Not yet time for women to serve in infantry

Washington Post ^ | December 6, 2012 | Robert H. Scales

[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 military’s 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 military’s 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.

--snip--

I’ve 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 that’s 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 it’s 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,...

[Terry Mross]

Did you personally know “Mary Jane Rottencrotch?”

[hinckley buzzard]

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.”

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.

[hamboy]

One thing that I know, women can be deadly assasins in Mexico! :-)

[Sioux-san]

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.

[M-cubed]

if it would make ya feel better honey..

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???

[X-FID]

I don’t buy that about Russian snipers in WW2, nope.

[lentulusgracchus]

I don't ever think it will ever be a time for women in the infantry.

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.

[lentulusgracchus]

Oh heck, give them steroids and lots of raw meat they can do it, course they won’t be women as we know them.

"Were-women".

Sasquatches posing as Miss March.

[lentulusgracchus]

....I had crotch rot to my knees, foot rot, very bad breath, and world class Dingle Berries.

Called "New Guinea Krud" during the Big Show ... someone named a PT boat after it.

[lentulusgracchus]

I hear they make good snipers.

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).

[lentulusgracchus]

. I guess they also debunk the women in combat in the Red Army during WWII.

I've read about female squadrons in the Red Army's air corps, they served effectively.

But in my reading about the Eastern Front, I've never run across references to mass formations of Soviet women in uniforms, which one would expect to do if women were serving generally in the ranks. Yes, the Soviets recruited women, and they served on all fronts, but they were rear-echelon people like our WAVES and WACS and the Royal Navy WRENs. Lots of WRENs served in Whitehall and Bletchley Park, but none went down with HMS Repulse.

[lentulusgracchus]

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.

Okay, if you didn't respect the Norton quote, maybe you'd like the Luddy quote about Israel's experience in the 1948 war with men and women serving in mixed units.

It was bad news, is a fair reading.

[lentulusgracchus]

The debacle of replacing one man at a time in VietNam was the tragic result.

The World War II experience with the practice of dribbling "replacements" into tired and depleted units wasn't much better.

The "concept" was to keep divisions in the line continually, and not to pull them out for R&R (which is what von Bittrich's II Panzer Corps was doing when the British dropped on them at Arnhem and found them rested, resupplied, and re-equipped).

The American practice ground up the replacements very quickly -- part of it was lack of esprit de corps, which denied the replacements the quick OJT and morale improvement that comrades would/should have afforded them otherwise. Instead they became anonymous zombies, shunned as "unlucky" and cannon-fodder by the veterans (which became a self-fulfilling prophecy).

I saw a statistic once -- I think it was in Patton's latest bio -- that only 10% of the troops present in the Normandy divisions when they crossed the Rhine had landed in the invasion. The rest had gone home in hospital ships or pine boxes, or been buried in war graves.

[trebb]

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.

Yep - they can develop strong legs, but the upper body strength that begins in the lower back just above the hips will never be able to compare. Without it, they are liabilities that make targets out of the men who will be torn between letting them die or risking all to protect them.

[Chainmail]

Everybody focuses on the physical differences - which is fine, since there are big differences - but the real issue is "magic". In a combat unit out by themselves, some of the members are going to develop relationships. The relationships cause the morale of the lucky few to soar while the morale of the unlucky many plummets. Further, those in relationships are loyal to each other first during crises - which is what combat contains abundantly. Worrying about your significant other causes distraction and divergence from mission and inequality in assignments. Morale and combat effectiveness further plummets.

I'm really tired of "experts" who tell me that it's a "leadership challenge". No, it's a bitter joke - nobody in their right mind would ever imagine putting 18-20 year old young men and women into a combat environment and expect them to remain professional and chaste. More likely, any unit with mixed sexes (or some gay networks) will fail horribly. That's reality.

[wardaddy]

You know this is such a contentious issue only with feminists...nearly all who never fight anyhow and actually loathe the military. The handful of women in the military clamoring for this are literally a handful.

I'm old now and have been in war zones the world over and lived in exaggerated mortal violence environments for an extended period of time.

It is pure fantasy and there is a reason that historically the only nations who employ women and children in combat are desperate like the Soviets or partisans or simply savages like in Africa...which i saw firsthand.

The fact that some women can fly airplanes well or even direct tank fire from observation posts or gather intelligence simply does not translate to effective on the ground combat roles and the effects on women confined in close quarters with the men is already felt and damages our capability and costs money. It's a veritable joke and only enriches those seeking college money or career badges.

It is the extreme of generational arrogance to assume that women have typically not been employed in combat roles due only to male oppression. It was done for moral and practical concerns...the same as today.

