The Issue of Women in Ground Combat

National Review Online - The Tank ^ | May 26, 2007 | W. Thomas Smith Jr.

[verity]

Some folks will not appreciate your views. However, I am not one of those folks.

[rwgal]

I wonder if you were an actual ground pounder OR a fly guy. If a ground pounder I would think that you are totally wrong about women being able to hack it there, day after day.....

Meadow Muffin

[Old Sarge]

I did my time in Iraq, and Desert Storm before that.

So, why do I get the impression my opinion doesn’t count either...

[Age of Reason]

In prehistoric times, a society that allowed women in combat would have died out.

Because women would have been killed in battle along with the men, making for fewer women to bear children to replace the fallen warriors.

Only those tribes survived that had the genes to cause the majority of women and men to intuitively believed women should not be in combat.

Therefore it goes against human nature for women to participate in combat except in the most dire emergencies.

And to go against human nature will corrode a society, will demoralize a society that encourages such behavior, even if only by saying such behavior is OK.

And it will demoralize the majority of soldiers, too.

However, since we have replaced “womanly rights for women and manly rights for men” with “equal rights for both,” then draft women along with men and put them straight into combat.

[MNJohnnie]

So Sarge, do you think this is a good idea?

[bannie]

I respect your opinion!!!

I was a soldierette...but only in peace-time.

[Age of Reason]

Every once in a while, a woman grows a beard, too.

[U S Army EOD]

Hmmm, with a little make up???

[TalBlack]

The lynch pin of “morale” (in battle etc..) has always been equality. The reactions and actions of men under life threatening stress and great physical pressure are (comparatively speaking) controllable. A man must rise to standards. He is responsible and HELD responsible.

Since women have entered the ranks all of that has gone out the window.

The very first thing that is stopped (as everyone MUST have observed) is the mans ability to criticize his fellow (thus threatening him with at the least, failure in his "manly" duty or at the worst "excommunication" from the ranks of Men. This applies great psychological pressure upon men hence the "control". Heard much lately about cowardice in the face of the enemy?

In the after reports concerning the battles of cops and soldiers “courage” is a word often seen (pretty much applied to anything that happens) but cowardice hasen’t put in an appearance in quite some time. You can call a man a coward for cowardly behavior but you cannot call a woman a coward because THAT necessarily requires standards, and we ditched those to get them in there in the first place). If this seems backwards (doesn’t “courage” involve standards?)consider: When you adapt the broadband minimum standards to women you MUST adapt the standards concerning courage as well as most other standards because performance IS going to fall off. To point any of this out is to threaten the PC lie.

Today people get medals for performance that was once substandard or outright cowardly. In a phrase: Oh what a tangled web we weave...”

[U S Army EOD]

You just don’t count as being “old” yet, sonny.

[PzLdr]

Actually, since men have been so blatantly discriminated against since before the founding of our nation, draft ONLY women, and let them handle the next three hundred years of combat.

[91B]

I've been to the desert twice-once in the rear with an Area Support Medical Company which was probably 20% female and once with a Cav Squadron operating from a FOB which had less than a dozen females attached to it in support capacities.

I can barely begin to describe the myriad problems which come from trying to accomodate females in the combat zone or the difference in attitide-in my experience only-between units with large numbers of females and those with just a few.

I'll be blunt: in many ways females-taken together-are a distraction (and I am perfectly willing to acknowledge the positive contributions that the vast majority-as individuals-make every day). However, this may be a lost argument as the reorganization now puts females into the TO&E of many frontline units (the "plug and play" concept which moves much of the support capacity previously found in the HHC/T of manuver battalions and squadrons into forward support companies attached to the battalions). I think its a terrible mistake and one that will have corrosive effects on morale and fighting spirit in the long run, but there it is.

[Old Sarge]

Bear with me.

We are discussing women in direct ground combat, are we not?

Let me establish a baseline of given statements:

* Women are not allowed in combat maneuver units, by virtue of the fact that the vast majority of female soldiers cannot perform to the standards required by those missions;

* We are involved in assymetrical warfare - direct combat can and has come upon any unit, whether maneuver, support or service support, at any time;

* Training for soldiers of all specialties involves at the very least, basic close quarters combat skills and the discipline needed to survive a close-assault scenario;

* Equality in the military was not the result of trends, performance over time, or changing attitudes - it was thrust upon the ranks by way of social engineering (remember DACOWITS);

The ladies have served in a number of vital missions and posts - pilots, MP’s, medics, Intel (my branch), to name a few. They have performed as their male counterparts do: either abysmal (Lynch, England, Karpinski), or stellar (Hester, Fast, or Pieskwa (sp)). The success of the LIONESS teams while I was in Ramadi demonstrates the utility of having women available for assymetrical missions.

I have seen the dark side of “coed” soldiering as well. I had the misfortune to know one female CPT who was literally JF’n Kerry with a XX chromosome - punching a uniform ticket so she could advance her agenda politics. I stopped counting how many incidents I have seen of females manipulating the EO regulations to subvert their male opponents and damage morale.

I have seen the good. I have seen the bad. I look upon each troop under my charge, and I look for the mettle that tells me if they will SERVE - put mission and their unit first. If they can do that, then they can serve with me. Otherwise, I find them a new home - or counsel them on a new profession.

[1COUNTER-MORTER-68]

LOL,,,True Dat,,,I think they were Russian too,,,
weight-lifters...;0)

[1COUNTER-MORTER-68]

Lyudmila Pavlichenko(1st.pic)had 300+ kills,,,Fine lookin’
lil’gal,,,Military channel or History had a show about
women in war awhile back,,,They were fighting for their homes,,,Women will do what they have to do in that situation,,,

[verity]

"In prehistoric times, a society that allowed women in combat would have died out."

That is quite an assumption particularly if there is no historical basis. ;-)

[U S Army EOD]

Apparently the other individual has never seen, “Quest For Fire” and the scene at the water hole. Both the male and female were throwing rocks at the other cavemen.

[leadpenny]

Yeah, I was just a slick driver, so what the hell do I know about combat?

[leadpenny]

I like your conclusion, A of R.

[leadpenny]

On the other hand, you make me think there should not be any women in theater. Society has forced the situation on the military. We should either go all the way with gals in combat, or get them the heck out of the military all together.