Skip to comments.Women Don't Belong In Ground Combat
Posted on 06/03/2005 4:29:05 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
Why are our generals trying to push women into ground combat in Iraq despite Pentagon regulations and congressional law against it? What is it about civilian control of the military that the generals don't understand?
Current Department of Defense regulations exclude women from ground combat, as well as from assignment to forward support units that "collocate [i.e., are embedded side by side] with units assigned a direct ground combat mission." Federal law requires that Congress be given 30 legislative days' advance notice of any change to this policy.
Army Secretary Francis Harvey has been skirting (pardon the word) this policy by unilaterally rewording it to assign women to forward- support units except when "CONDUCTING an assigned direct ground combat mission." (emphasis added) When a ground-combat unit actually engages the enemy, the women (who are slated to be roughly 10 percent of the forward-support companies) will have to be evacuated from the battlefield.
How many ground and air vehicles, and how many extra men, will this ridiculous plan require? Will the enemy hold his fire until the evacuation is complete?
Frustrated by the Army's devious behavior, Reps. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) and John McHugh (R-NY) tried to add an amendment to the military appropriations bill to codify the current DoD regulations which the Army seems to have difficulty understanding. The feminists are lining up their media allies to demand that women be forced into land combat situations, while falsely asserting that Hunter-McHugh is "changing" the rule.
Much of the demand for women in combat comes from female officers who are eager for medals and promotions. Enlisted women are acutely aware of the heavy lifting that must be done by the combat infantry.
The Army's own opinion surveys prior to 2001 consistently reported that 85 to 90 percent of enlisted women oppose "being assigned to combat units on the same basis as men." Women enlistees have a right to expect the Army to obey current policy and law.
The advocates of women in combat say the front line is everywhere in Iraq. They continually try to fuzzy over the difference between being subject to risk (such as being ambushed by a car bomb) versus the task of aggressively seeking out and killing the enemy.
Army Chief of Staff General Peter J. Schoomaker tried to laugh off the difference by saying that "maybe since we're killing 40,000 people a year on the highways, they [women] shouldn't drive. That's very dangerous, too." Comparing the risk of highway driving with engaging the enemy in combat is insulting to our intelligence and common sense.
Putting women in military combat is the cutting edge of the feminist goal to force us into an androgynous society. Feminists are determined to impose what Gloria Steinem called "liberation biology" that pretends all male-female differences are culturally imposed by a discriminatory patriarchy.
History offers no evidence for the proposition that the assignment of women to military combat jobs is the way to win wars, improve combat readiness, or promote national security.
Women, on the average, have only 60 percent of the physical strength of men, are about six inches shorter, and survive basic training only by the subterfuge of being graded on effort rather than on performance. These facts, self-evident to anyone who watches professional or Olympic sports competitions, are only some of the many sex differences confirmed by scholarly studies.
Denial of physical differences is an illusion that kills. That's the lesson of the Atlanta courtroom massacre where a 5-foot-one, 51-year-old grandmother police guard was overpowered by a 6-foot-tall, 210-pound former football linebacker criminal; so now three people are dead.
Every country that has experimented with women in actual combat has abandoned the idea, and the notion that Israel uses women in combat is a feminist myth. The armies and navies of every potential enemy are exclusively male; their combat readiness is not diminished by coed complications or social experimentation.
The 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces voted to maintain the exemption of women from assignment to combat in ground troops, combat aviation, amphibious ships and submarines. But already 33 servicewomen including mothers have been killed and 270 wounded in the war in Iraq.
The Army is wondering why it can't meet its recruitment goals. It could be that the current 15 percent female quota is a turn-off to men who don't want to fight alongside of women who can't carry a man off the battlefield if he is wounded. Forcing women in or near land combat will hurt recruiting, not help.
No country in history ever sent mothers of toddlers off to fight enemy soldiers until the United States did this in the Iraq war. We hope this won't be the legacy of the Bush Administration.
And one that just won't go away.
No country in history ever sent mothers of toddlers off to fight enemy soldiers until the United States did this in the Iraq war
It's not something that civilized societies do.
I know women DID fight in the Israeli forces - in the early days. Everyone had to fight.
I really have no problem with it. If a woman can pull her weight all the power to her.
Right. One or a few cases (some exagerated, others just plain luck) mean that it should be universal. Only an ignorant would agree to such stupidity. I wonder how we would have done in the korean war(for example) if every soldier we had was a woman. Oh yes, you dont mean that; you mean they can be mixed with male soldiers right? Male soldiers will survive and bring victory without any female soldiers. Can an all female military survive a nasty war such as the koren war without any males? I rest my case. You will not hear from me again.
