Posted on 06/03/2002 11:38:26 PM PDT by JohnHuang2
A study completed last month by the British Ministry of Defense concludes that current restrictions against assigning women to ground combat units should stay in effect.
According to a May 23 report in the London Daily Telegraph, the recommendation follows a two-year study and nine full months of testing, in which military officials determined it would be "too risky" to allow women into ground combat roles.
The paper said that Defense Minister Geoffrey Hoon told the British House of Commons that data indicated women might not react the same as men in the heat of battle. Also, the paper said the study found that the presence of women "might make the men act differently, either by defending women who were shouted at by commanders or by refusing to leave them if so ordered."
Additionally, officials said there could be problems with attitudes towards women, which could lead to a reduction in the efficiency of combat units.
In Britain, as in the U.S., women are allowed to serve as fighter pilots, aboard warships, excluding submarines, and most army positions, including serving as forward observers for artillery units. But they are banned from serving in units that must directly "close with the enemy," which includes special forces teams, traditional infantry, armored units and Marine combat units.
Adm. Sir Michael Boyce, chief of the defense staff, said that allowing women into front-line combat roles would be an "irresponsible experiment."
The British study, titled "Women in the Armed Forces," found that most women performed "significantly" worse than men in physical testing. While Hoon said that reason alone was not enough to continue the ban, he pointed out that the study also found that women had a "reduced capacity for aggression."
Also at issue was whether the presence of women would affect strict regimens of discipline needed in most ground combat units.
While the study wasn't clear whether such regimens would be compromised, Ministry of Defense officials insist that "the maintenance of cohesion among the team members is seen as a vital component in sustaining combat effectiveness."
"The small size of the basic unit in ground combat, coupled with the unrelenting mental and physical pressure extending over days or weeks, sets them apart from other military roles," said the study. "Even small failures in a high-intensity, close combat environment can lead to loss of life or the failure of the team to meet its objectives."
Meanwhile, in the U.S., the Bush administration in May put the brakes on a Clinton administration policy allowing women to be trained for land combat roles.
The decision means that eight women who were training in mobile combat units called "Reconnaissance, Surveillance, and Target Acquisition squadrons" – part of the Army's new Interim Brigade Combat Teams – are being reassigned to other non-combat roles.
A Pentagon spokesman told WND yesterday that no changes to the current rules guiding women in combat are being planned. Under a 1994 law, women are barred from "direct combat" roles involving ground warfare.
The administration's decision "shows that Bush defense team leaders have their priorities straight and that they take the realities of warfare seriously," said Elaine Donnelly, director of the Center for Military Readiness, which does not support allowing women in combat roles. "Feminist civilians fail to understand that the new IBCT/RSTA squadrons will have a serious and dangerous job to do. They should not be treated as just another 'career opportunity.'"
Donnelly is a former member of the Pentagon's Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services and the 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Services.
The administration allowed the DACOWITS charter to expire Feb. 28, reflecting what most political analysts believe is a White House opposed to placing women in more combat roles.
The committee was formed 50 years ago as a means to promote the role of women in the services. Critics, however, complained that it had predominantly become a tool for radically feminizing the armed forces, backing such policy initiatives as co-ed basic training and the assignment of women to submarines.
Here's another one for you. Men in combat bad idea. They come home dead too.
ANYONE in COMBAT, BAD IDEA. They DIE.
I am not a pacifist, so no need to flame. I am just trying to get everyone to see that it is a bad idea period.
Where we can avoid war, we are all better off.
Where we can't, I don't think it makes much difference whether you are male or female. Dead is dead.
Would we take away a woman's right to defend her country? Did we not already accept that men and women are equal?
Or are we more concerned with our sqeamishness at seeing dead women?
The idea is not to die, huckleberry, the idea is to brutally wade into it and win by virtue of sheer strength, aggressiveness and commitment to physical confrontation. Most women have a hard time with verbal confrontation of a yelling nature. Well, bullets and explosions aimed at a frail human body is a hell of a lot more disconforting than a raised voice.
Do you want to chance your family's welfare on an assault force not stopped by a mixed sex opposing force? 
I was also responding to the earlier posts that it was not so much women in combat, but the families seeing their daughters (instead of sons) coming back dead that were the problem.
So they are ready to see their sons come home in bodybags?
DUUUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHH
Other studies of note:
Sexually Active Women More Likely to Get Knocked Up
People Who Smoke Pot More Likely to Get High
Study Finds Picking Nose in Public Generally Not Socially Acceptable
Okay I'll stop now... Bwahaha...
Really? D'oh!
8^)
I think that we are concerned with the security of our nation. Anyway, I think that one "good war" with women in the frontlines would kill the notion of women in combat. In the past, women have served in support roles, and those who trot out what their female members have done in the military are talking about women in support roles.
Yes, many people would do just that.
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.