The FReeper Foxhole Presents the Saturday Symposium - Women in Combat Arms? - July 16th, 2005

Samwolf's mind

[snippy_about_it]

Lord,

Keep our Troops forever in Your care

Give them victory over the enemy...

Grant them a safe and swift return...

Bless those who mourn the lost.
.

FReepers from the Foxhole join in prayer
for all those serving their country at this time.


...................................................................................... ...........................................

U.S. Military History, Current Events and Veterans Issues

Where Duty, Honor and Country
are acknowledged, affirmed and commemorated.

Our Mission:

The FReeper Foxhole is dedicated to Veterans of our Nation's military forces and to others who are affected in their relationships with Veterans.

In the FReeper Foxhole, Veterans or their family members should feel free to address their specific circumstances or whatever issues concern them in an atmosphere of peace, understanding, brotherhood and support.

The FReeper Foxhole hopes to share with it's readers an open forum where we can learn about and discuss military history, military news and other topics of concern or interest to our readers be they Veteran's, Current Duty or anyone interested in what we have to offer.

If the Foxhole makes someone appreciate, even a little, what others have sacrificed for us, then it has accomplished one of it's missions.

We hope the Foxhole in some small way helps us to remember and honor those who came before us.

To read previous Foxhole threads or
to add the Foxhole to your sidebar,
click on the books below.

Should women be allowed to serve in Combat Arms?



Background for discussion

Wednesday May 11, 2005

Washington AFP

Republicans in the US House of Representatives introduced legislation that would sharply curtail the role of women on the battlefield.

The measure -- a last-minute add-on to a defense funding bill for the upcoming fiscal year-- would remove women from the army combat support units in which they currently serve, and would ban them from such units in the future.

"The majority of Congress believes women should not be engaged in combat-related activities," said Republican Representative John McHugh, chairman of a House of Representatives subcommittee tasked with overseeing military personnel matters.

Women in the US military are currently banned from combat, but often work in support roles on or near the battlefield -- a practice which McHugh and other Republicans said must change.

"Women should be barred from those positions, " he said, adding that only 31 women would be affected by the policy change.

"The current ban on women in combat needs to be preserved," McHugh said at a meeting of the House Armed Services subcommittee.

Opposition Democrats, however, strenuously objected to the measure, saying it would affect many more women than Republicans claim, and could have a negative effect on overall military morale.

"Todya, women are essential to our ability to fight the war in Iraqand the global war on terrorism. If our nation is truly committed to winning these wars and meeting our other defense requirements, we cannot afford to reject the talents of women, who have served so well, " said Representative Ike Skelton, the top Democrat on the Armed Swervices Committee.

More...

---

---

FReeper Foxhole Armed Services Links

[Soaring Feather]

Have a great time in the State of Maine. Don't take your tomahwwk!! LOL

[Northern Yankee]

. Don't take your tomahawk!! LOL

I'll keep that in mind. With all the libs out east I could get myself into a heap of trouble!

See you when I get back. I'll give you a full report.

[TMSuchman]

IMHO, this is a non topic.

The reason being that in todays modern combat the front lines are everywhere. Anybody & everybody is the theather of operations are a target [so well as those of us back home]. So whether or not we like it thwy [women] are in combat! Now the next question being should they be in jobs that could be possibly take them in to the area of operations or direct combat operations? I have to say no. Most women do not have the upper body strength to do the job [sorry about that ladies, but that is the way GOD had made you all] whereas men have more upper body mass for such jobs.Does that make it correct to do this, I do not know but that is the way of things. Once again IMHO the women in uniform should be in jobs that keep them out of harms way. There are a lot of different jobs that they do much better than men, and I am not trying to a sexist here either, but the last thing a man going off to war should hear is the sound of a woman on the radio directing assets to them, or providing aid and comfort to those who have returned from the scene of battle, plus a whole host of other jobs that I con not begin to speak of.

[Professional Engineer]

Hey, I know that girl!

[PAR35]

I get so tired of hearing that line. Just how pray tell is it so

Women who turn up pregnant at deployment time. Women who turn up pregnant while on deployment. Relationships between shipmates. (Remember the story from earlier this week of the sailor who murdered his married roommate?).

[Professional Engineer]

Could it be the clothes?

LOL, I gave up Ocean Pacific 20 years ago. Given my druthers, I dress more likeNorm Abram than anything.

I met Msdrbyat Match.com. At the time, I only had one digital picture of myself, so I used it. I met Msdrby within a week.

At the same time, a friend of mine knew what I was doing and went looking for my profile. He commented that the written part of my profile would turn off half the women in Dallas, and my picture the other half. My only chance was going to be someone from Fort Worth. Lo and behold...

[Professional Engineer]

You're trying to be funny but it's true. Last time w_over_w called Sam hogged the phone the entire time. The two of them were chatting about the WBTS.

*snicker*

[Professional Engineer]

You've been away too long,

My dad said that for nearly 20 years, not anymore. He's finally accepted I'm not coming back.