If we ever had a serious ground war with women slaughtered on the field like Battle of Franklin 2 miles from where I type the howls for stopping such nonsense would ring loud.

and btw...i know IDF troopers firsthand who saw the experiment of women in combat fail and know why...the men were dragged down by the women...concerned for them and their inability to keep up

a common refrain I hear universally about women in roles where they lack the physical capability...and no..we cannot base an army on dykey exceptions in sea of under-performers

and observing a lifetime of women around me nor do i think that as a rule they possess the mental acumen...they are more emotional...much more so and more likely to fold...plain and simple...

i have lived a life at times confronted with extreme adversity and challenge...some very very dangerous..of all the women I have known in my half century none could have braced it...maybe my firey ginger haired blue eyed backwoods Mississippi grandma...but she sure had no aspirations to be a gunny...men who know women know this...i understand i am southern and our women are well...more feminine usually...but i’ve seen the bobbed hair no makeup and mandals northern gals crack too over not a whole lot

girls are simply as a rule...and we base our military projection on rules not exceptions...girls are more emotionally soft...they will fold quicker and in greater numbers and have a harder time with decisions and do not as a rule...command as well

i could go on and on

i watched a special the other night on Green Beret training at Bragg...man...you might find one woman in 100,000 who could do it without the men carrying her...you simply cannot base an Army or Navy on that

already we change the physical standards over and over everywhere we employ women in men's jobs

this whole notion is an indulgence of rich yet broken cultures addled as a projection by a few crusaders simply wishing to further deconstruct our military

and have they not done enough damage already?

women have their place in a civilized western culture and i love them for it...and they do it well...if left alone

as an analogy...those here who know me know I have a bunch of children...I feed them, change their diapers, fix their minor injuries, read to them, ride them around at night listening to Free Bird exploring beautiful rural TN...but none of that makes me their mom...I will always be just dad

being mom is the most important thing women do and fewer do today hence all this crap

Feminism is the long played out revenge of women who in my youth would likely have not married but instead become school teachers or administrators...the province then of single women...nurses tended to marry... and they want get back

and they have been getting it since the 70s...ya'll tell me how you think it's turned out

[Future Snake Eater]

Too many people in this country (and on FR, it seems) think that since women have been in combat situations means that they can handle actual combat jobs. They obviously lack the first-hand knowledge of the difference between being in a support role and getting in the occasional firefight vs. actively seeking out combat situations in whatever terrain the enemy is attempting to hide in.

Only in an insurgency situation will you see the two roles blend together with regards to time and space. Not every war is Iraq, not every future war will be Iraq. Women need to drop this feminist fantasy and try to excel in the roles they have now. Quite a few still have a very long way to go in that regard.

[AFPhys]

Skydancer:

I hope you take the time to read and reply to wardaddy’s post here. I would like you to engage his points.

Wardaddy: Though I was a pilot in the AF, the closest that I ever expected to come to “close combat” was POW training (or prospectively being a POW). The experience I had with women in the AF was fairly good, but none of the units I was with had a more likelihood of combat than I did. I appreciate the points you made in your very instructive post.

[lentulusgracchus]

girls are simply as a rule...and we base our military projection on rules not exceptions...girls are more emotionally soft...they will fold quicker and in greater numbers and have a harder time with decisions and do not as a rule...command as well

You are making the case for relieving them of the vote. Your points taken at face arguendo point to repeal of the XXth Amendment and disenfranchisement for the good of society.

Feminism is the long played out revenge of women who in my youth would likely have not married but instead become school teachers or administrators...the province then of single women...nurses tended to marry... and they want get back

I'll pass on that for now, but I would add that we know feminism's source: Betty Friedan. She, it turns out, was a Communist propaganda writer for the Electricians' union newspaper -- they were the biggest Red union in America. She was a Communist for years before she ever sat down and started writing about "feminism".

Knowing that she was a Communist and a professional propagandist in her youth, that's all one needs to know about her motive in elaborating a society-rending concept of "feminism". She was an enemy, and she got to the girls and hurt us as a nation by misleading and agitating many millions of them.

But the question I have is, how many women, even here on FR, home of brave and strong and clear-eyed women, would be willing to give up the franchise, and jury and military duty, in order to neutralize the Fifth Column of Red feminazis and their follower-horde? Who by the way just elected the Communist jihadist and homosexual Obama to a second term, and put him within reach of dictatorship?

[little jeremiah]

Thanks for the ping, LG - I just have not been doing my pinging duty very well lately; overcome by the nightmare...

I have already stated my position - I’d give up my vote if it meant millions of idiot females had to give up theirs! I’ve told about my introduction to feminism in Berkeley, circa 1969. SHort version:

I was a typical crazy hippie, had a room mate who was about 10 years older (another young woman) who invited me to some “womens’ liberation” meetings. Heck, I’d been to Altamont, Steve Gaskin meetings, took LSD about every other day - I was game for anything. They had free dope passed around so that was sort of interesting. Then by the second or third meeting (I just sat in the corner not participating, just kind of listening) they all started ranting and raving and screeching about EEEEEVIL patriarchical society, EEEEEVIL men, and how they all lusted for other women.

That was it, I realized even in my state of mental aberration that feminism was unnatural, evil, and hateful in every way. Then later my female room mate admitted she lusted for women (me!) and that was the dingleberry on the crap cake.

I am so anti-feminism it ain’t funny.

Doesn’t mean a Jeanne D’Arc can’t show up every now and then - look at Ann Barnhardt. But they are the exception. I didn’t know about jury duty - was that added when the vote was?

I’d also want literacy test, and perhaps property owner, for voting. My thoughts are not set in stone, but the way it is now has led us directly do not pass Go, to hell.