Posted on 02/18/2012 7:20:22 AM PST by BarnacleCenturion
The Pentagon made big news last week when it announced it was opening up more combat positions to women in the U.S. military. These 14,000 positions include tank mechanics and front line intelligence officers. However, about one-fifth of active-duty military positions, including the infantry, combat tank units and special operations commando units, will remain off-limits.
...
Last week’s rule change in the United States was largely a reflection of the fact that women are, to a large extent, already participating in combat. Despite the restrictions in place, 144 American women have been killed and 865 wounded in Afghanistan and Iraq since 2001, according to the Defense Department.
The number of countries that have opened front line combat positions is also larger than you might think (or than media reports sometimes suggest). A 2010 survey by the British Ministry of Defense listed Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Israel, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania and Sweden as countries that allow women in “close combat roles,” defined as “engaging an enemy on the ground with individual or crew served weapons, while being exposed to hostile fire and to a high probability of direct physical contact with the hostile forces personnel.” Australia joined that list in September 2011 when it opened its front-line units — including one of the largest contingents in Afghanistan — to women.
A handful of other countries could probably also be added. South Korea has begun opening up more front line positions to women, including in artillery and armored divisions. Women have fought in Eritrea’s military since its war of independence from Ethiopia in 1991 — at one point they made up 30 percent of the country’s combat forces — and are required, along with men, to serve a year and a half of military service. Women have flown combat missions as fighter pilots for Britain, Pakistan, Serbia, South Africa, the United States and others.
In Israel, which is well known as one of the few countries where women are drafted, the policy is evolving. Santorum cited Israel as a country that doesn’t allow women on the front lines because of the psychological effect it has on men. But in fact, the Israeli military does allow women in the vast majority of combat positions.
Could you explain, please? "Past" as in "we're in a forward march towards the always better future, better just because it's in the future" kind of thing?
A lot of people think that history is over, that we will never again be fighting for our lives as a people and nation, as entire divisions are swallowed up and are wiped out, and paratroopers descend into our rear areas, and cooks and bakers, and rear area support troops are fighting hand to hand.
I was talking to a couple of Navy Chiefs who thought that women would be OK on Navy ships, (this was years ago), I asked them what would happen if a missile hit the ship and the females couldn’t handle all the muscle work and carrying the wounded up ladders, and the firefighting work, the twisted metal,warped doors, moving ammunition by hand, they said that they would send in more people to pick up the slack.
I was flabbergasted, I pointed out that a missile had hit the other end of the ship, that there were not only no extra people, but that a third of the crew were dead or wounded, and that they were losing the ship entirely and heading to rafts and life jackets, and a cold, deadly sea (like my dads WWII ship), because even when they had the full complement of personnel, 50% of them were female, in effect, meaning that the crew had always been undermanned. The young chiefs had never thought of that kind of a war, they seemed a little grey at the thought of that kind of desperate combat that my own father had lived through.
Those of us who have seen the grim horror at the sharp end of infantry combat (as I did in a Mech Infantry outfit in Vietnam) are concerned at the rhetoric of many of those pushing the women in combat agenda. Daily we are regaled by the sight of 110 lb. women routinely beating the stuffing out of 250 lb male behemoths in choreographed entertainment fantasies like Buffy the vampire Slayer, Dark Angel, Tomb Raider and the Matrix Reloaded. We all listened breathlessly to the initial (later revealed as inaccurate) reports of brave little Jessica Lynch mowing down hordes of Iraqis.
It is only natural that with this continual barrage of opinion shaping that an attitude will begin to form that women are just as generally capable of participating in infantry combat as men are, with a comensurate erosion of the rationale for excluding them in the first place.
