Skip to comments.Women in Combat Spells Trouble
Posted on 01/24/2013 9:41:00 PM PST by Red Steel
With little discussion or fanfare, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta lifted the ban on women in combat that has been in effect for as long as there has been a U.S. military. Feminists and some women serving in the military are applauding the move as a victory for equal rights. They claim that justice requires nothing short of opening all positions to females, regardless of the consequences to combat effectiveness, unit cohesion, or military readiness, factors whose importance they minimize in any event.
What is perhaps most striking about Secretary Panetta's action is that it reverses the combat exclusion policy that was last reviewed thoroughly during the Clinton years -- and which even Democrats embraced.
There is little question that there are a number of women who might make good combat soldiers, provided they could pass the same physical, endurance and strength tests with the same acceptable scores that current combat troops achieve. But whether a handful of exceptional women might succeed -- or opt into infantry units for that matter -- is not the relevant standard. The question is, would women's presence in combat situations enhance military effectiveness or compromise it?
One study of a brigade operating in Iraq in 2007 showed that women sustained more casualties than their male counterparts and suffered more illnesses. Female soldiers experienced three times the evacuation rate of male soldiers. And of those evacuated for medical reasons, a shocking 74 percent were for pregnancy-related issues.
The high rate of pregnancy among female soldiers is one of the best-kept secrets in the military. The various military branches are loath to publicize the figures regarding female soldiers becoming pregnant while deployed. However a study released just this week shows that military women have a higher rate of unplanned pregnancy than the comparable general population -- some 50 percent higher. And the unplanned pregnancy rate for deployed women was as high as it was for those serving stateside.
And, of course, many of the pregnancies among deployed females involved sexual activity between soldiers in the field -- which brings up one of the chief objections to women serving in combat roles.
Feminist ideologues have pooh-poohed the notion that sexual attraction is a major problem when you put young men and women together in close quarters for long periods of time under the stress of combat situations. They act as if both males and females will resist temptation and if they don't that there will be no significant consequences anyway.
Funny, those same feminists seem to believe quite differently when it comes to putting other young men and women together under similar, if less life-threatening situations. Most college campuses these days take it for granted that students will have sex during their years on campus. Many schools provide condoms in the dorms, access to other forms of birth control, lectures on sexual activity (even classes for college credit whose subject matter is the study of sexual activity in various forms). It's just assumed, you put young people together and sex naturally follows.
But the consequences for love affairs gone wrong, rivalry among suitors or even the distraction that sex can provide from other duties are very different in a college setting than they are in the middle of battle.
Unit cohesion is a major factor in the success of any military objective. Inject sexual rivalry and tension into a small group of soldiers whose decisions mean life and death, and you are likely to get more of the latter.
Yes, men and women can bond in non-sexual ways, but sexual attraction is one of the most powerful human emotions. To ignore it and pretend that it can be overcome without great effort is foolhardy. And jealousy is nearly as powerful an emotion as love. What happens when a couple in a unit breaks up but must still work side-by-side, facing an enemy whose sole purpose is to kill them? And when pregnancies occur -- as they inevitably will -- what happens then? Do you allow a physically fit pregnant solider to risk not only her life but that of her unborn child, too?
It is unfortunate that the Obama administration acted unilaterally without putting this issue up for open and honest debate before Congress and the public. By acting unilaterally -- no accident I'm sure, right after the president's re-inauguration -- the administration has done a disservice to the American people and the finest military in the world.
I assume all 18+ yo women must register for the Draft, effective immediately.
Obama is destroying this nation. Will we recover?
I watched US Army guys give up egress ad regress in a tracked vehicle to give a gal who had just given birth a “Special place to sleep”
Compromising the mission.
Then I watched 2 shifts of 2 men shuttle breast milk for the baby across lines taking away assets and compromising the mission.
What could go wrong?
It’s the same liberal Greek tragedy that is playing over and over-bumbling into an institution, like the economy, foreign policy or national security, without understanding what’s going on, then applying social experiments intended to satisfy some weird concept of justice or equity, and the law of unintended consequences engenders disaster after disaster. Benghazi, unemployment, Fast and Furious, deficit spending, manipulation of health care, obsequious foreign policy, submission to Islam, emasculation of the military-the Perfect Storm of the self immolation of America.
In (if I remember the year correctly) 1994, the (communist) ACLU filed suit in federal court to argue that women should be required to register for military draft (”Selective Service”) just as men.
It went to the Supreme Court, which ruled that this issue should be decided by Congress and not by the courts.
The court said that for Congress to make exemptions for women from registering with Selective Service was not a violation of the Constitution ; that the purpose for “Selective Service” was to provide combat troops.
Therefore, according to the Court, if Congress makes exemption for women from serving in combat, then it could also exempt women from registering for Selective Service . . . . but it is up to Congress, not the courts.
In other words, any movement that wants women to serve just as men serve, could keep pressuring and pressuring Congress to remove all distinctions and require women to serve in combat, thus require them to register with Selective Service.
Congress has made no requirement for women to serve in combat to date ; Congress would have to REQUIRE women to serve in combat roles (not merely allow them to do so) in order to require women to register with Selective Service.
THE PURPOSE FOR SELECTIVE SERVICE IS SPECIFICALLY TO PROVIDE COMBAT TROOPS.
