Posted on 11/01/2001 5:18:39 PM PST by Pokey78
THE former president Bill Clinton's policies of allowing women soldiers into combat zones are being halted as part of a fundamental rethink by the Bush administration about the culture and purposes of the armed forces.
Opponents of boosting the role of women in the front line have been appointed to influential positions in the Pentagon and a move to open up a reconnaissance unit linked to special forces is likely to be reversed.
But the primary factor influencing the Pentagon is the need to fight a war against terrorism in response to September 11 and the subsequent anthrax attacks.
Peacetime considerations such as the desirability of gender balance and the avoidance of casualties have been subordinated to the more pressing concern of defending America against a deadly and determined foe.
The Defence Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (Dacowits) is already being marginalised at the Pentagon as senior planners seek to maximise the killing potential of the armed forces. "That's all changing," one Pentagon official told the magazine US News and World Report when asked about women going into combat zones. Another said front-line units "won't involve women".
Traditional fighting skills, rather than the values stressed by the US military's notorious Consideration of Others (Coo) programme, are back in vogue as America engages in probably its biggest conflict since the Second World War.
American women serve in front-line ships and as jet pilots but not in submarines or with combat ground units.
Anita Blair, the new deputy assistant secretary of the US Navy, is an opponent of allowing women to serve in submarines, a key Dacowits aim, and is an advocate of separating the sexes during training.
She is on record as saying: "Defence funding should first be spent on training, equipment, better pay - things that will improve the nation's defence and not just the job opportunities of a tiny number of women."
Sarah White, a former master sergeant in the US air force reserve, has been appointed deputy assistant secretary of the army for force management, manpower and resources.
An opponent of women in combat, she once described the move, introduced by Mr Clinton in 1993, as "a radical departure from where mainstream America believes that good men protect women and that women enjoy being protected by men".
She is against women flying combat aircraft.
"We have to remember that even if you are at a high altitude in an airplane at a distance from the enemy, if you crash, then you automatically become an infantry or special forces-type of person," she said.
"It is your mission then to survive, to escape and to evade, and you have to have all of the skills and the capabilities as the men throughout history have had. And clearly women don't have those as a rule."
Some Pentagon officials are fearful of the American public reaction if a female pilot were shot down over Afghanistan. The only female pilot publicised so far is "Mumbles", a British-educated 26-year-old with an F14 Tomcat squadron based on the aircraft carrier Carl Vinson.
True, but effectiveness in combat is. Let me ask you a question. If you and your daughters were walking across a dark parking lot one night and were confronted with a 6' 200 pound mugger, would you ask one or both of your daughters to fight him off? Do you think either would be capable of doing so?
Can anyone name one physical activity, other than child birth, nursing, etc., where women are equal to men? Why not allow women to play pro football or baseball? Why not have men and women compete against each other in the Olympics? The answer is that women just cannot compete at the same level as men. Only someone that has never been on the ground in combat would beleive that they could hold their own.
No problem. And if she can't pass those standards, she gets whatever other job is available, no matter how undesirable. Straight up and down merit tests are the only way to allocate human resources in any environment-- military or civilian.
That is like me telling a Helicopter pilot who is and isnt qualified to fly his props, or me telling a Motor T platoon leader who has what it takes to drive his trucks.
Though I may know quite a bit about the branch/MOS I am not by definition qualified to tell someone from another MOS about their job.
You can reach for all of the ringers you want....none of them can approach me on this subject.
I will deal with them as they come (or send messages through you) but "you" have no experience on the ground, training soldiers to fight a ground war...you have no experience in executing a ground campaign...you have no experience setting up and executing an assault...you have no experience killing people...you have no experience where this subject is concerned period. I dont care if you were a Pilot in the Air Force...you arent qualified to share any authoritative perspective on the subject of Women in "real" combat roles.
You are no different than the media....an onlooker or a person with an agenda....
You share how you "want" reality to be without having working knowledge of the fundementals behind the ground truth.
You dont have to like, agree, acknowledge or understand it for it to be what it is.
It continues independant of your perspective or input.
And in the end it is a moot(sp?) point because the current administration has ...blown the entire liberal fantasy concept out of the water.
Next up...? The Rump Rangers.
I know for certain that none of us would have a prayer against such an attacker-- I'm not a fool. I would point out, however, that women highly trained in martial arts such as aikido could do so-- however I know such training is beyond what the armed forces have time to offer, so it's a moot point (my sweetie still raves about the tiny little woman black belt he knew years ago who could take down any man-- he called her lethal). Nevertheless-- I could drive a truck or a tank, fly a plane, be a medic or a nurse, perform any job at the command center, the list goes on and on. My daughters could do the same.
Since when is a want a right?
Women, physically, emotionally are not designed for combat
I know because I am one
Not to mention the problems arising from men and women living together in close quarters
95% percent of enlisted women don't even desire to go into combat and they should know!
What if the mugger were equally highly trained? I think his greater strength, speed, endurance, etc. would give him the advantage.
I could drive a truck or a tank
What if that tank's track was damaged and you were under fire? Could you replace a 200 pound section of track as quickly as a man?
I am not saying that there is no place in the military for women. Only that we need to let common sense, not political correctness, guide us.
Let's leave up to the military to assign roles for military purposes which is the whole point I think. Leave politics out of it, leave agendas out of it and leave feelings out of it. The service is about killing better and faster than the other guy and should forever remain that way and whatever is needed to do that should be done.
I'm not a military man but I assume there are many roles available to women in the service other than combat which are rewarding, satisifying and very important. Besides in my old fogieness I think a woman should be saving lives rather than taking them but that's me.
I'm willing to abide with what's thought best for the military by our generals and our leaders when it's used for the purpose of defending our nation and not for social experiements.
It is not an issue of whether women are capable of combat. In WWII Yugoslavia women fought alongside male partisans, however experience proved that they hindered the effectiveness of the combat unit. The soldier must be focused on killing the enemy without the additional burden of protecting women in their midst. The israeli experience was similar and the experiment of having women in frontline combat postions was ended.
Men throughout history have been expendable and cannon fodder for war. There is a very good reason for that. It happens to be biological. A nation can afford to lose men in combat in high numbers without endagering a society's reproductive capacity and it's recuperation. It is quite simple. One man can impregnate 100 women. The reverse is simply impossible. A historical example of this is the war of the Triple aliance fough by Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay against Paraguay in the 19th century. The female component of the population was decimated relative to the male casualties the Paraguayans suffered. The result is that to this day Paraguay never recovered it's ability to expand it's population to what it would otherwise have been had the war not occured.
Women in combat is a bad idea from that standpoint alone.
And you, of course, are female, and are standing in line to join up?
Judging by the name Lizavetta, she grew up outside of USA so she did not have chance to be brainwashed by the feminist run American schools. Do no confuse mindlessness implanted by the man-hating lesbians with the "respect for women".
Ok, so men should be able to opt out if they wish, right?
Excellent point!
Did you see the war? What your husband thinks about that?
This discussion is not about the draft.
Do you have difficulty to make a connections?
Just because someone wants to do something it does not follow that they should do it. This is true in any field or situation. Desire does not equal ability, it never has it never will.
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.