Pentagon halts the advance of fighting women

The Telegraph (U.K.) ^ | 11/02/2001 | Toby Harnden

[xzins]

I was always in decent shape when active duty....was an athlete once upon a time (I'm male.)

I wasn't a Ranger. I was at the casualty collection point carrying them into OR when they came off chppers and C-130's. In addition to carrying the litter with the injured Ranger on it, one of us had to pick up the pack, weapon, and ammo and carry it with the troop until it was secured.

I remember the first time I ever reached to pick up the pack with what I think is a pretty strong right arm. I was thinking about my own pack which took some lift, but wasn't difficult. I exerted that force to pull up the Ranger pack. Unprepared for the weight, it pulled me rather than me pulling it.

It was well over a hundred pounds. I'd guess 110-115.

And they carry weapons and PLENTY of ammo. They've got to be loaded out at about 150 pounds minimum.

Rangers are awesome and have my deep respect.

99.999% of females simply couldn't do it. And trying out the number of applicants necessary to find the one woman in a million who could wouldn't be worth the money spent in futile training for the failures.

[7thson]

If a woman wants to fight she should be REQUIRED to do the same physical requirements as a man. Can the average woman do the same physical requirements as a man? Can she carry that 200 lb plus wounded/near dead soldier/sailor/marine? Can she do the same PRT as a man? And yes, this is also about the draft. Have them register. Shave their heads. Make them do the same PT in boot as a man. Those that pass can fight. Most will fail.

[varon]

What if a free woman wants to be brave and fight for her country?

So what you're saying is that you would be willing to sacrifice the effectiveness of a well oiled killing machine (combat unit) to satisfy the whim of a woman, a "free woman" at that, who wants to express some belligerance, eh?

[Windsong]

Women are NEVER going into Navy Seal training. If they eventually do, then it will not be "Seal training" anymore. Buds will be a totally pc environment. I laughed my a$$ off when I saw Ridley Scott's "G.I. Jane". If ANY Seal, female or not, had back-talked her superior officer the way Demi Moore did in that film, she would have quickly found herself booted out and spending the next several years scrubbing the backroom stalls. Besides, NO one at BUDS, including commanders, are going to be able to stomach seeing a woman tortured, which is *mandatory* for training. Emotions such as that displayed by females are non-existent. You get one hour of sleep per night. And you're not allowed to talk, even during lunch. To say a woman can hack the kind of Hell that exists in Hell Week is laughable. Same goes with all the other elite groups...Ranger, Green Beret, etc etc. I KNOW.

[walden]

I have no problem with what either of you are saying. And, I am no expert on the various roles in the military, the requirements of each role, etc. so I am not arguing or advocating that women should be in particular positions or not be in others. I do know that mobilizing a large force halfway around the world is a massive undertaking, with probably hundreds of different job descriptions. I just don't know enough about it to pick and choose, and it's a silly argument anyway. The military has experience now of women in a variety of positions and based on real performance data, rational decisions can be made about how to best deploy all of our young men and women to win this war.

I would say, though, that it is a crime to put anyone, male or female, into a job that they're not properly trained for and physically capable of performing. Performance standards should never be compromised for any reason-- and truly, performance is the only criteria that should matter.

[A. Pole]

Last time I saw a women "fit for combat" she had a small cigar hanging out of her mouth, a tatoo on her arm, a butt the size of New Hampshire , and an attitude about men that would put a rabid pit bull to blush.

Sorry, but you are mistaken. Big butt is not very helpful in combat, what you need is big muscles instead of fat and strong upper body not the lower body. Also the attitude, cigars and big mouth not necessarily will impress the enemy soldiers.

[Marysecretary]

I agree. The Afghans would slice them to pieces, after they are raped and God knows what else. Keep the women on the homefront. There are lots of opportunities for them to serve without going into the front lines to be captured, butchered and killed. I hate what the Clintons and their government did to our women.

[ohioman]

If you think that women are equal in combat, then your momma must have wore Army Boots!