[swmobuffalo]

"pregnant"

Takes two to tango, why is it always the woman fault?

Sounds like a discipline problem to me.

Missed the story you referred to.

[w_over_w]

He's finally accepted I'm not coming back.

As has my family . . . although they don't miss an opportunity to rib me every time Kaaleefornya is in the news with fires, mudslides, quakes, etc.

I told them when the day comes to retire we might come back to Texas (my native Calif. wife is okay with that), but they just say, "great, we'll be dead by then." Ahhhh . . . family! ;^)

[PAR35]

Takes two to tango, why is it always the woman fault?

Because a guy with a pregnant wife/girlfriend doesn't have to be pulled out of the line. A woman with morning sickness or who is 8 months pregnant isn't going to be the best soldier in the foxhole.

Missed the story you referred to.

Sorry, you'll have to cut and paste rather than have a clickable link.

Virginia Beach Sailor Sentenced For Killing Shipmate
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1442137/posts
Posted on 07/13/2005 2:17:50 PM CDT by fredhead

[Iris7]

On any problem of this nature I find Sun Tsu most accurate.

Sun Tsu had this, first, to say of women as troops.

"Sun Tzu Wu (=Sun Tzu) was a native of the Ch'i State. His ART OF WAR brought him to the notice of Ho Lu, [2] King of Wu. Ho Lu said to him: "I have carefully perused your 13 chapters. May I submit your theory of managing soldiers to a slight test?" Sun Tzu replied: "You may." Ho Lu asked: "May the test be applied to women?" The answer was again in the affirmative, so arrangements were made to bring 180 ladies out of the Palace.

Sun Tzu divided them into two companies, and placed one of the King's favorite concubines at the head of each. He then bade them all take spears in their hands, and addressed them thus: "I presume you know the difference between front and back, right hand and left hand?" The girls replied: Yes.

Sun Tzu went on: "When I say "Eyes front," you must look straight ahead. When I say "Left turn," you must face towards your left hand. When I say "Right turn," you must face towards your right hand. When I say "About turn," you must face right around towards your back." Again the girls assented. The words of command having been thus explained, he set up the halberds and battle-axes in order to begin the drill. Then, to the sound of drums, he gave the order "Right turn." But the girls only burst out laughing. Sun Tzu said: "If words of command are not clear and distinct, if orders are not thoroughly understood, then the general is to blame."

So he started drilling them again, and this time gave the order "Left turn," whereupon the girls once more burst into fits of laughter. Sun Tzu: "If words of command are not clear and distinct, if orders are not thoroughly understood, the general is to blame. But if his orders ARE clear, and the soldiers nevertheless disobey, then it is the fault of their officers."

So saying, he ordered the leaders of the two companies to be beheaded. Now the king of Wu was watching the scene from the top of a raised pavilion; and when he saw that his favorite concubines were about to be executed, he was greatly alarmed and hurried ly sent down the following message: "We are now quite satisfied as to our general's ability to handle troops. If we are bereft of these two concubines, our meat and drink will lose their savor. It is our wish that they shall not be beheaded."

Sun Tzu replied: "Having once received His Majesty's commission to be the general of his forces, there are certain commands of His Majesty which, acting in that capacity, I am unable to accept." Accordingly, he had the two leaders beheaded, and straightaway installed the pair next in order as leaders in their place. When this had been done, the drum was sounded for the drill once more; and the girls went through all the evolution, turning to the right or to the left, marching ahead or wheeling back, kneeling or standing, with perfect accuracy and precision, not venturing to utter a sound.

Then Sun Tzu sent a messenger to the King saying: "Your soldiers, Sire, are now properly drilled and disciplined, and ready for your majesty's inspection. They can be put to any use that their sovereign may desire; bid them go through fire and water, and they will not disobey."

But the King replied: "Let our general cease drilling and return to camp. As for us, We have no wish to come down and inspect the troops." Thereupon Sun Tzu said: "The King is only fond of words, and cannot translate them into deeds." After that, Ho Lu saw that Sun Tzu was one who knew how to handle an army, and finally appointed him general. In the west, he defeated the Ch`u State and forced his way into Ying, the capital; to the north he put fear into the States of Ch`i and Chin, and spre ad his fame abroad amongst the feudal princes. And Sun Tzu shared in the might of the King."

---

Most excellent war story in my opinion. Probably my favorite.

Sun Tsu later states that when putting together military units to put together likes with likes. Young, with the young, women, with women, minorities with minorities. Volunteers with volunteers, draftees with draftees. Athletes with athletes, neighbors with neighbors, etc., etc. Never do the opposite and put unlikes together.

As far as what I would like to see right now, well, nothing is less important. I will point out that highly paid, highly skilled volunteer armies are a sign of late Empire. A later stage will see the armies mostly manned by foreigners.

Republics fight with their citizens. Being a "citizen" in Republican Rome meant reporting for military duty on zero notice at any time, bring with you your weapons and provisions. No pay, food, clothing, etc. were provided.

So, Draftees = Republic. When the draftees are not adequate material (as they are not now, and have not been since, what, 1970?) then the Republic is over.

