Claire, the Lean, Mean, Killing Machine: This Woman's Army

Toogood Reports ^ | 4 May 2003 | Nicholas Stix

[mrustow]

George, you're a mind-reader! When I saw her response last night, I resolved to do a cut-and-paste, but wanted to wait til daylight, when folks would see it.

[mrustow]

That's a wild story. I wonder to what degree the lack of discipline and professionalism of the Iraqi military can be directly attributed to being run by men who were themselves out of control, and who would suddenly maim or murder aides on a whim.

[mrustow]

BUMPBACKATCHA!

[timm22]

Back circa 1918. Today, maybe 25% of the military are infantry grunts of some type or otherwise need those strength and endurance skills (like navy bomb loaders). The rest are techs, tweeks, and clerks. Which women can handle.

Even clerks and technicians face the possibility of seeing combat, particularly in a world where low-intensity conflicts and terrorism are more common. This means that even a pencil pusher has to meet certain physical abilities.

I don't think those abilities necessarily have to match those of an infantry soldier, but everyone in the military has to at least be able to run long distances without getting winded, be able to carry a heavy object for a long period of time, etc. Their life (or the lives of their comrades) could depend on it one day.

[timm22]

So, gentlemen, the next time you want to jump on the "women are physically inferior" train, ask yourself how you would treat one who works hard to make herself the physical equal of a man. If she asked you to spot her in the weight room would you? What if she could lift more than you? If she needed a sparring partner would you spar with her?

If a woman worked herself up to be equal to or stronger than the average man, I'd have tremedous respect for her becuase I know how difficult a process it probably was for her. I apologize for any idiots who feel the need to call names or snicker. Unfortunately, a lot of men (and women) are stupid.

As for men in combat situations not performing as well because a woman is around, that's your problem buster, not mine. You think you need to protect poor little us from being raped or beaten? News flash: that can and does happen at home all the time. Up until the last century, it could be done legally done by a husband in the US. Women have been brutalized in their very own homes for most of history, why is it so much more abhorrent when it happens in war?

It's not just "my" problem; it becomes the problem of everyone I am fighting with. Let me illustrate with a hypothetical example. Suppose you and I are in an infantry squad, tasked to secure a vital peice of ground. As we approach, you are incapacitated, and one of our overprotective squad mates freaks out and can't leave you. Problem is, he's the only squad member with a vital piece of equipment or skill that we need. So the rest of us get killed, and the enemy gets to our objective first, which puts our whole company in danger.

You make good points about women facing violence at home, but unfortunately, the protective instinct many men have has more to do with biology than reason. I'm not so sure it can just be dismissed or ignored.

[timm22]

I agree that women don't have the same body strength as men; however we are more resolved. We are also meaner than guys.

I disagree. I think resolve and meanness have little to do with sex, and depend on the individual. I also don't think meanness has a lot to do with soldiering.

A woman can machine gun the enemy,

Even after carrying the machine gun for a few kilometers and digging a spot for it? Kill an enemy who sneaks up on her position in hand-to-hand combat?

she can fly a plane,

And evade capture if she is shot down?

she can drive a tank,

Can she change the track on that tank? Manually traverse the turret? Load the tank with 10, 20, 30 or more 120mm shells? Pull out 180 lb unconscious gunner?

so even though I don't approve of women fighting on the front lines, I know that we can do the job.

There's a lot more to some of those jobs than you might think.

[dark_lord]

Even clerks and technicians face the possibility of seeing combat, particularly in a world where low-intensity conflicts and terrorism are more common. This means that even a pencil pusher has to meet certain physical abilities.

With this statement I absolutely agree. The issue is what level of physical ability. I have never said that I think women ought to be hauling .50 calibers, body armor, and various and sundry other items along across battlefields. But what level to physical fitness does a radar tech need? Probable the ability to run a few miles in a few minutes, dead lift 75 pound weights from the ground to waist height; and the ability to function without sleep for 24 hours. Thus not as strenuous as infantry grunts, but more strenuous than couch potatos.

