Skip to comments.The Reality That Awaits Women in Combat
Posted on 01/23/2013 5:09:15 PM PST by MinorityRepublican
America has been creeping closer and closer to allowing women in combat, so Wednesday's news that the decision has now been made is not a surprise. It appears that female soldiers will be allowed on the battlefield but not in the infantry. Yet it is a distinction without much difference: Infantry units serve side-by-side in combat with artillery, engineers, drivers, medics and others who will likely now include women. The Pentagon would do well to consider realities of life in combat as it pushes to mix men and women on the battlefield.
Many articles have been written regarding the relative strength of women and the possible effects on morale of introducing women into all-male units. Less attention has been paid to another aspect: the absolutely dreadful conditions under which grunts live during war.
Most people seem to believe that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have merely involved driving out of a forward operating base, patrolling the streets, maybe getting in a quick firefight, and then returning to the forward operating base and its separate shower facilities and chow hall. The reality of modern infantry combat, at least the portion I saw, bore little resemblance to this sanitized view.
I served in the 2003 invasion of Iraq as a Marine infantry squad leader. We rode into war crammed in the back of amphibious assault vehicles. They are designed to hold roughly 15 Marines snugly; due to maintenance issues, by the end of the invasion we had as many as 25 men stuffed into the back. Marines were forced to sit, in full gear, on each other's laps and in contorted positions for hours on end. That was the least of our problems.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
What combat leader would not want to replace his man warriors with a shorter, lighter, weaker, sicklier, less aggressive, slower moving, more terrain limited, reduced distance traveling, hygienically vulnerable, smaller weight carrying, more prone to injury, version.
He would have to rewrite all the knowledge and experience, of what his troops are capable of and reduce all that accordingly, and simply eliminate some capabilities entirely, but a fair enemy would not seek to capitalize on those advantages of course.
In the meantime, I wonder if Americans have forgotten that if we lose in a major war, we disappear from the future, forever. It seems that many Americans are starting to see war as a sporting event, where you can win or lose, but it doesn’t really change anything.
We are sooooo screwed.
Finally why is this policy pushed through without any discussion whatsoever?
So does this mean women now have to sign up for selective service at 18?
Boy I hate this. I mean, I love the Patriotism but, well ... no.
I was recently at the Post Office and noted that men reaching the age of eighteen must sign up with the Selective Service System even though the draft isn’t currently in effect. Why aren’t women required to do it? Isn’t this a denial of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? If not, then why not? I’m sure some Democratic feminist can explain the metaphysical subtleties of the situation.
Every carton of “Feminine Protection” that is shipped to the front lines is a carton of food or ammo that cannot be.
Or will we require them to go without?
One of the most disgusting revelations of a post-constitutional, progressive America. I will sternly advise my sons and future grandsons not to join the military, because it has become a bastardized joke. Gay sex, bestiality, women being raped, tortured, murdered by Muslim savages on the front line!
Can an act of congress block this decision by that slimeball Panetta and his cronies? This is so serious, the House should threaten to suspend military funding until it is reversed. There would be no way out of that one.... oh, wait... EXECUTIVE ORDER! Ain’t having a king great?
Stupid, stupid, STUPID idea.
PMS on the battlefield could work to their advantage...
For the women dying to get on the battlefield, now’s your chance!!
The only consideration for this decision should have been:
Does it make the US military a better fighting force?
A LOT of American fighting people are going to die just so that we can have a female Chairperson of the joint chiefs.
It is no longer about being the best. Politics rules ahead of any other consideration.
Reminds me of the movie, ‘An Officer and A Gentleman’:
So, you wanna fly jets Mayo? My mama wants to fly jets.
But just moments ago I heard ABC radio news report that "women", with no qualifiers and therefore meaning all of womandom, are "celebrating" the announcement. So clearly you must be mistaken.
“PMS on the battlefield could work to their advantage...”
Yea, right, now they will just fire in every direction!
In my opinion, there is nothing is more beautiful than a strong-willed Christian woman who stands by her man (instead of trying to replace him).
This will only escalate on the battlefield, in my opinion. Not only that, the focus of the men will be distracted by the women, there will be female "issues", pregnancies, false claims of assault as well as real ones i.e. a clusterf*ck. On top of that the demoralization as female soldiers are captured, tortured, raped, and killed.
Not to mention most women are not as capable. Sorry, they're not. And don't tell me about your 230 pound shot-putting daughter who is more manly than the Incredible Hulk. MOST women are not physically equipped for being warriors.
The Army is so egalitarian these days that you know leaders are living in close quarters with their Soldiers as well. Especially squad leaders and platoon leaders. Now throw the gender mix into the chain of command as described in the article.
I researched this for my daughter when she turned 18. She told me that she thought women should have to register also. I agreed but upon doing the research I found that it is illegal for a woman to try to register.
