Skip to comments.Putting Women on the Front Lines
Posted on 02/18/2012 7:20:22 AM PST by BarnacleCenturion
The Pentagon made big news last week when it announced it was opening up more combat positions to women in the U.S. military. These 14,000 positions include tank mechanics and front line intelligence officers. However, about one-fifth of active-duty military positions, including the infantry, combat tank units and special operations commando units, will remain off-limits.
Last weeks rule change in the United States was largely a reflection of the fact that women are, to a large extent, already participating in combat. Despite the restrictions in place, 144 American women have been killed and 865 wounded in Afghanistan and Iraq since 2001, according to the Defense Department.
The number of countries that have opened front line combat positions is also larger than you might think (or than media reports sometimes suggest). A 2010 survey by the British Ministry of Defense listed Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Israel, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania and Sweden as countries that allow women in close combat roles, defined as engaging an enemy on the ground with individual or crew served weapons, while being exposed to hostile fire and to a high probability of direct physical contact with the hostile forces personnel. Australia joined that list in September 2011 when it opened its front-line units including one of the largest contingents in Afghanistan to women.
A handful of other countries could probably also be added. South Korea has begun opening up more front line positions to women, including in artillery and armored divisions. Women have fought in Eritreas military since its war of independence from Ethiopia in 1991 at one point they made up 30 percent of the countrys combat forces and are required, along with men, to serve a year and a half of military service. Women have flown combat missions as fighter pilots for Britain, Pakistan, Serbia, South Africa, the United States and others.
In Israel, which is well known as one of the few countries where women are drafted, the policy is evolving. Santorum cited Israel as a country that doesnt allow women on the front lines because of the psychological effect it has on men. But in fact, the Israeli military does allow women in the vast majority of combat positions.
I understand that Russia, which also once had women on the front lines, has also rescinded that policy. We should learn from other nations’ experience.
Making another pot of coffee.
Hmm, wonder how long it’ll take for them to cry “Sexual harrasment” when they’re expected to do their new job?
Nothing scarier than a woman with PMS holding a gun.
Like in this you tube video...” I don’t trust anything that bleeds for five days and doesn’t die!”
Where are the “front lines” these days?
Booker! Get me my aerial photographs!
Israel at its inception had women in combat positions. But when they realized that the men tended to "look out for" the women, they decided it wasn't a good idea, so they stopped it. Israeli women currently serve in combat positions because of a high court decision -- whatever you call the Israeli Supreme Court, not a decision of the military, the government or the people.
Not against women in the military at all in fact I proudly serve with some awesome ones. Seem unnecessary to allow this as our tool of a president wants to cut 78,000 active duty position just for starters in the next 3 years.
Hmm, I don't think so. I was just reading this article...
Moscow, 22 June 2005 (RFE/RL) -- Kseniya Agarkova is not just a pretty Russian brunette. She can shoot rifles, assemble machine guns in a flash, and floor the fiercest attackers. Lieutenant Agarkova was also crowned Miss Russian Army 2005 yesterday in Moscow, outmatching 18 other long-legged beauties serving in Russia’s armed forces. “Beauties in Shoulder-Straps” is the second beauty pageant staged by the Russian Army as an attempt to boost its waning prestige and encourage young men and women to join its ranks.
Putting women in combat units is an incredibly dumb idea. While some women have done fine in recent days under fire, the whole question isn’t whether you can train some women to fight, it’s whether a combat unit benefits in proficiency by mixing women with the young men. The internal personal dynamics completely change and no amount of training, threats, or blandishments change hormones.
The whole purpose of combat units is killing people, period. Ignore the war movies, the comic books, the “analysts” who think warfare has changed. It hasn’t - if anything it’s more brutal than ever. We either maximize the efficiency of our combat units or we start learning to enjoy occupation.
That goes double for incorporating gays into the units. We are not a social experimentation venue, we are supposedly the lifeline for our independence and freedom.
This simply isn't true.
"Dr. Ruth" Westheimer always comes to mind immediately.
Dunno, I’d rather have a woman as a buddy than a homosexual oogling the Bacha Bazi boyus on Friday night.
Put two women in front of each combat-ready troop. They can act like boron in a fission reactor. Moderators such as boron slow down and absorb high energy neutrons.
Actually, I recently read, to research for another such discussion on this forum, that Israeli feminist lawmakers are responsible for adding verbiage to a law that states that all opportunities in the IDF are equally open to both men and women. There is even a coed unit that is stationed in their southern desert of Israel:
However, the IDF is taking heat for dragging their feet on further deploying more women as combat grunts. Your larger point that this is being forced on the IDF is spot on. The original coed nature of Israeli fighting forces in 1948 grew out of a far left egalitarian ideal that there is no difference bewteen the sexes. That spirit lives on, at least until the sh*t really hits the fan.
The only combat those chicky poos are going to see is fighting off rival suitors on russianbrides.com.
“Kseniya Agarkova is not just a pretty Russian brunette. She can shoot rifles, assemble machine guns in a flash, and floor the fiercest attackers.”
I don’t doubt she could get down ON the floor with men, but I don’t believe she could floor very many guys. It is that feminist, Hollywood BS that won’t last 10 seconds in hand-to-hand combat.
That's why they use guns.
That's certainly true -- but there may also have been an element of anyone big enough to carry a weapon, fights!
I’ve got some real concerns due to the recent deployment to Afghanistan of 6 female soldiers from our local National Guard unit.
I don’t have any issues with them being deployed to Afghanistan but I do have issues with the fact that they’re being pulled from behind desks at a transportation unit and will “accompany” combat troops on patrols to act as liaisons to Afghan women in remote villages.