This is not to say that women can not serve in positions that enhance military capability, they are already serving in them, and serving well and honorably. It was Nazi Armament Minister Albert Speer who cited the German failure to mobilize their women in the manner that the Allies did in WWII as a significant factor in the Nazi defeat. In situations involving large scale mobilization, they are essential. (Don’t forget that the Soviets only did it because of the hugely staggering quantity of casualties that they suffered, on a scale that we can scarcely concieve of) That is not the case now as most personnel requirements could be met with the available pool of qualified males. Today, the issue is clouded by feminists and their societal influence ranging from lefist cum Marxist to liberal gender equity advocates. All too often combat readinesss, morale and unit cohesion is secondary to remaking the military institution into one which advances a radical social agenda. The decision to incorporate such large numbers of women into today’s military is a political decision, not one of military necessity has was the case with the Soviets during World War II.
The enemy in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars is not capable of inflicting a significant battlefield defeat upon the United States Armed Forces. They are not nor have they ever been capable of projecting anywhere near the amount of battlefield power necessary to do so. (I am not saying that it does not take enormous courage and skill to defeat such fanatical enemies because it does. This does not change the fact they are not capable of inflicting a significant battlefield defeat upon our forces) Notwithstanding this the question must be asked as to what would happen should we face an enemy that could inflict the sort of casualties on us has was the case during the fighting in northwest Europe in WWII? The United States Army was forced to comb out military personnel who had been assigned to the Army Specialized Training program as technical personnel (aircrew, radar operators, etc) and convert them to infantry to replace the staggering losses. Since 14% or5 more of the Army is not deployable to such duty (women) this does not bode well for such an eventuality. While we can continue to pray that we will never again face an enemy that will be able to attrite us as the German and Japanese Armies did, we MUST not plan as though it will never again happen. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars as they played out IS NO TEST OF THIS PROPOSITION.
Many commentators are relentless in their determination to ignore the considerable body of factual evidence indicating that the present policy of sexual intergration is inconsistent with certain vital forms of combat readiness. Study after study (reinforced by my 20 yrs of anecdotal observation in the active duty military and NG) highlight the physical unsuitability of most women for the tasks of the combat soldier, and often even the support soldier. My personal observations include the inability to change the tires on military vehicles, clear routine stoppages on M60 medium MG’s and .50 cal HMG’s, carry heavy loads any appreciable distances at necessary speeds, lift and evacuate casualties, and an inordinate disposition to injury. The reason that the military adopted “dual physical training standards” was to ensure politically acceptable numbers of women, since 40-60% of them would be washed out if they were required to meet male physical training requirements. In situations of full mobilization, women are essential. I believe that women are a militarily valuable asset, provided that asset is used in a manner that makes the military ready to fight, and subordinates feminist social engineering to that end.
Hundreds of thousands of women have served and are serving their country honorably and well. I honor them for their service and recognize them as comrades and fellow veterans. We can only hope that their service will be continued in such a manner as to enhance the ability of the military to fight. The potential consequences for the individual soldier and the military’s mission are too serious to subordinate to social engineering.
The population of the United States is over 300 million. We maintain a relatively small Armed Forces relative to that number. That number should be reserved to those personnel that are best qualified, and that number should be reserved predominately for the male population, as they are most likely to be interchangeable in all roles in which they might be needed.
I keep hearing this talk about every war we will that we will ever fight in the future will be like Iraq or Afghanistan. That may be so, but not necessarily so. Aren’t we always being told not to prepare only for the last war? Losing a war like Iraq or Afghanistan or even Vietnam means a huge national humiliation. Losing a conventional large-scale war could mean a loss of sovereignty. I wish to have the Armed Forces that can best win that type of conflict.
I believe having such large numbers of women in the military should be reserved for cases of full mobilization, where they are essential; but I realize that the present situation is largely impelled by PC and gender politics, and the defense establishment is yielding to that reality.
Hey, I have no problem with feminist women gaining the distinct privilege of dying for their country. The same with the queers who serve.
It improves the gene pool.
“I keep hearing this talk about every war we will that we will ever fight in the future will be like Iraq or Afghanistan.”
I hope not; we’ve lost the former (packing up and leaving at midnight - didn’t want photos like the rooftop helicopters in 1975 Saigon getting out), and are getting nowhere in the latter. These “limited wars” are simply a drain of young lives and billions of dollars in futile nation-building exercises for people who don’t want our “way of life”.
