[rwgal]

IMHO, as a Vietnam combat veteran (2 Purple Hearts), women have no place in ground combat...and if you ain’t been there you can have an opinion but you don’t know the real facts...women are great, and needed in support units and I am still thinking about if they should be pilots or not...

meadow Muffin

[MNJohnnie]

Look, Men and Women ARE biologically different. WAY past time that Feminists make peace with that basic factual reality.

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.

[leadpenny]

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.

[AuntB]

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/

[1COUNTER-MORTER-68]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Russian_and_Soviet_military ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Some gals can kill their own "spiders"...;0)

[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...

[MNJohnnie]

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

[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...”

[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.