Skip to comments.Not yet time for women to serve in infantry
Posted on 12/07/2012 3:29:54 PM PST by neverdem
Recently The Post reported that four women serving in the Army, two with Purple Hearts, had filed a federal lawsuit seeking to overturn the militarys combat exclusion policy. Combat exclusion is code for being kept from serving in the close-combat arms of the Army, Marines and special forces. These units are made up of soldiers whose purpose is to kill the enemy directly. They also do virtually all of the militarys dying: Since the end of World War II, four out of five combat deaths suffered by men and women serving in the U.S. military have been in the infantry, which includes more than 6 percent of the active-duty military.
Ive been studying the band of brothers effect for almost 40 years and have written extensively on the subject. We know that time together allows effective pairings or battle buddies, to use the common Army term. We know that four solid buddy pairings led by a sergeant compose a nine-man, battle-ready squad. The Marine squad is slightly larger. We know from watching Ranger and special forces training that buddy groups form often spontaneously. But the human formula that ensures successful buddy pairings is still a mystery, and thats the key stumbling block in the debate. Veteran SEALs, special forces, Rangers, tankers and line infantrymen will swear that the deliberate, premeditated and brutal act of intimate killing is a male-only occupation. But no one can prove it with data from empirical tests because no such data exist from the United States. They just know intuitively from battlefield experience that its true.
To be sure, women soldiers may be fit, they may be skilled and they may be able to hang. Many have proved with their lives that they are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice. But our senior ground-force leaders,...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Dropping your pants to relieve yourselves will be problematic in the field, especially in a combat zone. If you're not assigned to a mechanized or motorized unit, grunts are routinely expected to haul plus or minus 100 pound loads across all kinds of terrain.
It's not the same, but I don't recall ever seeing any female furniture movers.
Oh heck, give them steroids and lots of raw meat they
can do it, course they won’t be women as we know them.
No, women will never be able to “hang”. Ever. Unless they are genetically modified. I have never found a women who could throw 120 lbs on their bak and go road march and keep up; a lot of men can’t! That is just 1 small reason why it’s stupid to even think they could serve in the infantry or combat arms.
The time for women to be in the infantry will be when they turn into men (and I don’t mean Janet Napolitano).
The way things are going, however, the only people being sent into battle will be robots.
Despite 225 years of witnessing the horror of wars fought by male American soldiers, there are still a number of idiots – mostly feminists who themselves will never have to face an armed enemy soldier – pushing lawmakers to drop a ban against allowing women in combat.
It’s time to debunk the myth, once and for all, that Israel’s experience with allowing women in combat was successful and, therefore, should be duplicated by the Pentagon. It wasn’t successful. It was a disaster by Israel’s own admission.
“History shows that the presence of women has had a devastating impact on the effectiveness of men in battle,” wrote John Luddy in July 27, 1994, for the Heritage Foundation backgrounder.
“For example, it is a common misperception that Israel allows women in combat units. In fact, women have been barred from combat in Israel since 1950, when a review of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War showed how harmful their presence could be. The study revealed that men tried to protect and assist women rather than continue their attack. As a result, they not only put their own lives in greater danger, but also jeopardized the survival of the entire unit. The study further revealed that unit morale was damaged when men saw women killed and maimed on the battlefield,” Luddy said.
Writes Edward Norton, a reservist in the Israel Defense Forces: “Women have always played an important role in the Israeli military, but they rarely see combat; if they do, it is usually by accident. No one in Israel, including feminists, has any objection to this situation. The fact that the Persian Gulf War has produced calls to allow women on the front lines proves only how atypical that war was and how little Americans really understand combat.”
“Few serious armies use women in combat roles. Israel, which drafts most of its young women and uses them in all kinds of military work, has learned from experience to take them out of combat zones. Tests show that few women have the upper-body strength required for combat tasks. Keeping combat forces all male would not be discriminatory, as were earlier racial segregation schemes in the military, because men and women are different both physically and psychologically,” said the Feb. 5, 1990, National Review.
Furthermore, Israeli historian Martin Van Creveld has written extensively about the failure of the IDF to successfully integrate and use women in combat.
Finally, even Israeli citizens don’t relish the thought of allowing their women into combat roles. In 1998, a survey conducted by the Jerusalem Post newspaper found that 56 percent of Israelis don’t want women in combat.
There are now and always will be idiots who say the Pentagon should put women in any combat unit they wish to serve. Most of these people will speak with the ignorance of never having had to experience the horror of combat, as well as the luxury of never having to worry about engaging in armed conflict themselves.
But to use the “Israeli experience” as an allegedly successful model for the U.S. to follow is not only absurd, it’s disingenuous. It is a lie propagated by radical feminists like ex-Democratic Rep. Patricia Schroeder who have falsely claimed that such a goal is merely an extension of “the will of the people.”
