Women in Combat

Yes, but I thought the issue wasn't women in combat, per se, but that the President said there were no women in combat and yet there have been a number of them killed in combat. That's the point that got certain people here upset.

IMO, it IS paying honor to the fallen to question why she was killed in combat when the Commander-in-Chief says there are no women in combat.

 

Simply riding in a vehicle in Iraq places one in a combat zone. I see no inconsistency on the administration's part. I see this as just more anti-Bush bashing by the losers of last November's election.

Try being winners, not whiners.

 

StefanM you bring up some great points... and that
they are now integral for security operations.

I think there is a minority of women who are fit
and fast who really could serve in combat brigades and do the same functions as the men but
emphasis on few...times have changed and are changing women are stronger and faster but it
is is debatable still on pull up strength or
repelling on ropes..but again I think there are
a FEW GOOD WOMEN who were there daddy's tom boys
who are fighters.

 

I agree with Stefan and Aslan

 

If women are able to handle police and fire dept jobs then they are able to handle combat.

 

Men, Look around next time you go to Walmart.

Ask youself "Seriously would I want to fight some of these women?"

Some of them have arms big enough to have guts in them.

 

Last two posts...right on.

 

In a way women brought this on themselves. The women's liberation movement of a few years ago led to this.

I'm in favor of women serving in all capacities according to their wishes. However, the physical standards to serve in a frontline combat unit should not be altered to suit women. Either they can hack it or they can't.

What is unfair to every combat soldier or Marine is to be saddled with the chore of supporting and looking out for any comrade in arms too weak for the rigors of combat, male or female.

 

Something to think about:

Just suppose that Normandy and Omaha Beach had stormed by only female soldiers, during the second World War. Or what if McArthur had tried to liberate The Philippines with just female troops? How successful would that have been?

How secure would you feel if overnight there were no more male police officers - only lady cops? If the maximum security prisons were run soley by women, would that seem like a plausible plan?

My contention is that the only reason that women can function in military combat roles and law enforcement is that they are backed up by men. I'm really not sure how an all female fire department in a big city would work out either.

Roy

 

Japan would have surrendered about the same time if the Enola Gay had been driven by a female pilot.

 

That's true, but the nuke option should always be a last resort.

Roy

 

June 16 - Sgt. Leigh Ann Hester, a military police officer in the Kentucky National Guard, became the first female soldier awarded the Silver Star since World War II, for her role in thwarting an Iraqi insurgent ambush in March… In a 90-minute firefight, Sergeant Hester and handful of other Guard soldiers fought off more than 30 insurgents armed with assault rifles, machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades after the force attacked a supply convoy southeast of Baghdad. The Americans killed 27 and wounded or captured 7 others… The rescue and Sergeant Hester's role in repelling the assault gained news coverage as Congress debated proposals to limit women's positions in combat zones…. Under a Pentagon policy from 1994, women may not be in direct ground combat units smaller than brigades, because the smaller units typically have a greater likelihood of engaging the enemy. Ground combat units are defined as infantry, armor, Special Forces, field artillery and combat engineers…. The counterinsurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan illustrate the blurring of traditional battlefield boundaries, exposing troops in support units like the military police to direct combat. About 15,000 female troops are in Iraq. Thirty-five servicewomen have been killed there…. Critics of the current restrictions have pointed to Sergeant Hester's actions as an example of how women can hold their own in combat.


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/17/national/17medal.html

 

"...fought off more than 30 insurgents armed with assault rifles, machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades after the force attacked a supply convoy southeast of Baghdad."

"Critics of the current restrictions have pointed to Sergeant Hester's actions as an example of how women can hold their own in combat."

Not necessarily...maybe these insurgents were a bunch of morons. Sorry, I just have to be difficult. I am sure she earned her Star.

 

Ken,

Simply riding in a vehicle in Iraq places one in a combat zone. I see no inconsistency on the administration's part. I see this as just more anti-Bush bashing by the losers of last November's election.

I must agree with LE on this one. Just because I support the war doesn't mean that I would give President Bush carte blanche to disregard the law. I am against women in combat and my opposition is only buttressed by the practical arguments. My opposition is simply that it is not civilized to put women in combat. I must admit, though, that Stefan M raises a very good point about interrogating Muslim women.

 

Women are now a large part of the military - like it or not - and they are serving well. They are now performing the missions given to them and severing our nation with our men in most military specialities. They have demonstrated courage, determination, and skill. I give them full credit and recognition for what they're doing. I will honor any person, regardless of gender, in uniform who serves our nation in any capacity.

I've always felt that women are, on average, less suited for combat - specially the type in which infantry troops typically engage - both mentally and physically than, on average, men. I believe they are more difficult to train and condition for the "business" of killing others by force under the extremely stressful conditions of sustained combat.

I'm not implying women are incapable of mental or physical accomplishments equal to men. Certainly I do not consider them inferior to men in totality. I'm not even suggesting they can't or haven't been successful in combat. The young woman recently awarded the Silver Star (along with two males of the same unit) for her part in combat actions with her Military Police unit's engagement and total destruction of a group of about thirty terrorists early this year is a positive example of what women can do. She, by the way, is not the only example in this most recent war. However, I am saying that, on average, the capabilities of males and females, which equal in total, do vary significantly in specific areas. Some of these differences directly impact the ability to transform ordinary people into fierce individual warriors and into fierce fighting units.

As a counterpoint, it's important to note the difference between defensive operations and offensive operations in combat. A person can engage in combat in both cases and the risk of loss of life or limb is very real in both. However, offensive combat operations involve a different level of sustained and intense combat than do defensive combat operations. I take nothing away from the accomplishments of any troops engaged with the enemy. In fact, troops not normally engaged in combat who rise to the occassion when faced with it deserve a bit of special recognition for doing so well. However, I caution all to understand that war can be far more intense than anyone might conclude from some of the actions we've seen in Iraq since the end of the initial ground war.

I'm also very concerned about the change in standards - a lowering of certain physical standards - made to accommodate women in the military. These lower standards have been in force for a while now and they have compromised the entire force standards.

I'm also concerned about the reported tendencies for male troops to become distracted by focusing on "protection" of the women troops in their units verses accomplishing their mission. That may change with time as troops become more accustomed to mixed genders but it has been a "natural" problem for many.

Admittedly, I've not fought with women in war but I've fought against some who were our enemy. We found them very dangerous behind their weapons and with their tactics yet still not a dangerous as their male counterparts.

The goal should remain fighting and winning wars and not creating "equality" for women or any other social goals. God already made the genders "equal" yet different. All persons - male and female, young and old - should support and contribute to the cause in the most effective manner that meets the needs of the cause. We must use all our resources - people and material - in the most effective manner to win the fight.

I'm also add that the nature of most of our recent conflicts have been different that those of days past where there was sustained and intense combat between large equally capable forces. Thus the success we've enjoyed may not be so readily attainable in the next conflict. I worry that we've come to expect certain results we may find much more difficult to reach.