[Charles H. (The_r0nin)]

In the Battle of Bastogne, cooks, clerks, and other "rear echelon" troops were issued whatever rifles and ammunition could be found and sent to the front lines to help prevent the Germans from overrunning the surrounded American forces.

Considering that one of the "lessons" of the now-concluded war in Iraq was that U.S. ground forces could be smaller and still get the job done, we could see more instances of this in the future. The smaller the forces, the more likely they could find themselves cut off or surrounded. A fully combat-capable force could fight itself free, where a force partially composed of soldiers under-qualified for combat operations could face disaster.

You are assuming that the next fight that the US gets in will have "safe" areas where female radar operators, etc., could be deployed. As Jessica Lynch's story shows, there wasn't even such a place in this pissant war. What makes you think that the next one won't have even more dangers for the "tail" of the column?

Only a fool prepares for the best case scenario...

[TheSpottedOwl]

We aren't the same as men. Duh. Before you peg me as a feminist, I want to say that when shit happens, the women are more vicious than the men. Especially when children are involved.

I agree with you about what a soldier's job entails. I don't think that women should have been given the positions they were given, however we do get to drive and vote, so what the heck...

[wardaddy]

Oh please...wanting it and wishing it were so does not make it so.

[wardaddy]

Good work on this thread of fantasy logic....and fantasy culture.

[wardaddy]

Only a fool prepares for the best case scenario

Well this forum is overrun with new age PC "fools". I'm glad there are still a few of us around with some common sense.

The mood here is that thousands of years of practical history was all really just a ploy to keep womyn down....and has no basis in clear reasoning both from a strategic, tactical and cultural perspective.

[wardaddy]

Viciousness is irrelevant. My 3 year old is as vicious as a Tasmanian Devil.

There are legions of sound reasons to keep women's roles in the military limited.

[Charles H. (The_r0nin)]

Honestly, I can't understand why women would want to fight wars! The only people eager for a fight are those who have never been in one...

[wardaddy]

Validation?

[DMZFrank]

Your arguement assumes that this military will always be able to defeat an enemy with the forces already in place. It ignores the possibility of a tough, resolute, and capable enemy cabable of bogging us down and inflicting significant numbers of casualties. This might necessitate press ganging infantry and other combat arms replacements from other specialties, as was the case with the Army's ASTP soldiers in WWII. With the female 15% officially non-deployable in most critical combat arms MOS's, this does not bode well for such an eventuality.

I certainly hope that our military supremacy will continue to make such a reality moot. But I think it unwise to expect that it will always be thus and not recognize the threat to combat readiness that a large number of women, who are trained to a differential standard of physical fitness represent.

[dark_lord]

I concur that certain support units can be exposed to combat. But there are two different issues here.

The 1st issue is, should we permit a lowering of standards to permit women in combat infantry roles? I think that this has already occurred and is a bad thing. I would like to see the physical standards returned to their previous level. So I think you will find few people who think lowering the physical standards is a good thing.

The 2nd issue is, assuming we permit women in the service, do we permit women in roles that expose them to injury, capture, and death? In an all voluntary service we clearly have to for two reasons -- because they want to and because not enough men volunteer. The first reason can be argued with, but face it -- they too are citizens of the Republic. If they can serve in roles for which they are qualified, without lowering standards, your basis for denying them the opportunity is weak. The second reason is pragmatic. I am perfectly willing to discuss this issue with fellow citizens who have served, but I suspect there are many who shout "No damn wimmin in the military" while never having served a day in their lives.

[mrustow]

Good work on this thread of fantasy logic....and fantasy culture.

Oh, man. I never, but never, expected to see the sort of responses I got on FR. Things are much worse than I'd ever imagined.

[mrustow]

Bump to list.

[mrustow]

Bump to list.