Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: GulliverSwift
There are two discussion here.

One is whether women should be in combat roles.
I oppose women in combat roles. The reason includes unit cohesiveness, pregnancy disability/sexual activity, and also lack of upper body strength. By blurring the differences of the sexes, we ignore reality

The second discussion is whether women should be allowed in support roles. I support this.

these women weren't in combat roles. They were in support roles.

Women in support roles in war have a long history. Campfollowers today imply prostitutes, but in every war in history, women followed wars to do laundry, cook, and nurse. And sometimes these women were killed or had to fight back. Women were in Bataan. One spanish wife with Cortez fought back when her group was attacked by Aztecs. One of Mohammed's wives went with his army to nurse, and ended up fighting along side her husband. Usually these people are not mentioned in the books, but sometimes you see mention in passing about their presence.

modern war tactics include guerilla attacks to the support troops.

When I was in National Guard in the 1980's, we were told our medical unit was supposed to be 200 miles behind the lines, but that we should expect attacks by NBC and guerilla type troops should war break out and we were mobilized.

Unless we eliminate women from all positions in the armed services, you will have women casualties. But I doubt any army will do this.
3 posted on 11/13/2003 3:36:39 AM PST by LadyDoc (liberals only love politcially correct poor people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: LadyDoc
You raise excellent points, and speak with a voice of authority as one who has been there. I don't think there are any easy answers; the tactics employed by the enemy today make NO position a safe one, and there is no such thing as a "polite war." Any female who serves in the military today must be made acutely aware that no matter where they are, there exists the very real possibility that they will be thrust into a combat role. Hence my belief that we cannot afford to lower the physical requirements for females.

That said, I agree that women should be allowed support roles. And sadly, that will make the addition of names to the ignominious list of female POWs "Piestewa, Johnson, Lynch" a bleak reality.
5 posted on 11/13/2003 12:31:23 PM PST by liberallyconservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

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