[clamper1797]

NO sir ... a woman in combat endangers that unit. A weak or cowardly man does the same. Granted there is the rare exceptional woman but for the most part women can not carry a wounded comrade AND her equipment to a distant LZ. Also men have the instinct to protect women. They do not have that same level of instinct to protect men . In Vietnam, you did not make friends with the new guys (cherries) because you knew that they were the most vulnerable and most likely to get killed. If the new "guy" is a woman the mens instincts will be to protect her at the expense of what they really should be doing ... watching their own a$$. Lastly ... if any romantic complications arise (which they will) , that can and will seriously damage the cohesiveness of any combat unit. That I HAVE seen personally

[Unbeliever]

Care to check out my registration date! I also happen to believe that if a woman wishes to fight for her country, she should be allow to. but my reasoning is based on experiance, not what my gut tells me! what is the difference from women in the military and women in the Police force If anything a woman wearing a badgeis in a more dangerous line of work.

In the police department women and men aren't living together under close conditions. In the police department women will always have backup to handle problems they can't no more than a few minutes away. In the police department women don't soak up thousands of dollars of training during low crime times only to intentionally get pregnant to avoid deployment when there is an increase in crime. The police department doesn't place women far from home on a moments notice. The police department doean't require a lot of heavy lifting. Female police officers don't have to worry about being held in POW camps for weeks, months and years and being repeatedly raped.

[Unbeliever]

Care to check out my registration date!

Congratulations, you've been here a year and learned absolutely nothing!

[VaBthang4]

"In my 24 years I attained the rank of Master Sergeant, E-7. "
"I have my rack of fifteen ribbons and dozens of oak leaf clusters, my Kuwaiti Liberation Service Medals, attaboys and grip-and-grins."

Just one question...what was your MOS?

You are not a member of the infantry. If you want women in your "branch" and "mos" then fine by me. But dont pretend that you have the wherewithall(sp?) to tell me jack about women on the "ground" in real combat.

You lack the experience.

As for you personally slandering me...I guess it is to be expected from someone outside the loop.

I have had the opportunity know several "WM's" and they are fine soldiers (who tend to be even more focused then some of the Male Marines) but in the end....no amount of focus attached to a body not designed to match a Man's in strength, or stamina let alone hygiene is going to save her or another soldier when "cash transactions" start taking place.

Like I said to someone else....

The reality of the situation operates independantly of your agreement or aquiescense.

I would also offer the distinction between what some are considering "combat" MOS's.

As a fleet Marine I am solely focused on the line companies and their supporting units i.e. arty, Mechanized units and the like....I delineate between being in an airwing or a supply office and being an Infantry Soldier...they are Worlds apart.

Sorry if my typing is bad but I am busy.

[VaBthang4]

You are right.

I apologize.

[nightdriver]

"Saying women shouldn't fight is like saying that women shouldnt learn, or show thier face."

OK. This comment is just too big a stretch of logic to be comprehended by anyone except a star-gazing liberal completely divorced from reality. Just what in the world does sending the physically inferior gender in to combat have to do with showing their faces or learning? You've obviously never been in the military where there is enough trouble dealing with the male "eight-balls" to even consider having to deal with a bunch of women.

Women POWs can be used to great advantage by the enemy by letting the male POWS hear them scream. Women can be the greatest help to any military action by staying home and giving fightiong men a reason to keep on fighting.

If pitiful Patsy Schroeder, however, wants to be in combat that bad, I suppose I wouldn't object too much. What is your gender, anyway? I get the impression that you really want to weaken the US military for some reason.

[VaBthang4]

No...Orion has never been in the Military and yes Orion is a Liberal.

[FUSSBALL]

Slowly as they began to notice that I treated them no different from any other Marine That I asked from them the same things I asked of the rest of the male Marines in my charge.

OK one question SIR! Did they have to pass the same physical tests(PT) as the men? Pass them to graduate?!? I know they didn't~! They have to pass a test but the test is DIFFERENT for woman.(Different running times, different amount of pushups with knees down of course and different standards for situps and the like....gauntlet ...oh yeah run it at different times with different situations) So don't try this mallarchy about you treating them all the same! BULL PUCKEY

[jo6pac]

The real problem is the way men treat women!

OK, then get rid of the women and your problems are solved.