Perhaps if more lawmakers – and Americans in general – were exposed to military service, the idiots who seem to be dominating this debate wouldn’t have many sympathetic e
Talking to young vets of Iraq and Afghanistan, I’m amazed at the loads these guys have to carry regularly - day in, day out.
Their armor is over 35 pound alone - before they pick up their weapons, munitions, etc.
By the time they’re up to a full combat load for a “light patrol,” they’re each humping 100 pounds - or more.
The guys in Afghanistan then have to hump this load up and down terrain at altitude.
Never mind the issues of taking a break. Just keeping up with the members of one’s squad or platoon is the central point here. Put 100 pounds of load on the average female... and they’re going to fall behind and cause the entire unit to have to slow down.
That tells me all *I* need to know about womens' suitability for combat.
Having served for 2.5 years in an Infantry unit in the US Army that deployed to Iraq for 15 months, for many reasons I am seriously against including females in these units.
Smarten up & stay home with your children.
“I don’t ever think it will ever be a time for women in the infantry.”
Yes, sir. The image of Molly Pitcher loading grapeshot in a cannon is romanticism. Combat is not romantic except in paintings on museum walls. It’s dirty, difficult and deadly. I do not want to see women in combat.
The one thing I take away from talking to veterans of infantry is that aside from what the movies like to portray combat as (sheer terror), the day in and day out life of an infantry grunt is just plain hard labor.
Haul this load from point A to point B... and then back again, because some officer thought that this was a productive use of time and effort. Haul this load of stuff up a hill... and back down again. Oh, and while humping stuff to and fro, dig trenches, foxholes, gun emplacements, fill and stack sandbags, repair heavy equipment... there’s nothing terribly romantic about it at all. It seems like a non-stop job of heavy labor, with brief periods of mechanized death and destruction, followed by yet more heavy labor.
Women add the extra dimension of sexual attraction, less physical endurance, usually less ferocity, and definitely a different emotional makeup. If you are serving in combat compensating for these differences will often be fatal.
The clowns who are pushing this agenda need to be immediately transferred to a rifle company and they will see the light of day very quickly.
Last week they had all the female NFL players interviewed at halftime of the Monday Night game.
To a woman, they declined the offer!
Thanks for the post & link.
THE DIFFERENCE IN HORMONES ALONE would disqualify women...Uh, duh...Can you say “Testosterone?”
We spend all this research on studying the ‘difference” in the sexes..and now we are to just ignore it? Not too long ago the so called femminists were complaining that drug trials and medical assessements and intervention research were mostly done on men and so the “differences’ for female physiology were not counted in. ..which was a good point about medicine for women. But suddenly it doesn’t make a difference in assessing for differences in combat?
I hear they make good snipers.
That might create enough chaos to allow the real combat troops to come in and finish the job.
I did a month with out a douche during TET, I had crotch rot to my knees, foot rot, very bad breath, and world class Dingle Berries. I also smelled bad.
Thank you for your service. Welcome to the club of those veterans who wound up serving for a lost cause thanks to the rats.
Make sure you use any educational benefits due you. Just because you were a grunt doesn’t mean you were a dumb grunt. I asked to be one, twice, 11B in 1969 and 11C in 1980. Chemistry was my major in college. I’m a licensed physician. There are loads of jobs begging in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Good luck!
The Germans were shocked when they encountered female battalions in the Soviet interior. They mowed them down like blades of grass just the same.
“Haul this load from point A to point B...”
Marines and soldiers were involved in incredible battles in moving supplies from point A to point B at Guadalcanal, the beginning of WWII in the Pacific, and Sugar Loaf Hill in Okinawa, the end of WW II.
I appreciate that you brought it up about moving gear and ammo in a combat situation. Women should never be involved.
When they develop armored battle suits (battletech) then reopen the debate.
Women fire machine guns on ranges. That’s not combat, not even close.
I overheard a cashier, a very young girl maybe about 17, say she was going to be a marine and had signed up for the infantry. She was very respectful and, from her demeanor, I would guess she grew up in a military family. We were in her lane and asked her about her joining the marines and she, along with two of her close male friends, were going in after high school graduation.
While I am sure she wants it and would probably make it through training, I feel that women being in war zones is wrong. It is the male instinct to protect women and who knows what secrets they would give up if women were injured or captured and the men were forced to watch them being tortured or raped. It is nothing more than something else to weaken our military.
” It is nothing more than something else to weaken our military.”
Your female instinct is spot on, dear lady.
not now, not ever. won’t apologize for the truth. not sorry, they aren’t built for it. i’d say the same thing to idiot guys who believe they can have a baby- not now, not ever, you’re not built for it.