The Soviet Union mobilized women because they had lost nearly a whole generation of Russian men; we’re not at that point yet, and if we were I’m sure people would re-consider whether or not they could serve in combat roles.
Can anyone name a potential adversary that has women in their front lines?
Wonder why they don’t?
One night in the woods after a half bottle of Jack, my grandfather told me about his experiences in France as an army infantryman in 1918. Nightmareish is just the beginning of what he told me. It is bad enough that our country has to put our young men through this, so why should we put our young women through it as well.
pc is going to get a lot of good people dead.
And the pc police will have no concience about it at all.
“A handful of other countries could probably also be added. South Korea has begun opening up more front line positions to women, including in artillery and armored divisions”
From what I know about South Korean women in uniform — and I might know quite a bit — they’re typically tomboy daughters from military families who do an excellent job of proving that dynamite comes in small packages. No coddling of the women there, based on what I’ve seen.
The words disciplined, focused, and deadly come to mind.
The ROK guys are nothing to mess with. Their idea of training is more like our idea of torture. I hope the ROK female soldiers keep up the tough reputation of their brothers and fathers.
Did anyone see the video on Greta last night, had men soldiers wearing pregnancy simulates and boobs, while they work out, to teach them empathy. Made me want to barf.
Hey you neve met Ziva David huh. {:-)
You do Patsy Schroeder prowd. Maybe you watched that movie Salt, one too many times, you know the one where that 98 pound anexoric girl whips men three times her size.
Hey they had a women’s football league, it worked out really well for a couple weeks.
Meanwhile, the Romney, Sununu and (fill in your favorite nonserving family) boys will stay home and watch it all on television I guess. One of the indicators of the decline of Rome was when the young men began to refuse to fight in service to their country. Our ‘leadership’ class more and more falls into the category.
He doesn’t understand ‘modern warfare’? Surely you understand we really haven’t faced a tough enemy since 1973? Basing policy on the ability to defeat an Iraqi ground force with no naval or air component to deal with is foolish. What happens when our Marines and Soldiers face twenty divisions from North Korea or China (or both at the same time)?
Not bad, but you left out quota's for promotion, what happens when the romantic element is introduced to the combat team, the impact pregnancy has on a unit with the rates of nondeployables soaring, etc.
I’m not even sure the Pentagon could produce the statistics you reference. It’s a good bet that the costs of all the bastard children produced, the impacts of pregnancy on readiness the UCMJ actions and medical complications resulting from all of the screwing going on in the rear, at sea, etc. is tremendous and disheartening. I do remember there was one statistic in the nineties which was that the average female soldier did not complete her first four year tour in the service, often being discharged for pregnancy or unsuitability for service but also frequently for injuries.
That’s a valid point.
A feminist woman, who will abort any baby she ever becomes pregnant with, is to be specially protected from combat...
...for what reason?
However, about one-fifth of active-duty military positions, including the infantry, combat tank units and special operations commando units, will remain off-limits.Thank God.
Putting women on the front lines is foolish social engineering. Women should NOT be in the military anyway, unless they are working in a support job far away from any fighting. I know a 1 star general in the USAF. He told me that the worst thing to hit the military in the past 30 yrs. was women in combat. 2nd worse, allowing practicing homosexuals in. This guy told me that ever since so many women have been in the military, he has seen worse morale, declining standards, & problems between men & women of all kinds. Look, we are not running a day care here. This is the military which exists to kill people & break things!
We bomb the sh*t out of them before they get a chance to finish breakfast. There are not going to be anymore wars like the one you envision. Those days are over.
In WW1 and 2, we were fighting a civlized enemy. The Germans werent charmers in either war, but they still at least tried to follow rules of war. Some Units, like the Waffen SS were animals but were sometimes given to act of mercy to a defeated foe. The Japs on the other hand were cruel and showed little or no mercy.
Now we are fighting Muslims.Well, we all know their views on women. Any captured women should expect to be gang raped for days before having thier heads chopped off while still alive.
Women is front line combat units is like adding gas to a fire.
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.