Neither do I, provided she can meet the physical requirements.
If the generals want it, there might be a reason. I can't believe that they're *all* Clinton political employees. Maybe we should at least listen to the ones who know.
Phyllis is 'round the bend on this one. She's normally less shrill and strident, so this one must be smackin' her between the eyes for some reason. (Daughter, Niece, Daughter-in-Law in the military?)
We have an ALL VOLUNTEER MILITARY. If you're a woman with toddlers (or if you want them in the near future) don't VOLUNTEER to enlist in a combat unit! The military isn't FORCING these young mothers into combat; they willingly signed on the dotted line...and took the pay and benefits, college tuition reimbursement, enlistment & re-enlistment bonuses, free healthcare, and the paid delivery of their children while they were on duty should that be the case.
There are hundreds of jobs in the military that don't involve combat, and never will unless we're in WWIII when it'll be 'All Hands on Deck.'
As a female combat veteran myself, these pieces never hold water for me. What's the TRUE AGENDA behind not wanting women in combat? Not wanting women in the military at all, which is where Phyllis is coming from. She can be a real 'Anti-Woman Woman' when she puts her mind to it.
Does she rail against female police officers and firefighters? How about female EMTs or First Responders? What's more dangerous than that? (I don't know; just asking, because I don't recall her opinion on those jobs; and the military IS a JOB for all intents and purposes.)
Well written article, though. She supports her assumptive* arguments well, and the average Joe & Josephine that have never served would easily swallow it. ;)
* 2. assumptive - accepted as real or true without proof;
Crawl back under the rock you came out from under.
The problem is, the PT requirements aren't the same for women, so most aren't......
What's your take on the draft?
Having experienced it, I'm not enthralled with the idea of bringing it back.
Because not enough war hawk neo-con men signed up?
By Jon Dougherty
© 2001 WorldNetDaily.com
Despite 225 years of witnessing the horror of wars fought by male American soldiers, there are still a number of idiots mostly feminists who themselves will never have to face an armed enemy soldier pushing lawmakers to drop a ban against allowing women in combat.
Israel a nation of about 6.2 million people constantly at war with its neighbors allowed women in combat, the idiots shriek. Why, then, must the American military, as regards ground combat roles, remain so androcentric, so "male-centered"?
It's time to debunk the myth, once and for all, that Israel's experience with allowing women in combat was successful and, therefore, should be duplicated by the Pentagon. It wasn't successful. It was a disaster by Israel's own admission.
"History shows that the presence of women has had a devastating impact on the effectiveness of men in battle," wrote John Luddy in July 27, 1994, for the Heritage Foundation backgrounder.
"For example, it is a common misperception that Israel allows women in combat units. In fact, women have been barred from combat in Israel since 1950, when a review of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War showed how harmful their presence could be. The study revealed that men tried to protect and assist women rather than continue their attack. As a result, they not only put their own lives in greater danger, but also jeopardized the survival of the entire unit. The study further revealed that unit morale was damaged when men saw women killed and maimed on the battlefield," Luddy said.
Writes Edward Norton, a reservist in the Israel Defense Forces: "Women have always played an important role in the Israeli military, but they rarely see combat; if they do, it is usually by accident. No one in Israel, including feminists, has any objection to this situation. The fact that the Persian Gulf War has produced calls to allow women on the front lines proves only how atypical that war was and how little Americans really understand combat."
"Few serious armies use women in combat roles. Israel, which drafts most of its young women and uses them in all kinds of military work, has learned from experience to take them out of combat zones. Tests show that few women have the upper-body strength required for combat tasks. Keeping combat forces all male would not be discriminatory, as were earlier racial segregation schemes in the military, because men and women are different both physically and psychologically," said the Feb. 5, 1990, National Review.
Furthermore, Israeli historian Martin Van Creveld has written extensively about the failure of the IDF to successfully integrate and use women in combat.
Finally, even Israeli citizens don't relish the thought of allowing their women into combat roles. In 1998, a survey conducted by the Jerusalem Post newspaper found that 56 percent of Israelis don't want women in combat.
There are now and always will be idiots who say the Pentagon should put women in any combat unit they wish to serve. Most of these people will speak with the ignorance of never having had to experience the horror of combat, as well as the luxury of never having to worry about engaging in armed conflict themselves.
