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.
When she mentioned something about "carpet munching" I figured it was time for me to find another place at the bar...
Yes, there is a place for women in combat, and this women could fill several of them (including mine).
Say it again, brother!
Say it again!
You would still present discipline and unit cohesion problems within any line unit you served. That in turn affects unit performance and security.
Ramble on all you want about your feminine exploints....doesnt change the facts.
That's incorrect. Men are better at fighting than women, no matter what the prize is. Therefore, "fighting for freedom" is not a gender-equal arena.
You should understand that I don't mean "fighting" in the figurative sense, like when you fight to succeed, or fight to get a candidate elected; rather, I mean literal fighting, where you shoot, stab, punch, kick, and bite in an effort to survive and destroy the enemy. The idea that women are equal to men at this is a romantic notion, and the sooner you are free of it the better.
LOL...I missed that.
None taken, but is also not very comforting to think of our sons defending us in hand to hand combat with the Taliban. Any loss of life is a tragic one. If your daughter (assuming you had one) sincerely wanted to fight to protect America, would you deny her the right to do so?
Please... The problem is easily solved with an all womans military unit.
My position is that the military should be as effective as possible in killing the enemy and destroying his or her ability to make war. No credible person can make the case that a campaign to push females into combat roles would, at this point (or at any any point in any other credible scenario), make our military more effective at that role.Yes, women fought alongside men in the Palmach and Hagnagh in 1947 and 1948. It was an unimitigated disaster in the occasions where it occurred, since Israeli men acted more to protect their female comrades than to to kill their opponents and achieve their objectives. The Israelis have been wise enough not to repeat that mistake in 1956, 1967, 1973, or any other wars.
You claim that a bullet from your gun would be as effective as a bullet from my gun, and you would be more effective in combat than I since you would be fighting to defend your babies. Hmmmm...., Well, leaving that aside....are you under the impression that infantry combat is conducted as a sharpshooting contest on a rifle range? One of the most critical infanty skills of today, yesterday and forever is the ability to dig a hole quickly. This is a fairly upper-body-strength intensive exercise. It also helps to be able to carry a nine pound rifle, many pounds of ammunition, grenades, and possibly mortar rounds or mortar parts, and possibly anti-personnel mines, along with 16 to 23 pounds of body armor, and more various and sundry pieces of gear (satelite communication equipment, crypto, rations, etc) in extreme conditions for ridiculous lengths of time, up hill, sometimes double-timing it, sometimes sprinting. Sorry, its not like on TV.
No. When it comes right down to the last line of life and death resistance. But, until then, participation in armed combat has a lot to do with the physical strength and endurance that is generally associated with those genitals. And whether it is necessary to make special accommodations for one's genitals.
Some men aren't qualified for military service, either. My eyes disqualified me. And I didn't consider myself a victim of "ocular discrimination".
Men and women are different, I remind you. For reasons that should be perfectly obvious. Our culture has chosen to make the appropriate distinctions, with respect to the division of combat labor. Simply stated, we don't ask our women to go toe-to-toe with the thug in the bar fight.
"Try a new arguement or post elsewhere."
Coming from a man, those would be "fighting words", wouldn't they? Which is why you used them, I suppose. You may, or you may not realize that, as a gentleman, I'm constrained from inviting you to "go outside". So, I suggest you climb down off your feminist high horse and try a more civil approach. It can work wonders.
Everybody break out your slide rules...while Orion defies the laws of physics while connecting issues.
What next boring one? Fruit Loops in the Military?
How'bout children? I mean they have a right to choose dont they?
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.