Posted on 01/19/2011 11:11:11 PM PST by neverdem
Heather Pfleuger -- an exuberant, all-American, girl-next-door -- was transformed when she arrived in Afghanistan. She'd shrug into her body armor, strap on her helmet, yank on gloves, goggles and scarf, and slide down behind her turret-mounted Mark-19, a 40mm grenade launcher. From there, she could kill an armored vehicle and everybody in it a mile away.
When she whooped with glee and led a convoy outside the wire, local Afghan fighters, hard men who'd faced down the Russians and the Taliban, fell respectfully silent.
"Specialist Pfleuger can hit anything," her squad leader. Sgt. Kevin Collins, told me proudly. "I feel sorry for anyone who gets in her sights."
That was nine years ago, when Pfleuger was deployed to eastern Afghanistan with the 511th Military Police Company. At the time, I wrote a story boldly asserting that with women like Pfleuger easily accepted in the ranks, doing well at war and liking it, the argument over women in combat "is over."
It wasn't over. In fact, it's about to heat up again. A study commission chartered by Congress is poised to send up to Capitol Hill a recommendation that the last remaining barriers to women – those that formally exclude them from infantry, armor and special forces -- be removed.
Those "close combat" troops -- roughly 14 percent of the military -- are the ones that most jealously guard the all-male cohesion and camaraderie they insist makes them effective in the chaos and stress of long-term exposure to combat.
Never mind that some 200,000 women like Pfleuger have served in wartime Iraq or Afghanistan, that 134 have been killed and 721 wounded in action. With women attacking insurgents with strike fighters and helicopter gunships, machine guns and mortars, riding shotgun on convoys through IED territory and walking combat patrols with the infantry, the Defense Department and the military services have labored mightily to define just what it is that women cannot volunteer to do.
That hasn't been easy, given that in today's wars there are no front lines and no safe rear areas, as the saga of Army Pvt. Jessica Lynch aptly demonstrated (a 19-year-old supply clerk, she was captured and hospitalized by Iraqis after her military convoy got lost in 2003 and her truck crashed during an ambush).
The Army has tried to block women from joining units that "engage an enemy . . . while being exposed to direct enemy fire, a high probability of direct physical contact with the enemy's personnel, and a substantial risk of capture."
That seems to precisely define the situation of Army Sgt. Leigh Ann Hester, an MP, who won the coveted Silver Star for her actions in a firefight in Iraq in 2005. When the convoy she was escorting was caught in an ambush, she leapt out and attacked an enemy trench. Then, with her squad leader, she cleared two trenches, killing three insurgents with her rifle. At the time, she was 23 years old.
Getting the award for heroism "really doesn't have anything to do with being a female," she told reporters. "It's about the duties I performed that day as a soldier."
A group of female Army cooks apparently felt the same way. They were deployed to Iraq where they discovered all the cooking was done by civilian contractors. Instead, they were pressed into service as infantry and came home proudly wearing the highly prized Combat Infantryman Badge, earned only by participating in a firefight with the enemy while a member of or assigned with infantry or special forces.
That's a piece of evidence cited by the Military Leadership Diversity Commission, the group of retired senior military personnel, academics and other civilians whose recommendations on lifting the barriers will be published this winter.
Despite the boots-on-the-ground reality that women serve well and honorably and bravely in combat, what looms ahead are months of contentious congressional hearings and hot-tempered talk show shout-fests and angry op-eds, just like the season of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" of 2010. And this time, the pivotal House Armed Services Committee is led by GOP conservative Buck McKeon of California, who opposed allowing gays to serve openly in the military.
As with the "Don't Ask" debate, the argument will come over whether the presence of women, in small units that must operate for extended periods under fire, would be disruptive.
Would women – if any actually volunteered for and could qualify for an infantry unit -- actually break its tight cohesion and cripple its fighting spirit?
"There's a growing number of women out there who have served 'outside the wire' on combat missions," said a woman who served on active duty in Iraq as an Army intelligence officer. "We carried a full basic load of ammunition and fired the SAW [squad automatic weapon, a light machine gun], .50-cals [heavy machine guns] and M-4 [rifles]) to protect our fellow man and to defeat the enemy," said this young officer, who asked not to be identified by name because of her current job. "We have endured the same harsh living conditions as men, where hygiene isn't exactly a priority," she said.
To insist that gender goes unnoticed in such small units would be "inane," she said; there is a "familial" relationship among the soldiers. "Those who serve for the sake of serving and take pride in their jobs do not feel threatened by sexual orientation, race or gender," she said.
