Posted on 10/11/2017 6:21:44 PM PDT by markomalley
The Army will expand the number of installations where it assigns female soldiers serving in previously all-male, front-line combat jobs as more women enter the infantry and armor fields, a top general said Wednesday.
To date, more than 500 female soldiers have completed training to serve in infantry and armor jobs that only became opened to them in December 2015 when the Pentagon eliminated rules barring women from serving in certain military jobs, Lt. Gen. Thomas C. Seamands, the Army’s chief of personnel, said during the Association of the U.S. Army’s annual meeting in Washington.
“These are citizens who a few years ago would not have had the opportunity to be infantry or armor soldiers, and they are now doing it and doing it quite well [and] with distinction,” he said.
So far, the Army has assigned about 100 of those female soldiers to units at two posts — Fort Bragg in North Carolina and Fort Hood in Texas. Women are serving in infantry and armor units within Fort Bragg’s 2nd and 3rd Brigade Combat Teams in the 82nd Airborne Division and in Fort Hood’s 1st Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division and 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment.
The other roughly 400 soldiers in those fields are now in various training programs while they await assignments to combat units.
But as more women enter the previously closed fields, the Army will need to expand the number of installations where it assigns female infantry and armor soldiers, said Lt. Col. Naomi Mercer, the Army’s chief of command policy who is helping develop the gender-integration process for the service.
The Army said last month that it had an additional 184 women attempting to join the infantry and another 125 attempting to serve in armor jobs.
The expansion of posts with female infantry and armor soldiers could come within the next year, Mercer said.
She declined to identify which Army installations were being considered, but she said female infantry and armor soldiers would likely begin their careers at larger posts with multiple combat units.
Fort Hood and Fort Bragg were chosen because they are large installations with extensive resources for soldiers serving in combat arms fields, Mercer said.
“The consideration is based on the opportunities for the [soldiers] who go there,” she said. “The reason that we picked Fort Bragg and Fort Hood in the first place is that those are armor and infantry hubs.”
Just as the Army has done at Fort Hood and Fort Bragg, it will place at least two female officers or noncommissioned officers in a unit before it moves junior enlisted soldiers —in the rank of specialist or below — into those units.
The Army calls that structure a leaders-first approach to integrating women into fields that were traditionally all male. Mercer said the structure has been effective so far and the leaders are paving the way for new soldiers just out of initial entrance training programs to move into the combat force.
“We’ve been preparing for this since 2012 and it has proven it works,” she said. “Everybody is filtering in. It just takes time.”
Exactly. You spoke for both of us there.
I know there are a lot more physical men than myself, and one of the things you think of is would I be a big plus or a hindrance in a tough situation?
I’m sure they would have trained me well in the day, but I couldn’t function as I would need to today.
There are times when I wish I could. I think about the military and whether I’d like to go or not.
That’s another good clear easy test. Thanks. I agree with you.
Here’s some interesting commentary from my nephew-in-law to be (niece’s fiance) from a couple years ago about woman in combat, from his time in the Marines just a few years ago.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3415429/posts?page=24#24
Beyond that, whenever the subject comes up, I invite people to read some detailed history of serious combat. I really don’t think most civilians advocating for women in combat roles have done so. One great source is Project Gutenberg, where they have free short folio histories prepared by the Marines about island battles in the Pacific during WWII. Read about Guadalcanal, or Tarawa, or some of the others, and ask yourself if women had any business there.
Pacific Campaigns and Battles here:
http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/World_War_II_(Bookshelf)
We have too many fools who think G.I. Jane and the like bears any resemblance to real life.
when any of these girls can do THIS, i “might” be OK with it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JY8fYWUcF5Q
See the first link in my previous post for a few anecdotes from the field.
You are correct and after reading the original post by proud American in Canada, I now realize she was talking about women in combat; I thought she was talking about women serving in the military. I am in agreement with you both, women don’t belong in combat units.
Women do not have the strength that men do. That is obvious.
This is reminding me of that scene from Forrest Gump where he is carrying his injured buddy (Bubba?) out of a Vietnam jungle. There is no way a woman could do that.
Thanks! Now I have to get to bed...and I will have an “earwig” with the Beatles song “Taxman” in my head for the next 24 hour hours at least. ;)
Good night, FRiends. :)
Thank you! I am getting to bed but wanted to respond to thank you and then I will be able to find all of your info tomorrow a.m. and read it. :)
Apparently the Deep State still runs things and Trump is only a figurehead.
Old armor crewman here. You are spot on. Women have no business in the combat arms.
Goodnight, FRiend! :)
I think a lot of things contributed to that, women in combat being the very least of it.
I agree, and I wouldn’t want it trained out of them ideally.
Goodnight. Sleep well.
Note the corrected 2nd link in my #48.
And just to confirm - your misgivings are well-founded.
Thank you. :) I would love to talk to you about your experiences.
Mississipi is a lovely state, btw. I am originally from Illinois but had the pleasure to visit the South; best people ever. :)
I need to answer people who post to me, but I am shutting the computer now. :) need to get to bed. Thank you for your reply! And all the best to you and yours,
Julie
p.s. Sorry if I misunderstood your screen name! Mississipi is still a great state, though.
Gosh, I am tired. Have had a cold. :) Take care, FRiend!
It is a common misconception that Israeli women serve in combat roles. Actually, they do not. While IDF support troops are never far from the front and are thus well trained and armed to fight defensively, the Israelis learned a long time ago that females have no place whatsoever in frontline ground combat. Infantry in battle is hell on earth for men.
At best, the presence of women weakens unit cohesion among the stronger males who are capable of carrying their own loads -- and capable of fighting other strong men. As for the worst case, did I mention fighting? In actual ground combat, the strongest women would be brutalized by the average infantrymen. Hollywood is not real life, and strong men fighting for their lives are not gentlemen.
I don't think there's anyone out there who can deny that there were some Russian women who were extremely effective as snipers during WW II. Some of them, such as Lyudmila Pavlichenko ("Lady Death") were as deadly as they come.
From 1942-1945: Soviet women snipers—The female terrors of the Eastern Front:
When Germany invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941, hundreds of thousands of Soviet women sprang to join the war effort, enlisting as nurses, clerks, cooks — and snipers.Additionally, as we all know, there were at least a couple of women who served in combat roles in the American Revolution, including at least one who enlisted as a man, Debora Samson, was wounded in action twice, and was ultimately granted a soldier's pension.Over 2000 women were trained as sharpshooters and deployed to some of the most dangerous battlegrounds, far from their companies and required to lie still for hours to avoid detection and await the perfect shot.
Stories of their lethal nature and sacrifice abound — former kindergarten teacher Tanya Baramzina notched 16 kills on the Belorussian Front before parachuting behind enemy lines, where she killed another 20 before being captured and executed.
While I know that there are many who are vehemently opposed to women serving in combat, and go on and on about how much weight a woman can carry, etc., I have long since dispensed with the hysterical notion that it should never be considered—especially considering the fact that there are at least some historical cases where women did do an exemplary job.
In specialized armor roles, such as perhaps in tanks or other situations which might favor a very short or small-bodied soldier, maybe there is some place for women as well.
I'm sure that there are at least a few exemplary female soldiers who can perform at an equal or higher level than male infantry who are minimally fit for duty.
Thus, in light of historical fact, and in cases where it makes sound military sense, I no longer have a problem with women serving in combat, and dogmatic opposition to the idea is becoming increasingly passé, IMHO...
I agree, and I am also a woman.
Compromising readiness is actually the goal of initiatives such as this.
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.