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 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 161-165 next last
To: Orion78
Twenty-plus year ago, the Israelis tried women in combat units. It was a disaster.

First, the sight of women shot up and in pieces(that is what happens when people get shot by combat weapons) was demoralizing to the male members of the unit. To the point that they were only able to field 40% of the available strength of the integrated units because the men wouldn't allow the women to go on missions.

The Israelis still use women in the armed forces, but not for combat.

81 posted on 11/01/2001 7:06:35 PM PST by Parmy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: OldEagle; Orion78
most of our military physical requirements have been reduced so women can participate, but we probably will not be able to get Osama et al to respect the reduced standards.

It's worse than that--the very use of women (mothers!) in combat roles changes the whole equation in bad ways. You can only work up so much dudgeon about women being killed in the world trade center when we are sending women over to Afghanistan to kill or be killed. It changes the whole moral basis of things in the direction of crying havoc.

To do that, not because you think you have to, but because Bill Clinton felt like it is just simply pitiful. The Israelis tried it, and found that the Arabs simply would never surrender to a woman, fighting to the death in preference. We have plenty of men to fight, we don't have to eek out our personnel requirements by ringing in the rare combat-proficient woman and we certainly are ill-advised to dilute our training standards to do so.

82 posted on 11/01/2001 7:07:10 PM PST by conservatism_IS_compassion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: ChemistCat
Send whoever you want....I'll slice him up if he says, implies, hints at, or feigns that women in combat is realistic, practical or positive thing.

:o)

83 posted on 11/01/2001 7:09:42 PM PST by VaBthang4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
American Women at War

Take all American women who are within five years of menopause - train us for a few weeks, outfit us with automatic weapons, grenades, gas masks, moisturizer with SPF15, Prozac, hormones, chocolate, and canned tuna - drop us (parachuted, preferably) across the landscape of Afghanistan, and let us do what comes naturally.

Think about it. Our anger quotient alone, even when doing standard stuff like grocery shopping and paying bills, is formidable enough to make even armed men in turbans tremble.

We've had our children, we would gladly suffer or die to protect them and their future. We'd like to get away from our husbands, if they haven't left us already. And for those of us who are single, the prospect of finding a good man with whom to share life is about as likely as being struck by lightning.

We have nothing to lose.

We've survived the water diet, the protein diet, the carbohydrate diet, and the grapefruit diet in gyms and saunas across America and never lost a pound. We can easily survive months in the hostile terrain of Afghanistan with no food at all!

We've spent years tracking down our husbands or lovers in bars, hardware stores, or sporting events...finding bin Laden in some cave will be no problem.

Uniting all the warring tribes of Afghanistan in a new government? Oh, please ... we've planned the seating arrangements for in-laws and extended families at Thanksgiving dinners for years ... we understand tribal warfare.

Between us, we've divorced enough husbands to know every trick there is for how they hide, launder, or cover up bank accounts and money sources. We know how to find that money and we know how to seize it ... with or without the government's help!

Let us go and fight. The Taliban hates women. Imagine their terror as we crawl like ants with hot-flashes over their godforsaken terrain!

Got this on my e-mail. A little too anti-male for me, but the spirit is good.

84 posted on 11/01/2001 7:20:21 PM PST by c. l. coffman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Orion78
Didja ever lift a Ranger's pack, weapons, and ammo? Then jump, march, fight, and rescue a buddy with it on?

Not one woman in 10000 could keep up. Maybe 1 in 1000000....and I'm not sure of that.

85 posted on 11/01/2001 7:22:59 PM PST by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Orion78
Please... The problem is easily solved with an all womans military unit.

God help us if it ever comes to that. Women's IQs, like a pack of dogs, plummets when you get a bunch of them together. They're so self-oriented it's disgusting. Give me a chest-pounding, testosterone-filled, aggressive bunch of guys for my military....that's what wins wars.

86 posted on 11/01/2001 7:25:51 PM PST by Lizavetta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Lizavetta
LOL...

That is funny.

87 posted on 11/01/2001 7:33:22 PM PST by VaBthang4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: ChemistCat
I sort of understand how you think that women in combat might be able to cut it with the big boys. I always thought I could fly an airplane until I tried it. After I learned how to do it, I couldn't believe how naive I had been. I personally have had the experience of knowing a number of women who could kill without a second thought, but that's not the issue. The point is not that women can't kill or don't do it well or don't enjoy it and it has nothing to do with rights. We are talking about combat. I have no objection to women in support roles that do not require a lot of strength and endurance.
88 posted on 11/01/2001 7:35:28 PM PST by OldEagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Lizavetta
"Women's IQs, like a pack of dogs, plummets when you get a bunch of them together. They're so self-oriented it's disgusting.

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

89 posted on 11/01/2001 7:36:12 PM PST by Orion78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Orion78
I recently attended my little brother's graduation ceremony from Marine Corp boot camp. Six companies of men and one company of women graduated. Just like at every boot camp ceremony, there were some who failed to graduate because of training injuries. Broken arms, sprained ankles, etc.

I was thinking about the issue of women in combat while there, and decided to count the number of injured Marines. There were 21 men and 15 women. That means that women were aprox 4.5 times as likely to be injured in training as men.

I can assure you that training doesn't come close to the real thing. Bottom line: Women cannot physically withstand the rigours of combat.

90 posted on 11/01/2001 7:36:40 PM PST by Apollo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Orion78
Should men be allowed to have babies if they want to?
91 posted on 11/01/2001 7:38:28 PM PST by rundy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: xzins
I have...and your right.
92 posted on 11/01/2001 7:38:29 PM PST by Apollo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Orion78
Women should be allowed to fight all they want- just not in the military and nowhere near a battle zone where they degrade the force deployed.
93 posted on 11/01/2001 7:38:41 PM PST by arthurus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: rundy
"Don't you oppress me."
94 posted on 11/01/2001 7:40:50 PM PST by Orion78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: ChemistCat
In fact I think it was John Lennon who said "women should be obscene and not heard."
95 posted on 11/01/2001 7:40:59 PM PST by rundy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: rundy
"I want to be called Loretta."
96 posted on 11/01/2001 7:43:19 PM PST by Tex-Con-Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Orion78
"Maybe so, but they should still be allowed to fight if they wish to."

There is no 'right' to serve in the military. The military routinely discriminates in determining who is fit to serve and where they serve, and they do this for good reason. Saying that women should be allowed to fight (in a combat role) is like saying the military should be forced to accept people with disqualifying medical conditions and put them into combat.

97 posted on 11/01/2001 7:49:27 PM PST by AfghanAirShow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Lizavetta
Lizavetta, Great post (#68). Keep it up.
98 posted on 11/01/2001 7:51:33 PM PST by rundy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: OldEagle
"I sort of understand how you think that women in combat might be able to cut it with the big boys."

You aren't reading what I've actually said. Women in combat can't cut it with the big buys until they absolutely have to...then they do what they must, and sometimes they don't make it. (Sometimes the guys don't either.) I don't believe women ought to serve in combat roles. I don't believe it!!!!!!! It is NOT good when it HAS happened--yet it HAS happened because sometimes the front line is HOME!!!!!! Yet you guys keep wanting to twist my position as if I said they should!

GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH AAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRGHHHHH

Only male elephants go musth. However. That won't comfort anyone trampled by a female elephant.
99 posted on 11/01/2001 7:52:48 PM PST by ChemistCat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
"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."

Above statement not accurate.

Good article and real facts and regulations about the women we have in combat during this war.
100 posted on 11/01/2001 7:58:37 PM PST by 68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 161-165 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