In basic officer training, this young woman was offered the chance to take the physical exam for acceptance into Ranger school, the Army's legendarily tough commando course. She and two other women aced the test – even though they were barred from attending the male-only school or to join Ranger units.
"The truth is that very few women and few men can meet or exceed the desired standards of an Army Ranger," she said. "But some can, and they should be given the opportunity."
In its brief for lifting the barriers, the commission cited research that it said found no negative impact from allowing women to serve in close-combat units. It cited a RAND study which found that "gender differences alone did not appear to erode cohesion." The study was published in 1997, well before women began taking a larger role in combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
That and similar studies are "wrong!" said retired Army Maj. Gen. Robert Scales, a combat veteran, historian and former commandant of the U.S. Army War College. "They simply don't understand the nature and character of close combat . . . the 'Band of Brothers' effect," he said recently on Fox TV news.
Scales, an expert on small combat units, said in fact there is no research that settles the question, and that allowing women into such units, in wartime and without knowing how it would affect combat effectiveness, would be risky.
"I've studied this for three decades," Scales said. "The bottom line is nobody knows -- the elements that make up cohesion in a firefight simply aren't known. And to rush into this, in my opinion, could damage cohesion."
And so the battle is joined. Stay tuned.
Women should not be in combat roles and I will never believe otherwise. What really annoys me about all of this is it disregards women service in other areas of the military past and present. Our American history has always had women who served their country during times of war honorably. You don’t have to be front line to be “part of the team” and help. Tinkering with our Armed Forces is a social experiment at best... at worst, it is a way of weakening our military deliberately. IMHO
We had a battle with them 19 June 1969 near Tay Ninh, our CO was killed..C Troop 3/4 Cav, 25th Inf. Will post an army newspaper article. Was tank commander in the 2nd Plt on C-26. Give me a few minutes to drag from my files. We saw a lot of their bodies the next day.
The writer may have confused the Combat Infantry Badge with the Combat Action Badge. The last I knew the Combat Infantry Badge is only awarded to people holding an Infantry or special Forces MOS.
Sound thinking, not sexist, or deleterious to good order & discipline.
Just a thought.
....then comes the children.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Headquarters, United States Army Vietnam
APO San Francisco 96375
23 August 1969
GENERAL ORDERS
NUMBER 3274
AWARD OF THE DISTINGUISHED SERVICE CROSS
1. TC 320. The following AWARD is announced posthumously.
CARLSON, GARY W. CAPTAIN ARMOR United States Army
Troop C, 3d Squadron, 4th Cavalry, 25th Infantry Division
Awarded: Distinguished Service Cross
Date action: 19 June 1969
Theater: Republic of Vietnam
Reason: For extraordinary heroism in connection with military operations involving conflict with an armed hostile force in the Republic of Vietnam: Captain Carlson distinguished himself by exceptionally valorous actions on 19 June 1969 as troop commander during a reconnaissance-in-force operation.
When the troop came under fire from a well-concealed enemy force, he immediately led his men in an assault on the hostile fortifications.
Realizing that the crossfire was impeding the movement of his troop, he single-handedly assaulted and destroyed the most strategic hostile position.
He then directed his fire against another enemy position, silencing it with hand grenades and rifle fire. Spotting a wounded comrade lying exposed to the enemy barrage, Captain Carlson braved the fusillade to move the man to safety.
He then returned to the center of conflict to evacuate another casualty. As he returned to his vehicle, he was knocked to the ground by a rocket-propelled grenade which rendered his command vehicle inoperative.
Braving a hail of fire to reach another vehicle, he resumed control of his troop. It was while he was directing this assault on the enemy that he was mortally wounded by enemy fire. Captain Carlson’s extraordinary heroism and devotion to duty, at the cost of his life, were in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service and reflect great credit upon himself, his unit, and the United States Army.
Joint Effort Smashes NVA
The NVA opened a drive for Tay Ninh City on June 18 and 19. In an apparant attempt to take the provincial capital and ancient commercial center, the communists initiated several intense military flare-ups.
An attack on Fire Support Base Washington was launched against the 3d Battalion, 22d Infantry and 1st Battalion, 27th Artillery, while a three-pronged attack to the south engaged elements of the 4th Battalion, 23d Infantry; 4th Battalion, 9th Infantry; and 3d Squadron, 4th Cavalry.
Lightning forces surrounding Tay Ninh were ready. Washington’s defenders shrugged off all attacks, and the menace south of Tay Ninh turned into a rout of the befuddled NVA.
FSB HAMPTON - An attempted ambush of a 3d Squadron, 4th Cavalry convoy brought the Raiders into action against an element of the 271st NVA Regiment four miles south of Tay Ninh; 98 enemy were killed.
