the IG.

“If pregnancy trends remain constant, the new pregnancy distribution policy could have over 2,500 sailors counting against shore duty commands in ratings where they are not able to conduct mission-essential work within industrial or hazardous material-type conditions,” the IG report, based on a site visit to Hampton Roads, Va., in March and April, concludes.

Personnel officials said the review is underway. “The current pregnancy and parenthood policy represents our enduring commitment to maintaining and improving a healthy life/work balance for our Navy family. Officials and Navy Personnel Command and Fleet Forces Command are reviewing the issue paper provided by the IG following their visit to Hampton Roads in April 2009,” Navy Personnel Command said in a written statement.

“Any future recommendations to adjust the policy will be announced after the review is complete and approved,” the statement said.

Since shore assignments for pregnant sailors were extended two years ago, pregnancies Navy-wide have increased. The number of women leaving deploying units to have children rose from 1,770 in June 2006 to 3,125 as of Aug. 1.

[Travis McGee]

Whether women should or shouldn't be in the military is irrelevant to my position.

LOL!

[LuvFreeRepublic]

Above you head I guess. LOL

[LuvFreeRepublic]

you = your

[Mr Rogers]

I know nothing about her. I don’t comment where I have nothing to contribute.

[Mr Rogers]

“No pee-poor pilot makes to the level of being a combat fighter pilot. There is too much at stake.”

Sorry. Not true. As a WSO/EWO, I flew with a LOT of pilots. Some were among the finest men I’ve ever been privileged to meet. Some were good sticks, but lacked flight discipline - which in a pee-poor pilot. Some were just poor pilots.

That isn’t a slam on pilots. I was an excellent WSO/EWO, because for whatever reason, 2 dimensional pictures look like 3D to me. Looking at a radar screen was like looking out the window, only with a visual range of 50-80 nm. OTOH, I was a terrible ‘pilot’, judging from when I took the stick. Barely OK at formation, hated instruments and didn’t enjoy doing it at all. I wasn’t a WSO that fought for stick time!

Thunderbird pilots are good sticks and have good flight discipline. They USUALLY are not the most tactically inclined, since the Thunderbirds takes you out of the operational world...but not everyone is suited for or likes fighter operations, either.

[Mr Rogers]

A brigade of ‘seasoned’ warriors on the march would sound like a plague of locusts, only louder! What I noticed was the recovery time...I could function for a day, but was wiped out the next...and next. Old age sucks!

[Travis McGee]

Yep. I’m coming up on the 30th anniv. of my frogman class in December. I still run, but when I get a pulled muscle, it takes weeks to heal. In BUD/S training, you pretty much tore yourself up every damn day, and by the next “evolution” you were ready to go again. That young man is GONE.

[wolfedawg]

I’ll respond to that.
Women in Combat.
Over 80 years ago.. they got the right to vote.
Women’s Armed Services Integration Act (Public Law 625) on June 12, 1948, women officially could be in the military.
In 1993, Women were allowed to fly Combat Aircraft

The National Defense Authorization Act for the Fiscal Years 1992-1993, Congress rescinded female combat exemption laws and then the Clinton Administration opened a quarter million previously closed combat positions to women

Congress resended that in 1994, to limit women from Direct Combat.

Iraq/Afghanistan: (circa today). 115 Women have died in Iraq, 41 Women have died in Afghanistan. (though I can say for certain, only 61 total were combat related).

Women, (fact not fiction), today aren’t kept as ‘fragile’ and ‘desensitized’ by men as they were in the 1940’s, 50’s, 60’s...
Women are in fact, more agile, faster and have keener observational skills than men. The 100lbs pack crap, is getting old.. on EVERY combat patrol, the most you carry is 35 to 50 lbs. If you carried a 100lbs pack in combat.. you’re lying. (unless you had a 60mm Mortar, plus Base Plate, plus Ammo all on 1 person).
Today’s Marine for instance:
Body Armor: 18-25 lbs
M4/M16:7-9 lbs
Ammo: averaging 6-15 lbs
Supplies/Rations/extra boots.etc.etc: averaging 8-15 lbs
w/radio: 9-15 lbs

Lets add that up: averaging 46-79 lbs (w/radio)

Quite a bit short of 100 lbs.

Women in Combat is a FACT. The rate of women enlisting in the armed services, has increased more and more each year.

WE ARE going to see more and more women in combat, and also attain combat roles. We need to increase the training, increase the skills required (observation, intuition, speed and agility) and not rely on sheer strength.

You can hate the fact that some women can out perform men, and debate it until the end of time... Its an eventuality, that ALL of us, are going to have to learn to adapt to.
Its here now... Its not going to go away..
Accept it, accept the fact that they are Protecting US.

But.. sadly.. we’ve grown up in a society that believes WE (men) are supposed to protect women, and many of US(men) cannot fathom there are women out there, fighting, injured and dying, protecting us. (whether its a Soldier or Marine, or a Police Officer)...

You can’t stop it. The best thing to do, is to come up with encouragement, and suggestions on better training, equipment and change yourself.... So my daughters can come home, safe and all in one piece.

SemperFi.