The Secretary of Defense can NOT REQUIRE women to serve in combat ; Congress must make this decision, according to the Supreme Court's most recent decision in these matters.
THEREFORE-—IT IS IMPORTANT FOR CHRISTIAN FAMILIES TO WRITE TO THERE CONGRESS MEMBERS-—TELL THEM WHY GOD GAVE US OUR DAUGHTERS (1 Corinthians chs. 7 ; 11 ; Ephesians ch. 5 ; Titus ch. 2 ; etc., etc. TELL THEM THAT IT IS WRONG FOR OUR WOMEN TO BE IN COMBAT, WRONG TO REGISTER WITH SELECTIVE SERVICE, WRONG TO BE IN THE MILITARY TO BEGIN WITH.
Much of Obama’s last campaign was based on the Republicans War on Women baloney. Same must have caught on with Obama as he’s now going to send them all on to the front lines to fight. But they’ll all still be provided with free birth control drugs etc.?
I suspect this isn’t about military effectiveness or even so much about enlisted women having the opportunity to serve in front line infantry units. Like women on submarines, it’s about female officers who want to command infantry units (or submarines), because they see it as a necessary or at least helpful path for promotion. In other words, they don’t really care about combat effectiveness so much as their own self interests.
In regards to drafting women and/or making them register for the selective service, that’s true equality. I don’t like it, but if it’s forced on us, let’s quit kidding ourselves. True equality means women have to meet the exact same physical fitness standards as the men they serve with. There shouldn’t be separate standards for men and women. If it’s necessary for a man to carry a 70 lb pack for 30 miles, then a woman must be able to do the same. Otherwise, the men end up picking up the slack while the women congratulate themselves on their independence and equality.
Ok, Libtards. HOw about this for an encore of equality?
NFL shall allow women players; Olympics shall no longer be separated by sexes; NBA shall include NWBA - two shall be merged into one; etc.
(With little discussion or fanfare, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta lifted the ban on women in combat that has been in effect for as long as there has been a U.S. military)
Well there are several things wrong with this statement right from the get go.
1. There are and have been women in combat and many have been killed or wounded.
2.What Pannetta did right or wrong is lift the restrictions on jobs in the militarty
Don’t worry, that won’t happen if the woman is a US soldier. She’ll be medevac’d out and the unit will just be short one soldier. Or whatever fraction of a male soldier she represented.
The left is transforming the military from a fighting force into an equality force -just another government funded affirmative action jobs program.
The 'ban' on women in combat law was instituted in response to the push to place women in additional roles that had the potential to involve combat situations much like the institution of don't ask don't tell (the supposed ban on 'gays' in the military) -it was the camel's nose in the tent that got us here.
Much like homosexual sex practitioners in the military were the exception women killed in combat were the exception --NOW however, they will be the rule.
See how that works -its called incrementalism. A typical leftist technique employed to progress from what is right to what is left.
Women assuming masculine roles. Men assuming feminine rolls. No wonder people are so gender confused! While there is a bit of sarcasm, there is also considerable truth in these statements!
Women should be in combat troops if only for the sex.
The NFL is next..
The DemonRATs may destroy femininity at the same time our combat capability is destroyed. Women may resort to the use of steroids the same way women in sports are using them to gain the advantage. The social engineer’s vision of a unisex Utopia may be a steroid shot away.
“Otherwise, the men end up picking up the slack while the women congratulate themselves on their independence and equality.”
Sure, just as happens in workplaces across the country in the private sector. Women (including those with no families) regularly are heading for the door before their male counterparts (after regularly arriving later than them in the morning). Over the past year I’ve never worked so few hours (at a full-time job) because my boss wanted to promote a female who was basically “playing office” to serve as his personal companion (can’t say there is anything sexual, though co-workers imply that - I’ll give the two involved the benefit of the doubt without hard proof). Since then I don’t come in early/miss lunch/leave late; I call it “working girls’ hours”, and it is the first time in over ten years I’ve tried it. Work gets hectic squeezing it into a shortened day, but that also makes the time fly. Because the boss sees her routinely come in later/leave earlier, he has no complaint; while I work our “standard” number of full-time hours; she doesn’t. After years of 50-60 hour workweeks, it feels like a part-time job.
“The left is transforming the military from a fighting force into an equality force -just another government funded affirmative action jobs program.”
You’re exactly right; that is why I’ve never spoken against budget cuts for the military. We live in an age where there is little reason to risk American lives to achieve our goals; there is no need to keep so much more of our permanent underclass in a workfare program when they become adults after feeding, housing, and clothing them for the first 18 years of their lives. I know others join the military for much nobler goals, but the country they seek to serve died years ago.
Remember those two girls (one white, one black - in non-combat rolls) captured years ago in Iraq in a convoy ambush? You looked at these two, and had to ask yourself what the Hell they were doing there, and what our enemies must have thought of us for sending them. It certainly emboldened them, and in the end we declared victory while evacuating our forces in the dead of night to prevent any of those iconic photos like Saigon 1975. We lost the war in Iraq; simple as that.
“IT IS IMPORTANT FOR CHRISTIAN FAMILIES TO WRITE TO THERE CONGRESS MEMBERS-TELL THEM WHY GOD GAVE US OUR DAUGHTERS”
What serious Christian could even justify having their sons in the service of this government?