When the convoy was hit, Charlie Troop sent its 2d and 3d platoons to the assistance of the vehicles, leaving the 1st Platoon to guard the night defensive position.
OPENING THE affair by firing an RPG in the track of the lead armored personnel carrier, the enemy showered the Cav with automatic weapons’ fire and RPG rounds.
Attacking the U-shaped ambush, the Cav found the ambush closed behind and had to fight its way back out, literally backing over the NVA - the 11th Gold Star Regiment is about 30 per cent female - on the way.
After the 1st platoon was brought up, the damaged vehicles were sent back to Fire Support Base Hampton with the convoy, using the 3d platoon for an escort.
BACK TO THE assault went the 1st and 2d platoons. They backed off slightly, called in artillery, and charged in again. In this assault the command track was hit, killing the commander of Charlie Troop and wounding his second in command.
Specialist 4 Fred Ogas of El Paso, Tex., found himself in command, and he maneuvered the troop for the rest of the day.
Meanwhile Bravo Troop was moving to the sound of the guns to aid Charlie Troop. Eventually both troops fell back into a night defensive position.
One Sheridan of its 1st platoon was hit by seven RPGs but was still providing flank security.
CO Killed, SP4 Honchos Troop of 3/4 Horsemen
Specialist 4 Fred Ogas of El Paso, Texas, took command of Charlie Troop, 3rd Squadron, 4th Cavalry in action Thursday afternoon, in a tradition as old as the cavalry itself.
In the midst of an attempted ambush by the D-1 Battalion, Gold Star Regiment against the Three-Quarter Cavalry Troop, the commanding officer of the troop was killed and the lieutenant next in command severely wounded.
Ogas, thrown clear of the command track by the explosion, quickly assessed the situation, scrambled to his feet and by hand signals reorganized the unit. Specialist Ogas had until that moment been operating as the command track controller, and as such possessed a clear understanding of the overall deployment of the troop.
He grabbed the radio and contacted the Squadron Commander, LTC Robert S. McGowan, who was flying overhead in his C-and-C ship.
“He just reported that he had pulled the troop into formation and was ready for orders,” said McGowan. “I told him he was doing a fine job and to keep it up. That was the change of command ceremony.”
The thought of a female Ranger makes me want to hurl...Nothing is sacred anymore.
Political correctness in the military. Now the Left advocates our daughters coming back in home in body bags so they can congratulate themselves on their smug sense of moral superiority. A war zone is no place for a woman.
It was two Cav platoons..6 M551 Sheridan tanks and what was left of the 113’s against 2 NVA Battalions.
The convoy that was attacked was our cooks, mechanics..mail clerk..fuel man. Most were killed or wounded.
But they don’t, there are 2 sets for PT requirements.
I’ll just use a perfect 300, most Infantry units, especially a dismount needs to be around 280 min.
Men: Push-ups 71
Sit ups 78
Run 13:00
Women Push ups 42
sit ups 78
run 15:36
A nation that sends young women to fight its wars while millions of young men drink beer and play video games at home is a decadent nation on the way to the dustbin of history.
The USSR spent 75 years trying to mold the “New Soviet Man” just in the economic area. And they failed, utterly.
We are going to try to remake Americans into asexual drones, a much, much harder task. Disaster is ahead for our society.
You are exactly correct. There is more to being a Ranger than getting through RASP. My son is enlisted on an Airborne Contract, they offered him a Ranger Contract he turned down. Even if you make it through RASP you don’t automatically go to school, it is earned through your unit. You can be in a Ranger Bat for years before you go to school. My son really wanted Airborne, although he will drop a packet after he gets to his unit, you are not with Ranger Bat but you do get the school. From what I understand, if you are peered out/wash out you are done.
My other son had about 20 from his basic co. go to RASP only 2 made it. Of those 2 both had PT scores of 347 while in basic, they made them do combatives to see who got the top dog at graduation.
Some basic is co-ed, it also depends on the MOS. Fort Benning Infantry, no women allowed, although you will have women in Airborne School, but not OSUT.
Yep, even the DS’s at Benning told my son’s co. that the rifles used to qualify stunk....all beat up. The qual that really matters is when you get to your duty station.
Here is the other deal if you can shoot Sharp Shooter/Expert during practice, you don’t get any range time. The worse you shoot the more practice you get. My son was expert, once he did a few practice rounds, he never saw the Range again until Qual time.
“Charge the bastards!” “Ride them down boys!”
Light Horse Harry Lee
Guess it will be..”Charge boys and girls.”
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.