[Old Student]

I spent most of the last 10 years of service in Tactical Communications, specifically Satellite Comm, and then Satellite/Wideband communications, 304X6/2E172 (depending on when you looked at the AFSC, your equivilent of MOS). I was in the 507Tactical Air Control Center Squadron (TACCS) from Nov. 87 to Nov. 91, 1st Combat Communications Squadron (the First Mob), Dec. 91-Feb. 96, and 32nd Combat Communications Squadron (the Third Herd)Feb.96-Oct. 97. None of them are "REAL" combat units. But my "ladies" have been fired on in Sarajevo, and returned fire, I might add. My folks, men and women, opened the Air Base at Tuzla Airfield, when it was covered in 4" of raw sewage, and mined, and helped clear their own areas so the airfield could handle traffic to bring in the grunts who were going to do the real work. They get the training to do what has to be done, and if they can't do it, or won't, they get out. Our job is to support the line troops, and we are supposed to be supported by them, for perimiter defense. I've yet to deploy where we actually had that support, and my folks haven't, either.

No one who can't pass the physical exam AND meet the physical requirements should be in combat. Certainly not in a combat unit. But ANYONE who can should be able to do so.

I once worked for Col. George E. (Bud) Day, the guy who created the "Wild Weasel" concept, and also spent years in the Hanoi Hilton. He had a lot of sad, sad, stories to tell about what happened to POWs there. I don't like the idea of any of that happening to anyone, but risking it is a personal decision. Anyone who doesn't want to go can shoot themselves in the foot. Anyone who is willing, and can meet the standards (and I'm not in favor of relaxing them) should be able to go.

[Green Knight]

Sorry if I'm bringing up something that others have brought up, but I haven't read the whole thread.

In regard to women in combat, the people arguing for women in combat seem to be forgetting 2 important factors:

1) Men don't menstruate and have periods.

2) Men don't get pregnant.

Can you imagine having to march through a desert while a female member of the unit is having her period? Or how about serving aboard a naval ship and having it eave the war zone and head for the nearest friendly port because a female crewmember is pregnant?

Now multiply that by the THOUSANDS. Those are the kinds of problems you'd be seeing on a REGULAR BASIS if women were allowed into combat. Let's say the women can meet all the requirements that a man can in basic training. You STILL have an unreliable soldier! One who can't spend prolonged periods of time in the field as they can't fight certain days of the month. And if that soldier DOES is in the field at that special time of the month, she might risk infection. And if that soldier gets pregnant then chances are she won't be ready to fight for a good YEAR! Maybe more. (Pregnancy, plus a couple months after giving birth for her to get back in shape.) Oh yeah. Women in combat are SUCH a great idea.

And don't bother making the argument that women in combat wouldn't have sex. I remember a story back from the Gulf War about a ship that set out to the Gulf for the war. It had, if I recall correctly, 34 women crew members. By the time the Gulf War ended, 32 of them were pregnant! 32! And for all we know, the other 2 were getting it on, too. Just were smart enough not to get pregnant. (Of course, if you're using Clintons' definition, they weren't REALLY having sex.) So what's a SHIP OF WAR supposed to do when its got female crew members who're pregnant? Does it stay in the war and risk the women giving birth aboard the ship? Or maybe getting injured and losing the child? Does it leave the warzone just for the health of ONE crewmember? They could chopper her out, maybe. At least that wouldn't be as huge a waste of military resources. (That's assuming, of course, that a friendly port is within range of the chopper.) Or do they have the woman give birth aboard the ship? What next, daycare facilities for all the mothers aboard our warships?

Women have absolutely NO business being in combat. And no, this doesn't mean I agree with the Talibans' treatment of women. The military is a wholely unique situation. And I haven't even gone into the morale problems that injecting sex into the military causes.

[Amelia]

If a woman wants to fight. She should be able to fight...I'm saying its unfair to say a woman is equal but forbid her from fight if she chose to do so.

I could WANT to be a professional singer, athlete, or model, but if I don't have the talent or ability, I WON'T be. Should the government subsidize my attempts to become any of those things, just because I WANT to?

Right now, the women in the military do not have to meet the same physical or training standards as men do. Until that is changed, (and NOT by lowering male standards), I don't think they ought to even CONSIDER putting women on the front lines.

Even then, the women probably should be in all-female units, for the reasons of unit cohesion, sexual tension, and privacy/modesty considerations (not that the enemy will care about THOSE if the women are captured...)

By the way, what branch of service are YOU in, and what's your MOS?