But to use the "Israeli experience" as an allegedly successful model for the U.S. to follow is not only absurd, it's disingenuous. It is a lie propagated by radical feminists like ex-Democratic Rep. Patricia Schroeder who have falsely claimed that such a goal is merely an extension of "the will of the people."
Perhaps if more lawmakers and Americans in general were exposed to military service, the idiots who seem to be dominating this debate wouldn't have many sympathetic ears.
Imagine two young soldiers, one male and one female, sharing a foxhole. Assigned to guard their unit's perimeter. It's a quiet, boring night. What are the chances that their attention might be drawn to each other and away from their duty to protect their sleeping comrades?
Their lack of self control could conceivably result in the death of everyone in their unit if the enemy exploited their compromised position.
I have no problem with women serving in the military, but not at the expense of jeopardizing mission safety or effectiveness.
excellent response...one of my 60 gunners in Mogadishu was a young woman, Susan Kay, from Fon Du Lac, Wisconsin...she always had my six...must be something in the water up there...thanks for your service-
"Imagine two young soldiers, one male and one female, sharing a foxhole..."
That's YOUR fantasy, FRiend. In the Real World, it's not like that. Those guys are your Brothers; not your Lovers. Yeesh.
And your DD214 lists your military combat experience as...?
"...must be something in the water up there...thanks for your service."
It's not the water, it's the milk, LOL! Builds strong bones and healthy bodies; and the fact that we Farm Gals are expected to WORK from the day we can WALK. ;)
Everything I've done since my 20 years in the military (I joined at 17) has been a Cake Walk. All of my female ex-military friends agree. The Real World is a Holiday compared to the time we spent (willingly, passionately, patriotically) in the military. ;)
It's been basically all 'down hill coasting' from there, LOL!
You are correct. REMFs do it with their women like rabbits. Way too many of them are getting pregnant and expensive. Everyone knows it, but the Pentagon chicks continue to refuse to collect and issue numbers on that.
Women who serve outside of combat specialties are extremely valuable to our USA and always have been. But feminism does not work in combat specialties. To lose a war for such idiocy is "unthinkable" (doctrine from combat leadership training).
I personally rail against a female in ANY job where the standards of performance have to be lowered in order for her to obtain that job. I don't want someone who is visually impaired to fly an airplane, I don't want someone who is intellectually inferior obtaining admission into a medical school, and I don't want someone compromising our military because it makes the feminist happy.
We should keep in mind that those pushing for women and homosexuals in the military, and women in combat, are the ones who wish us ill. Their desire is to weaken us in anyway they can. All too often even when they force through their malevolent ideas they turn out to be disappointed in the results. Americans of all stripes are very adept at turning lemons into lemonade and the liberals into pouters.
Why do we not, as a general practice, commence regular beating of women here at home in order to properly toughen them up for combat duty? And the children---well lets just strip them of their mothers right now--get them off to some kind of immediate rotating foster care so they can prepare for the day when "combat mommy" does not return. Are we not a better people than to allow this to be done to children in our name?
If you want to see recruiting plummet, intermix these social promotion graduates in with the land combat force. Many soldiers, including my own would then understand that we clearly do not want the best force, but rather the kowed general career ladder climber Pentagon pc player composite real killing machine.
Females do belong in the military in every role they can realistically qualify. Some can bench press 300--and out chuck a backhoe--those with no children we can talk about. As a rule--just say no.
11B40 ... 2 tours in RVN, 1970 - 1972.
The scenario described nearly occurred in my platoon one night. Although instead of male and female soldiers, we had two homosexuals who couldn't keep their hands off each other. Fortunately, it was our platoon sergeant who caught them in their moment of lustful indiscretion and not Charlie.
I have the greatest respect for our men and women in uniform. But life in the combat zone isn't always exciting. There are periods when nothing is going on and boredom sets in. If you think that sexual activity between men and women in a combat zone doesn't have potentially serious consequences, you have your head in the sand.
I take personal offense to that statement as I support women both being in the military and, provided the policy of gender norming physical assesments is rescinded for combat roles, women in combat roles.
Your statement asserts that I wish to weaken my nation and its military. In short you have called me a traitor. Would you like to repeat that assertion, or would you like to use less sweeping statements next time?
Lost me here....
The title of this article is correct !
Well, if you saw it, or were involved in it yourself, then I certainly can't dispute that it was your experience. It wasn't mine.
The military covers your medical care while you're on duty. I consider that "free healthcare."
Thank God we won't hear from you again! My question to you is quite simple: what is YOUR military experience?
