Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pentagon halts the advance of fighting women
The Telegraph (U.K.) ^ | 11/02/2001 | Toby Harnden

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.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: dod; womenincombat
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-165 next last
To: walden
Character and love of country are not boundared by gender.

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.

121 posted on 11/01/2001 9:18:22 PM PST by Apollo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: tjblair
"and to get there, she should have to go through(and pass) the same bootcamp as the men (period)"

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.

122 posted on 11/01/2001 9:21:48 PM PST by walden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: ChemistCat
All due respect to my Brother but I dont give a damn what any soldier who is not part of a ground line company says about women in Combat....especially someone from the "Air force".

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.

123 posted on 11/01/2001 9:33:23 PM PST by VaBthang4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Apollo
"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? "

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.

124 posted on 11/01/2001 9:34:54 PM PST by walden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Orion78
If a woman wants to fight, let her fight.

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!

125 posted on 11/01/2001 9:43:17 PM PST by apackof2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: VaBthang4
Oh, I see.

This is where because you "showed" me YOUR fruit salad, I'm supposed to show you mine, and that's supposed to prove something. I have my rack of fifteen ribbons and dozens of oak leaf clusters, my Kuwaiti Liberation Service Medals, attaboys and grip-and-grins. However: there aren't any military awards for having successfully worked with, under, and over women Marines or women airmen. If you sexually harassed women you work with, failed to appreciate their strengths, and failed to appreciate that they CAN do the job, you probably DID NOT have a good experience with the women who served with you. And I guarantee they didn't have a very good opinion of your service record, either.

Yours is another totally spurious argument that has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue at hand. If you didn't treat women Marines with the honor due to a fellow Marine, you deserved to be busted and given a dishonorable discharge. Period.

Yours is a personal problem and if you had been one of my troops you'd have been busted out of the service for your attitude. It is against Air Force regulations and I presume it's against Marine regulations to harass your personnel, male or female.

Still think my fruit salad is relevent to the question? You probably do, since that's how you reason.

In my 24 years I attained the rank of Master Sergeant, E-7. I did not go for E-8 because I didn't want to be chained to a desk. The last week I was in service, I was still out in the field training my airmen, male and female, and the people I trained are still out there--and still getting OUTSTANDING on their ORIs. I have only fifteen ribbons with a total of twenty-three oak leaf clusters...but the most important award of all is my retirement and the flag that flew over the Capital in my honor. Just wish that clown Clinton hadn't been the one to sign my discharge paperwork. If they call me I'll go back and serve GWB and my country for as long as they need me, bad knees and all. Oh, and by the way, I fired Expert with the M-16 the last ten times I fired. One of my lady troops fired Expert every time she shot, too. She was twice the man several of my other troops were.
126 posted on 11/01/2001 9:44:44 PM PST by Old Student
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: apackof2
That's why people would rather get killed in battle than get handed over to the women. You're such sweet, easy to get along with people. :-)
127 posted on 11/01/2001 9:45:34 PM PST by Old Student
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: walden
that women highly trained in martial arts such as aikido could do so

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.

128 posted on 11/01/2001 9:48:41 PM PST by Apollo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: walden
I would be the last person to deny a woman the right to do her duty for our country.
That is a role to be admired.

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.

129 posted on 11/01/2001 10:00:10 PM PST by this_ol_patriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Orion78
There are practical reasons for women not being in combat. The primary one is the danger of their capture by the enemy. Secondary is the tendency of men to react to women as if they were sisters or mothers and to be over protective of them in a combat situation. This is an ingrained part of nature that precedes our civilized state.

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.

130 posted on 11/01/2001 10:05:59 PM PST by Cacique
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Orion78
"What if a free woman wants to be brave and fight for her country? Bad move by the Bush Administration IMHO."

And you, of course, are female, and are standing in line to join up?

131 posted on 11/01/2001 10:15:50 PM PST by Don Myers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
If women choose to fight *and* meet the same standards as men for the particular field, I see no reason why they shouldn't serve in combat roles. Look at it this way -- they have to go through a lot more resistance to reach their goals and will appreciate it more and be more dedicated to doing the job properly.
132 posted on 11/01/2001 10:19:45 PM PST by Black Cat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VaBthang4
Next up...? The Rump Rangers. As a former Ranger (Airborn, not rump), I take offense at your use of the word to describe the don't ask, don't tell segment of the military. Please choose your words more carefully.
133 posted on 11/01/2001 10:41:18 PM PST by Apollo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Orion78
Thank you for showing us all how much respect you really have for women.

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".

134 posted on 11/02/2001 3:30:12 AM PST by A. Pole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Unbeliever
[Orion78:] "Your trying to change the direction of this to the draft, and its not going to work. If a woman wants to fight. She should be able to fight. Your suggesting it would be unfair to draft men and not women. I'm saying its unfair to say a woman is equal but forbid her from fight if she chose to do so."

Ok, so men should be able to opt out if they wish, right?

Excellent point!

135 posted on 11/02/2001 3:32:02 AM PST by A. Pole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: walden
But, if the time comes that one or both of my daughters chooses (or is drafted) to serve-- I will be proud beyond words.

Did you see the war? What your husband thinks about that?

136 posted on 11/02/2001 3:36:46 AM PST by A. Pole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Orion78
"Ok, so men should be able to opt out if they wish, right?"

This discussion is not about the draft.

Do you have difficulty to make a connections?

137 posted on 11/02/2001 3:38:44 AM PST by A. Pole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Orion78
>If a woman wants to fight. She should be able to fight. Your suggesting it would be unfair to draft men and not women.<

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.

138 posted on 11/02/2001 3:42:30 AM PST by Diva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
No, but they should be opted out if they can't pass the physical and meet standards. Same for women.

One of the ladies I worked with at Desert Storm also pulled a trucker out of his truck,which he had just slammed into a train of tankcars loaded with JP-4 (highly refined kerosine, used as jet fuel, and 1000 gal. = 32,000 lbs. TNT.) Little bitty gal, she was, about 5'2". Strength and endurance can be acquired by anyone willing to work at it.

I would be perfectly willing to draft women, too. I've seen what they can do. We just need to be sensible about what we assign ANYONE to do. If you can't cut the mustard, you can't cut the mustard, regardless of gender.
139 posted on 11/02/2001 3:46:33 AM PST by Old Student
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
I do not mean this disrespectful but it has always been known that their is a difference in gender and men and women are not intended to be here for the same purpose. But in saying that what is the military now to do since this notion has been advanced by the liberals and the female gender has gained a lot from it at the expense of males in the military.If we are to do what is right and prove that women are equal to the task we must put them in harms way like the men. This is an experiment whos time has now come.NOW wanted it,now let us see if it can really work.Who knows maybe women will even be better than men in combat especially those who wanted to try.
140 posted on 11/02/2001 3:46:43 AM PST by gunnedah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-165 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson