Some gals can kill their own "spiders"...;0)
Posted on 05/26/2007 10:13:09 AM PDT by AlbertoMG
Now, I mention Hester because Simmons did; and I wrote about her heroics on that highway 20 miles south of Baghdad in early 2005. But as amazing as her response to that open-road ambush was, it was also:
* Not the norm (which is why it so easily made the papers).
* Had nothing whatsoever to do with Donnelly's assertions about why women should not be in ground combat units.
* Not a fair comparison to the dynamics of the very close smell-the-breath-of-the-bad-guy fighting in Fallujah, which was my point (among other things also related to capabilities in close-quarters fighting — of which I do have some experience and expertise — as well as general physical load-bearing capabilities which I do not have time to get into right now.).
* There is so much more to this issue of women in ground combat that we haven't even begun to discuss. ...
(Excerpt) Read more at tank.nationalreview.com ...
meadow Muffin
Combat is stressful enough without throwing in sexual tension and rivalry.
There is nothing gained by putting women in ground combat roles and it adds a lot of relationship headaches the Commander does not need.
Women can be used....as Snipers shooting froma secure base...Pilots or Mp guarding enemy POWs...
on the last part...having women guard Muzzies would be funny...
they should not be in combat.....Sorry gals...
Absoluely correct
amen to that
Just getting from one base to another and hauling supplies for your mates puts you in a combat zone.
Sorry guys but the concept of “battle zones” and combat aka Pork Chop Hill does not exist in Iraq. It’s all a jungle.
‘course, the fair damsels could sit home and wait for al Qaeda to bring the combat zone to another American city.
Being in a combat zone and being slotted for ground combat operations are different activities.
I’ve seen some women do very well in convoy operations but given that patrols, ambushes, etc are not even something that most men can do well, I’d have to agree that it isn’t something women should be assigned to do.
As a WW II combat infantryman, I agree.
Thank you for your service.
Concur.
LT. ARMOR
3/23 INF
DMZ, ROK 1968-1969
CPT. ARMOR
MACV, Class of ‘71
I would love to see a Feminatzi reaction when its best friend took several in the hat and it ended up wearing the results for a couple of days.
Viet Nam, 1965-1967, 1967-1968.
Taylor made for you, Johnnie. You only know the made up facts.
Women are already flying combat missions in the Army. They are flying Apaches and Special Ops Chinooks and probably everything else, including Dust Off missions.
Women should be allowed to do what ever they are capable of doing, and they should be required to register for the draft right along with the men. If the time comes when this country returns to conscription, women should at least be drafted for the MOSs they now hold.
- 2 tours in Vietnam.
Hunter Bucks Pentagon on Women in Combat
By James Joyner
Duncan Hunter, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, is clashing with the Pentagon on the issue of women in combat.
Hunter bucks the top brass (Washington Times, p.1)
House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter took the extraordinary step of bucking the Pentagon on a major issue, after he failed to convince senior defense officials to change an Army policy on women in combat. The California Republican has been a staunch ally of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and the armed forces on nearly every aspect of how they fight the war against Islamic terrorists. But when it came to women in combat, an important issue to cultural conservatives, he broke with the Pentagon last week and sided with the Republican party’s base.
Mr. Hunter put before the Armed Services subcommittee on military personnel an amendment to the 2006 defense authorization bill. The amendment would bar women from serving in Army forward support companies (FSCs) that embed, or collocate, with ground combat units. The amendment passed on a party-line vote and will be taken up by the full Armed Services Committee on Wednesday.
Mr. Hunter’s decision to take on the Pentagon came after he had a series of discussions with Mr. Rumsfeld’s staff and Army Secretary Francis Harvey, but he failed to convince them the Army was violating the current collocation rule. “The nation should not put women into the front lines of combat,” Mr. Hunter said. “In my judgment, we will cross that line soon unless we make policy decisions as we design the new Army.”
Hunter is certainly right that the current use of women is in violation of the law, which is aimed at keeping women from direct combat. Unfortunately, stabilization operations and counterinsurgency warfare do not recognize traditional battle lines. The only way to ensure that women are not placed in harm’s way is to keep them out of combat zones to begin with.[snip]
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2005/05/hunter_bucks_pentagon_on_women_in_combat/
Being in a combat zone and being in a ground combat MOS are completely different things. We are talking about the latter not the former.
Some gals can kill their own "spiders"...;0)
Thank-you Duncan Hunter for a dose of common sense and the fortitude to stand for what you believe!
Hygene—women need more.
Interference—women, by their very nature, cause men to not pay singular attention to the mission—not mainly because of sexual/romantic interest—because the wonderful nature of men is to protect women.
War is NOT society.
WOMEN AND MEN ARE NOT EQUAL.
War is fought because it has to be done.
War is not fought to give equal opportunities.
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.