The Reality That Awaits Women in Combat

The Wall Street Journal ^ | January 23, 2013 | RYAN SMITH

[MinorityRepublican]

America has been creeping closer and closer to allowing women in combat, so Wednesday's news that the decision has now been made is not a surprise. It appears that female soldiers will be allowed on the battlefield but not in the infantry. Yet it is a distinction without much difference: Infantry units serve side-by-side in combat with artillery, engineers, drivers, medics and others who will likely now include women. The Pentagon would do well to consider realities of life in combat as it pushes to mix men and women on the battlefield.

Many articles have been written regarding the relative strength of women and the possible effects on morale of introducing women into all-male units. Less attention has been paid to another aspect: the absolutely dreadful conditions under which grunts live during war.

Most people seem to believe that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have merely involved driving out of a forward operating base, patrolling the streets, maybe getting in a quick firefight, and then returning to the forward operating base and its separate shower facilities and chow hall. The reality of modern infantry combat, at least the portion I saw, bore little resemblance to this sanitized view.

I served in the 2003 invasion of Iraq as a Marine infantry squad leader. We rode into war crammed in the back of amphibious assault vehicles. They are designed to hold roughly 15 Marines snugly; due to maintenance issues, by the end of the invasion we had as many as 25 men stuffed into the back. Marines were forced to sit, in full gear, on each other's laps and in contorted positions for hours on end. That was the least of our problems.

[Dr. Pritchett]

The Army is so egalitarian these days that you know leaders are living in close quarters with their Soldiers as well. Especially squad leaders and platoon leaders. Now throw the gender mix into the chain of command as described in the article.

[rfreedom4u]

I researched this for my daughter when she turned 18. She told me that she thought women should have to register also. I agreed but upon doing the research I found that it is illegal for a woman to try to register.

[CatherineofAragon]

Be careful what you ask for.....fools

And the men who on the battlefield will be the ones who will pay for this stupidity.

[cherry]

of all the reasons I would not women in combat, the fact that its "uncomfortable" and unpleasant is the the most lame I've heard...

men should try carrying a 8# pound baby inside, pressing on their spine, their bladder and their intestines, and then have your pelvic bones actually thin out and expand while the baby makes it's way to the outside world.......there's a reason why women carry babies, and not men....

[colorado tanker]

Only infantry excluded? Does that mean women will be in tanks?

I'd like to see a woman who could fix a thrown track.

[RightOnline]

Yet another decision by a p***y in power who never served a day in the military.

I have/had 3 sons serving. If this was then....I’d have steered them all away from military service...and I’m a veteran and come from a family of veterans.

I don’t know what country I live in any more.

[thecodont]

What combat leader would not want to replace his man warriors with a shorter, lighter, weaker, sicklier, less aggressive, slower moving, more terrain limited, reduced distance traveling, hygienically vulnerable, smaller weight carrying, more prone to injury, version.

What combat leader would not want to replace his man warriors with 11-year-old boys?

[Robe]

Yup, I know first hand, my son is a infantry platoon leader. It's bad enough that he has female engagement team (FET)attached to his unit.
They don't co-habitate, but live at brigade HQ.They get driven up in a Humvee,prior to the patrol
They try to keep up, but never the less slow his troops down.
He tells me he is afraid of what will happen if they get in to a real s$it slinging firefight.

[THX 1138]

Here is an incredible article from The Atlantic Monthly. Published in August '89, it made such an impression on me that I never forgot it. It tells the truth about the realities of combat.

The Real War

And they want to send women into this?

[The Great RJ]

Women in the conditions described in this article would surely have debilitating urinary and yeast infections. In case the idiots in Washington have forgotten there are anatomical differences between men and women Managing a menstrual period under combat conditions would also be problematic and supplies of tampons or pads would have to be shipped to the front lines too. In combat would a case tampons have to replace a case of ammunition being shipped to the front???

[Travis McGee]

Reality has been abolished by the ‘rats.

/sarc

[TADSLOS]

My sentiments exactly. In just 4 short years we have seen the near dismantlement of the military chaplaincy, allowing of homosexuals to openly serve, Islamists setting policy and doctrine and now females serving in combat arms roles. This isn’t the same military I served 25 years in. Hell, it’s not even the same military my son joined in 2005.

[cuban leaf]

Michael Medved told a story on his show about ten years ago. His family was driving down the road and they saw a dead possum on the side of the road. For some reason they stopped (I guess they thought it might still be alive or something).

Anyway, his very young son and daughter both saw it and acted as all boys vs girls would. The daughter said, “eeew! Gross!”

And his son said “Cool! Can we take it home?!”

And in that story is why women will respond differently than men in combat. Movies notwithstanding.

[Chainmail]

Yet another step towards the destruction of our defenses. To all the jerks who voted for Obama.as well as those who helped him by not voting at all: hope you’re learning Chinese.

[spodefly]

The only advantage I can see to having women in combat areas is that when they get wounded, it will only take 2 guys to carry their stretcher instead of 4.

[ottbmare]

of all the reasons I would not women in combat, the fact that its "uncomfortable" and unpleasant is the the most lame I've heard... men should try carrying a 8# pound baby inside, pressing on their spine, their bladder and their intestines, and then have your pelvic bones actually thin out and expand while the baby makes it's way to the outside world.......there's a reason why women carry babies, and not men....

We are not talking about "uncomfortable and unpleasant." The topic is a level of deprivation and physical suffering that requires great physical strength and toughness, and an aggressiveness that principally comes from high levels of male hormones.

I've had babies. It's tough for 18 hours or so. We all do it; our bodies are made to do it. It's natural. You don't have to be big, strong, and tough to give birth. You don't even have to be healthy. But warfare is something very different from a blessed, natural process, and equating them is simply silly.

[redlegplanner]

Waiting to see the sign in the motorpool:

If this Bradley’s rockin’, don’t come a knockin’

On 2d thought, I guess this has been possible ever since DADT went away....

[Defiant]

Thanks, that is a great link.

[Nifster]

The left is clearly insane. They want to protect women from ‘violence’ and then demand they be put on the front lines of combat. Women are not warriors at heart (sorry folks they just aren’t). They will protect their own ferociously (think Mama Grizzly) but to seek out hunt down and kill the enemy???? Nah women just aren’t good at that no matter what hollyweird or the WH says

[Secret Agent Man]

also note the hardcore feminists are home here writing articles behind a desk, going home to their cats and the latest lean cuisine microwave meal. they aren’t putting their money where their mouths are.