Actually, less than perfectly willing draftees can be made into good troops. The methods necessary are strict. Guy Sajer mentions that one man in ten in his group being trained by a Wehrmacht Infantry division died from informal non-judicial execution. Like I say, strict measures.

[Iris7]

The only times I know of where men and women could effectively work together in combat were times where discipline was strict. During WWII the Serb partisans had mixed sex units without problems. Sexual contact resulted in immediate execution of both parties.

There was a US Army case in Iraq early on. A young woman was assigned to a night defensive position, an easy one, too, a nice big comfortable bunker, lots of guys to take care of her. She went hysterical, blubbering, screaming, a tantrum, a panic fit. Disgraceful. General Patton was right, the only way to deal with such things is immediate execution.

[A Jovial Cad]

Good evening snippy, SAM, everyone.

Busy, busy, busy week, with almost no time to FReep! And Oklahoma HOT to boot.

I'm of two minds on this issue, and both of them are pretty ambiguous in their respective positions, at that.

When I was in the USAF, I served with many women who where ever bit the equal of their male counterparts in their ability to carry out the mission, and in some cases superior (this was a mobile TAC radar squadron).

In fact, I dated one.

Everyone see the problem?

Call it chivalry or chauvinism, but my instincts tell me that had the Red Army come crashing through the Fulda Gap (this was when the Berlin Wall was still up and running, Cold War Reagan-era), personal concerns might have compromised the mission on BOTH our parts (at least our part of it, anyway). Or maybe I just don't know what I'm talking about.

I'm open to, and understand, either point of view. And, no, I usually don't wear suspenders and a belt at the same time, but on this one I'm conflicted.

Have a good weekend everyone!

P.S. - I just asked my wife, and she's firmly against it. So disregard everything I just typed above: I'm now foursquare against it, too...LOL.

[PzLdr]

No, for several reasons.

First, the military is mission driven. That means if women are designated for combat it will succeed, even if it doesn't. I remember back shortly after I went in, and they did away with the WAC, detailed female soldiers by branch MOS, and expanded the number of women in service. To get them to pass the PT test, they allowed them more time to run the mile, and did away with the man carry and grenade throw. On paper, it looked fine-and the mission was accomplished [They also did pushes from the kneeling position, and didn't have to do pull ups].

Second, it is physically much more difficult for most women to mule a 90 lb pack, weapon and ammo around all day. Ditto for humping tank ammo, changing a track, or servicing a cannon.

Third, bad for morale. Sorry ladies, women in a combat unit isn't going to add to the warrior mystique.

Fourth, bad for discipline. Gulf I showed major discipline problems, ranging from fraternization, to increased pregnancy [and a ticket out of theater], to senior NCOs giving cushy jobs to females in their units [sometimes for improper reasons, sometimes because the cushy jobs were all the female troops were physically capable of doing].

Finally, I doubt that most women have the instinct to do what a combat soldier does-engage in combat and kill people. You can train somebody to do the work up to a point- but it's much easier to train males than females [that damn testosterone again].

[PhilDragoo]

I read the rest of the article and lo and behold here is Loretta Sanchez bitching that the "Army is facing recruiting and retention issues"--

Why, thank you, Loretta, and when we need an election stolen we'll use you for that--

--but the "recruiting and retention issues" are due totally to Democrats such as Loretta and Turban Durbin slandering our troops, in conjunction with the leftist media which keeps up a constant drumbeat of the vilest slanders, with a waterfall of negative-only propaganda.

Here's to one type of woman we don't need anywhere near our military: Sara Lister, Pat Schroeder, and that piece of work who blew the Abu Ghraib command.

Certainly the anecdotal evidence of epidemic shipboard pregnancies mitigates against coed shipmates--it's the human condition: one plus one equals one remains on duty while one requires putting in for a replacement: not conducive to warfighting.

The upper-body strength phenomenon dictates exclusion from combat roles--with the fighter-pilot/aircrew exception.

As long as the new tone extends to warfighting and cultural sensitivity reigns supreme women will be required to search women in securing post-combat territory.

It is to laugh that Ike Skelton "the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee" is suddenly so concerned about winning wars--

Democrats aren't interested in winning the war in Iraq--they are interested in nay-saying it in detail, from pretext through execution, from planning to follow-up, they are defeatists.

I give you Hillary whose copresidency chopped military budgets 40%, slashing size, readiness, training, and morale while tripling deployments.

Enough with the social experiment. Kill people, break things, and place Dick Durbin in whichever category is most convenient.

On to Damascus and Tehran.

[Old Seadog]

Takes two to tango, why is it always the woman fault?

Sounds like a discipline problem to me


Exactly! Having just men aboard ships gets rid of the problem, discipline or otherwise.

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!!!

[snippy_about_it]

I usually don't wear suspenders and a belt at the same time, but on this one I'm conflicted.

LOL.

[snippy_about_it]

Good points PzLdr. I agree and will wait to enter combat until it hits the streets here. ;-)