When these troops go out on patrol, they may not intend to enter combat but combat often comes to them. Add in a half dozen women who write newsletters and file paperwork and you’re asking for trouble.
The local newspaper quoted one of them as looking forward to seeing the beauty of Afghanistan, helping the Afghan women, and writing about her experiences. This 20 year old women spoke like she was going on vacation.
“That’s why they use guns.”
Sorry, but you don’t understand the picture.
Sometimes, things go wrong. Sometimes you are outnumbered. And even using a gun isn’t easy when you’ve been carrying 100 lbs of gear for 16 hours.
Women make fine soldiers in peacetime, or when everything is going right. But when everything is going to crap, a 120 lb woman is NOT what you want at your side. In bed, maybe, but not at your side when you think dying is a very real possibility.
I agree with you there. That is wrong.
They're in Clermont, sir! Thirty kilometers behind enemy lines!
Well , that a fact. There are no front lines these days.
A woman could be sitting in a meeting in a secure area, and one of the Muslims we have taken in, trained and trusted could decide to kill everyone in the room.
And they don’t have to be in Iraq or Afghanistan, they could be in Ft. Worth.
Aw c'mon! It can't be all that bad. After all, SF had Martha Raye, and the SEALs have Demi Moore.
Those left behind might be able to get a few weeks of some good training in the meantime.
One of the reasons why we have 20 million illegal aliens and Cartel violence spilling over into the United States is because we allowed women into front line Border Patrol units. If you want to demoralize our troops and lose battles one of the best ways to do it is to put women in combat units.
Is that when you call in the A-10s? Look, I understand the point you're trying to make. But you don't understand modern warfare.
Women in combat might well be a violation of the Geneva Convention to which we remain signatories. They are just too damn mean!
So a beauty contest is now considered the front line?
Yeah - I don’t understand modern warfare. I only spent 25 years in the military, and deployed on the ground in Afghanistan in 2007.
My son just got back from Afghanistan in December.
But what do I know? Hint - a lot more than you do, apparently.
25 years. Ever serve with any women?
And sometimes, you can't just call in A-10s and Specter C130 gunships and scream "Broken Arrow" into the radio and everything goes awesome just like on tee-vee. Things often go south of bad.
God made men one way, and women a different way....and women are the "weaker vessel."
I know what it is like to hold the hand of one of my Marines as his life slowly bleeds out of him while the doc frantically searches for the entry wound. I couldn't imagine what that would be like if that Marine would have been a woman.
I know what it is like to go Winchester, surrounded 360 degrees by the enemy, cutoff, pinned down, and next to nill chance of re-supply anytime soon.....danger-close artillery is the only thing keeping us alive. I thank God, we didn't have women with us if not just for their sake, but ours.
I know what it was like when we learned Jessica Lynch had been taken POW and that emotions were higher b/c she was a woman. Losing a brother in arms is hard enough....men are supposed to be protectors of women; even seeing pictures of fallen women I don't know in the Military Times articles is difficult.
I also know that the women are still not held to the same fitness standards as men, which also makes it easier for women to get promoted (they do less, or do it slower for a higher score).....meaning men often have more experience before attaining the same rank.
Further, there's no place for open homsexuals, or any other leftist social engineering degradation of the military.
I think that sums up modern warfare pretty well.
Great propaganda, isn’t it?
“25 years. Ever serve with any women?”
In ground combat roles? No. Flying? Two...one was a good pilot, the other was not. Doing paperwork? Many, and they were every bit the equal of men in those roles.
Yes, well, when enemy armies have conquered 1/3 of our territory, killed 20 millions of our people, and are machine-gunning children and women into death pits every day, we can consider putting women into combat, as Russia did.
many nations over the centuries have tried this and it NEVER worked—What makes us think that in the USA it will? What makes our women any better than the women of other lands? No this is just PC politics. Its because we Just fight weak nations in the 3rd world (of late) and in a real war things for women in the front lines would not be so good. What would have happened if there were women at D-Day? or at The Bulge? What would the SS have done with woman POWs? I guess we will just have to learn this lesson the hard way.
And your basis for this comment is what?
I would bet you've never visited the wounded at Bethesda or Walter Reed.
or the steady dribble of nonsense that flies in the face of reality meant to make folks feel better
the cult of sameness
I mean men and and women are so alike and women so equal in war...i mean why not...i’ve seen the movies, played the video games, heard my pacifist women's studies professor tell me, seen the TV commercials, watched my dad run around by my alpha mom with 10 post grad degrees...so it must be true
in fact it's worse...women are actually more capable of war...I mean really...they can multi task you know...fire multiple weapons systems, plan the advance and tend to the wounded at the same time they do their nails
and on stamina and nerve...I mean come on...women are not more hysterical or nervous than men...hell...they are steelier...they will never collapse in a sobbing heap while under steady fire...forget the Israeli experience...what do they know?
let's face it...the only reason that since Hominids first warred back at the dawn of human history that women have almost never been utilized in fighting bands or units and so forth is that men oppressed them from their natural state as superior warring parties...it's all 100,000 years of lies
oppression to keep women who are superior than men by nature from killing more people than men can
I mean don't you get it...it's all been a scam and now these brave pathfinder women and their little boys and girls on Free Republic and in American culture have discovered the truth...if we had used women in WWII instead of mostly white men...we could have won in half the time while the men were home making boats and planes and tending to babies...where they belong
how on earth could so many folks have been so wrong for so many 1000s of years...the effort involved in the ruse to defy women their natural superior role in war is beyond a magnitude we can understand
I don't know about you but the more women and queers fighting our wars for us the safer I feel
so get with it..you hear