Be careful what you ask for.....fools
And the men who on the battlefield will be the ones who will pay for this stupidity.
men should try carrying a 8# pound baby inside, pressing on their spine, their bladder and their intestines, and then have your pelvic bones actually thin out and expand while the baby makes it's way to the outside world.......there's a reason why women carry babies, and not men....
I'd like to see a woman who could fix a thrown track.
Yet another decision by a p***y in power who never served a day in the military.
I have/had 3 sons serving. If this was then....I’d have steered them all away from military service...and I’m a veteran and come from a family of veterans.
I don’t know what country I live in any more.
What combat leader would not want to replace his man warriors with 11-year-old boys?
And they want to send women into this?
Women in the conditions described in this article would surely have debilitating urinary and yeast infections. In case the idiots in Washington have forgotten there are anatomical differences between men and women Managing a menstrual period under combat conditions would also be problematic and supplies of tampons or pads would have to be shipped to the front lines too. In combat would a case tampons have to replace a case of ammunition being shipped to the front???
Reality has been abolished by the ‘rats.
My sentiments exactly. In just 4 short years we have seen the near dismantlement of the military chaplaincy, allowing of homosexuals to openly serve, Islamists setting policy and doctrine and now females serving in combat arms roles. This isn’t the same military I served 25 years in. Hell, it’s not even the same military my son joined in 2005.
Michael Medved told a story on his show about ten years ago. His family was driving down the road and they saw a dead possum on the side of the road. For some reason they stopped (I guess they thought it might still be alive or something).
Anyway, his very young son and daughter both saw it and acted as all boys vs girls would. The daughter said, “eeew! Gross!”
And his son said “Cool! Can we take it home?!”
And in that story is why women will respond differently than men in combat. Movies notwithstanding.
Yet another step towards the destruction of our defenses. To all the jerks who voted for Obama.as well as those who helped him by not voting at all: hope you’re learning Chinese.
The only advantage I can see to having women in combat areas is that when they get wounded, it will only take 2 guys to carry their stretcher instead of 4.
We are not talking about "uncomfortable and unpleasant." The topic is a level of deprivation and physical suffering that requires great physical strength and toughness, and an aggressiveness that principally comes from high levels of male hormones.
I've had babies. It's tough for 18 hours or so. We all do it; our bodies are made to do it. It's natural. You don't have to be big, strong, and tough to give birth. You don't even have to be healthy. But warfare is something very different from a blessed, natural process, and equating them is simply silly.
Waiting to see the sign in the motorpool:
If this Bradley’s rockin’, don’t come a knockin’
On 2d thought, I guess this has been possible ever since DADT went away....
Thanks, that is a great link.
The left is clearly insane. They want to protect women from ‘violence’ and then demand they be put on the front lines of combat. Women are not warriors at heart (sorry folks they just aren’t). They will protect their own ferociously (think Mama Grizzly) but to seek out hunt down and kill the enemy???? Nah women just aren’t good at that no matter what hollyweird or the WH says
also note the hardcore feminists are home here writing articles behind a desk, going home to their cats and the latest lean cuisine microwave meal. they aren’t putting their money where their mouths are.
only the butch lesbians.
That was quite an article, I hope others read it.
Conscription/compulsion is around the corner.
More cannon fodder for our Saudi Defense Forces.
Makes me sick.
I am an enemy soldier, I havent seen my wife or girlfriend in 6 months, along comes this woman trying to kill me, I capture her . Now what am I going to do with her?
Pass her around to the guys after I am through or take her to the Capt. so he can give her to the officers?
Women do not belong in combat. In fact they do not belong in the same military as men. They should be serving as WACS, WAVES or some separate entity from men.
Talk of your “war on women”
Deployed women will be forced to take birth control. The first forced abortions in America will be on women in combat units.
Romney has been anti-military as a politician for longer than Obama, Romney was calling for, campaigning on, full homosexualization of the military, 20 years ago. Romney was against Clinton compromising with DADT because he wanted to open it up entirely.
My comparison ... OK, because we are so touchy feely today, we take NFL cheerleaders (all female to this point) and introduce them to the reality of pre-season training camp. Some, although obviously coming up short in every respect, must pass thru and make the team roster. NFL football appeal, the same could be said for college ball, would be gone within three years. Reality is reality ... women don’t belong in front line combat. Only liberal idiots like Pinetta (with no military experience), likewise BHO and Clinton earlier would think otherwise. Granted the liberals can always thrust forward a few ass kissing generals who are where they are because they excel at ass kissing ... to endorse the treachery ... but experienced combat officers shudder at the thought of females on the front lines.
Greater sacrifices will be made to maintain net levels of effectiveness.
What remains on the Left’s agenda?