The IDF has in women combat roles. Everyone serves.
yes, many guys cannot. nobody cries foul or weeps for them. nobody changed the standards for them.
the enemy doesn’t either.
I would rather be in a fox hole with someone I would do over being in one with some guy that wants to do me.......
Not in the infantry. Check the little essay posted by hamboy in comment# 6. It's called, "Debunking the Israeli 'women in combat' myth."
Here's an excerpt:
Writes Edward Norton, a reservist in the Israel Defense Forces: Women have always played an important role in the Israeli military, but they rarely see combat; if they do, it is usually by accident. No one in Israel, including feminists, has any objection to this situation. The fact that the Persian Gulf War has produced calls to allow women on the front lines proves only how atypical that war was and how little Americans really understand combat.
I don’t know Edward Norton. So he’s a reservist. I think maybe he should go and read the history of Israeli women in combat. I guess they train and carry weapons to make them look good or something. As for Americans having a little understanding of combat does not even deserve a rebuttal to that idiotic statement.
Bully for them. It’s still a terrible idea.
Who will pay for their contraceptives?
Women have taken part in Israels military before and since the founding of the state in 1948, with women currently comprising 33% of all IDF soldiers and 51% of its officers, fulfilling various roles within the Ground, Navy and Air Forces. The 2000 Equality amendment to the Military Service law states that "The right of women to serve in any role in the IDF is equal to the right of men." As of now, 88% to 92% of all roles in the IDF are open to female candidates, while women can be found in 69% of all positions.
Few serious armies use women in combat roles. Israel, which drafts most of its young women and uses them in all kinds of military work, has learned from experience to take them out of combat zones. Tests show that few women have the upper-body strength required for combat tasks. Keeping combat forces all male would not be discriminatory, as were earlier racial segregation schemes in the military, because men and women are different both physically and psychologically, said the Feb. 5, 1990, National Review.If they see combat, it's by accident. They're in support units, not the combat arms: infantry, armor and artillery.
We’ve become a silly country. Wasting our time concerning silly things. Bad things happen to countries that have become silly. We will have deserved it.
All the world wants both Israel and Jews destroyed.
Of course I would expect a web site like World News Daily to come up with a story like that. I guess they also debunk the women in combat in the Red Army during WWII.
Did you personally know “Mary Jane Rottencrotch?”
The US learned important lessons from WW II but institutional amnesia wiped out crucial information about the functioning of small units. The debacle of replacing one man at a time in VietNam was the tragic result.
One thing that I know, women can be deadly assasins in Mexico! :-)
I agree 100% - No Women on the frontlines in infantry. These women who are clamoring for it - it’s all about their careers and not what it does to the fighting unit in War.
I remember reading about a Polish army unit of women in WW2 that were supposed to be fierce warriors that no men wanted to come up against— so if that story is really true, then I say let American female soldiers who want direct combat to be in 100% female units.
Lets blame it on the MEN!....
MEN haven't evolved enough as a species to not discern what sex the person in the foxhole with him is...
Does that make ya feel better???
I don’t buy that about Russian snipers in WW2, nope.
Homer sang of battle-skilled Penthesileia, Queen of the Amazons, and how she defeated mighty Ajax in a fair fight, only to be killed and necrophilized by dread Achilles the next day.
But Penthesileia and her mammary-amputating Amazons (from privative a- + mazon, "breast") were the exception not the rule, and although some writers like classicist Robert Graves and fringe archaeologist Marija Gimbutas believe that these fighting women were exponents of a gynecocentric "Old European" society in which women ruled and lived in "long-houses" with their children, and men lived apart, and n/w/s that graves of such women have been discovered with their tall, broad-brimmed, conical black-felt "witch hats" preserved in graves on the Russian steppes, nevertheless there is no comprehensive synthesis of sufficient explanatory power and supporting archaeological evidence to identify who these people will have been -- the "long-house" culture wasn't an open-country horse culture like the Kurgan culture and its witch/priestess/fighting-queen graves (the "witches) were found buried with weapons), who in turn are more related to the Indo-European culture and its male sky gods.
IOW, the picture of those Early Bronze Age societies has not yet clarified and is still fragmented, "anecdotal", kaleidoscopic, and unresolved.
Sasquatches posing as Miss March.
Called "New Guinea Krud" during the Big Show ... someone named a PT boat after it.
There was some public notoriety for some USAF MP security sniper who liked to wear her lipstick and diamond post-earrings while standing her posts.
Wonder if any of the raggies she shot got the bad news about having been killed by a girl -- no virgins for you, tiger!
Still, I agree she shouldn't have been pulling combat duty (she wasn't at Bagram, it was someplace gamier like Kandahar).