Pentagon halts the advance of fighting women

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

[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.

[Orion78]

So what if most women couldnt cut it (if that is even the case), it is still wrong to say they do not have to freedom to try.

[tjblair]

If a woman choses to join the military and fight for her freedom (or for whatever reason), she should be allowed to do so.

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

[Orion78]

Lots of things are unfair. But it is wrong to deny a woman the right to choose. Especially here in America.

[VaBthang4]

That was a cute little rant but rhetoric doesnt change the facts.

Women simply do not posses the physical, mental and emotional abilities to withstand combat and even if they did they still serve as a roadblock to unite cohesion and discipline.

6000 years of human history bears that out.

Dont attach your rear end to an idea that can get shot down because when it does....so do you.

[CarolAnn]

I know a few tough old broads that would scare the bejeez out of Osama, but for the most part women are slower and weaker than men. The fighting ability of their units would be compromised and there would be far more casualties. The wants and needs of one gender cannot be favored over the defense of our country.

[IceGirl2]

No she shouldn't--because no soldier fights alone. It is a team effort and every team member has to be ready to not just take care of HIMSELF, but of his buddies. Men have been known to carry their pals for miles to get them to safety. My own father in WWII saved the lives of a half dozen men by his ability to LIFT a heavy piece of metal before he grabbed and threw a grenade thrown at his troops. He got a silver star. No woman could have done it. I wouldn't want my sons to have to depend on the power of a woman to get them out of a fix. Like firefighters, no combat soldier should be a woman. No woman carried anyone down ten flights of stairs--and no woman should be in combat.

Get real!!! Thank God for the adults who took over from the ninnies. Thank God for George W.

[FUSSBALL]

I think they should have a choice. But the choice is clear...make the cut or your gone ...no ifs ands or butts. If they make it (And i guarentee if 1% make it would be a miracle ) then good for them..but then you have the problem of what happens when they are in combat? Menstruation? (Oh wait I have to get back to base im out of tampons!) Sexual tension? (No offense but if a woman is with 12 guys and they are all fighting for their lives not everyone is going to be moral in that situation)

[A. Pole]

If a woman wants to fight. She should be able to fight.

The questions are:
Do they want really to fight or they are camp followers who want to be close to the male soldiers while having the uniform and official status or are they rabid feminists who are neurotic and have no clue what army is about or they just hope that real war will not happen and they want to get some chance for social advancement?

I guess that those are the usual cases - the true woman warriors are as rare as they were rare over the human history. But seems modern man(/woman) is supposed to go beyond the limits of nature (including those of sex) as factually revealed through the millenia.

This hubris/hutzpa will end as it always ended though and warnings will not help. With the rare cases like Biblical Niniveh warned by Jonah, societies must fall before they get the point. So let us fasten the belts and at least try to enjoy the tragicomedy of human folly.

[Orion78]

"Since when does any woman's "wish" override the safety and security of a military unit.

First off, cut off the testosterone level, then uncross your eyes, and go back and read my posts. Never once did i say "WISH". I said choose. It is a womans right to choose, just as it is a mans right to choose.

[Irene Adler]

Regarding women in combat: it's not a question of "if they wish to" it's a question of "are they able to". I teach in a university. The ROTC corps frequently do their early morning runs along a road that is also my driving route to work. Guess who's always bringing up the rear completely exhausted? I won't keep you in suspense; it's the GALS. Again and again, women have proven that they simply can't function under anything like combat conditions. They can't lift and carry a comrad, for instance. Freeper airforce mechanics have reported that female airplane mechanics can't even lift their own toolboxes. We have been preserving a stupid, PC fiction up until recently that women can serve in combat. But battles are very often fought under absolutely horrible physical conditions. At very least, women don't possess the necessary upper body strength, and there is NO evidence, even after years of pretending otherwise, that it is possible for them to develop it.

The clintons were pursuing a double objective in insisting on female "equality" in the armed forces: to pay back their lefty, feminist supporters and to weaken the U.S. armed forces. That needs to stop and fast, too.

[A. Pole]

That being said neither you or anyone else without it (combat experience) is fully qualified to comment.

Come on, people with brains and imagination can understand things even without actual experience. But of cource such will be sensible enough to give priority to those who know things first hand.

[VaBthang4]

I agree....re/read what you quoted.

[Orion78]

argue specific circumstances all you want but the fact is, denying someone the right to fight for thier freedom because of thier sex is wrong any way you cut it.

[FUSSBALL]

Sirloin?

[Irene Adler]

"It is a womans right to choose, just as it is a mans right to choose."

Since when does anybody get to choose whether or not to go into combat? Men certainly do NOT get to "choose" so why should women, assuming the U.S. would ever actually be stupid enough to let them?

(Additional note: apostrophes are our friends.)

[XGMan]

Females just don't measure up.
There are a few wo-men who can grow beards, belch and flatulate like a man, but the military is not a traveling side show.

[GeekDejure]

Hmmmm . . . whatever happened to "barefoot 'n pregnant" ???

[ChemistCat]

I didn't say I disagree with all of those statements. I believe it is foolish to train women for combat, infantry, or artillery roles. The few who are strong enough physically may be stronger than men who are too weak, but what do we gain? I have however known too many women who serve next to men quite well in noncombat roles, such as satellite communications, aircraft maintenance, medicine, orderly rooms, security guards, judge advocates, et cetera et cetera. If a woman is running supplies, she frees up a man for a combat role.

The Air Force handles gender issues particularly well; the Army, Marines, and Navy (predictably) less well. In the Air Force, of course, the enlisted people send the OFFICERS out to fight instead of the other way around.

I also think that a woman with children needs to get out of the service; she cannot serve her children's needs and her country at the same time. It's obvious. But a woman without children can and ought to serve her country; it's idiotic to say anything else. I think some form of public service ought to be required before one gets the vote. (Married, mature motherhood is service. Unfortunately, it gets too little credit.)

You're assuming I know nothing about the military, and there, you err.

[Orion78]

Actually, it's more like saying men shouldn't give birth or nurse the child.

fighting for your freedom has nothing to do with what kind of genitals you have. Try a new arguement or post elsewhere.

[VaBthang4]

"Maybe so, but they should still be allowed to fight if they wish to."

~smirk~

Now, you try and cut down on the stupidity level and we should get along fine.