Huh, I wonder if the Navy brass would agree with you regarding shipboard service. You are entitled to your opinion, but I believe in this particular case of women in combat, you are on principle wrong.
IMHO women should not even be in the same units as men, and nowhere near combat or combat support. This may sound ancient, unelightened, archaic, ignorant, unpc, just color me traditional.
I was in the service at the time these new policies came into being. Most felt it was not in the best interest of the service or the country, to allow it, but the services bowed to their civilian controllers, and eased right into the present situation.
A few vain attemps to stop the train were made, but it soon became obvieous that this was the new order of things. I still don't like it or agree in principle, however, until the people have had enough, it will continue.
"...and I don't want someone compromising our military because it makes the feminist happy."
First of all, better find out how your CongressCritters feel about this issue and vote accordingly.
I joined in 1978 when I was 17. I had never really heard of "feminists" in my little part of the world. I was just looking for travel and opportunity, a chance to experience more than was available to me in Small Town USA, learn some life skills and to do some good for my country.
I hate being lumped in with FemiNazis, because that is so NOT me. I was held to the same standards as the men. I was in the first co-ed Basic Training Platoon. Many of the women did better than the men. More men washed out than did the women, and it wasn't just a percentage thing; we were equal in numbers.
If someone has clear-cut examples of women causing death to their fellow soldiers in a military setting, by all means, please post them. Are they now in prison? How was justice served in that area? Are there examples out there of women firefighters and cops causing the deaths of their partners or team members just because they were women? I've not read of any cases that hit the news, but again, please post examples if they're out there. I'm willing to read them and consider the cases on the facts of the situation. And then blame the person responsible, not their sex.
Why can't women judge other women on their merits? Does a woman serving her country somehow diminish the women that CHOOSE not to serve? It's not mandatory that women serve in the United States Military.
Free Republic has rules ...
Although I agree with you that women should not be in combat...
...you do a disservice to yourself and the person you hope to edify if you can't argue it on its merits.
Schlafly....Elaine Donnelly...have long held strong beliefs...(& facts to back them) against women in combat.
Draw from their information without resorting to hurting someone by name calling!!
I can tell you this much from my experience: being in a combat zone is the anti-Viagra.
"I respectfully disagree. I believe men (especially American men) will put themselves or their unit in extraordinary danger in order to save a female."
They'll do it to save a man, too. (At least, they did when I was in 'Nam.)
That is your choice so help yourself to it if that is what you choose.
... as I support women both being in the military and, provided the policy of gender norming physical assesments is rescinded for combat roles, women in combat roles.
Sort of like, "Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?"
Your statement asserts that I wish to weaken my nation and its military.
Whether you wish it or not, that is the outcome.
In short you have called me a traitor. Would you like to repeat that assertion, or would you like to use less sweeping statements next time?
No, I am content with my observation. If you choose to be upset there is little I can do about that.
Please add Kate O'Byrne to that list!
I would further stipulate that any parent male or female, who is raising children by themselves for whatever reason, should not be sent into combat or it's proximity.
The failure of women in the Israeli army has been almost common knowledge for years, and I am sick of Liberals and others lying about it.
EVERY woman ever taken prisoner has been raped.
That might of some influence in this conversation.
So now we through the baby out with the bathwater? Women in the military always come with quotas which lead to reduced standards on physical fitness for equivalent roles? That wouldn't be because we have denied women a part in our armed forces for as long as possible and allowed the loony left to push it in their own uniquely misguided way perhaps?
Of cause, since they championed the idea, it must be a cunning plot to weaken the military and bring the US to its knees. I think Patton said it best "You shouldn't underestimate an enemy, but it is just as fatal to overestimate him". It is worse than stupidity to let paranoia defeat you. In a time of war, to retreat behind comfortable assumptions is a dereliction of duty.
But you would turn down, in these thin recruiting times, a group of willing, able and courageous potential recruits? Especially when a better military mind then you or I concluded "Courage, above all things, is the first quality of a warrior" (Von Clausewitz). You are either a fool willing to weaken his country to satisfy his personal prejudices or a traitor, not just willing, but desiring to weaken the military. (I would not, in the normal course of thought, conclude that a seeming fool is possibly a traitor, but you have opened my eyes so that I too may now see traitors plotting everywhere)
One last quote seems apt here, as a wakeup to anyone who cannot adapt to a changing nature of war and the forces involved "There is only one tactical principle which is not subject to change; it is, To use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wounds, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time"