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.
“Or whatever fraction of a male soldier she represented.”
Too funny!
Not a good idea—Its OK when we are winning and fighting 3rd rate nations—but what happens in a real war—and we lose battles and have lots of our people in POW camps? What happens when we send out our air force and only half come back? Or we see video of our carriers rolling over and going down with a thousand sailors with it? Think of Bataan— What would have happened if half of the US troops were women? Our foes have openly said they would sell our female POWs as sex slaves. Not a good idea to experiment with such things.
Let's see how America responds when the first wave of "battle shredded" women vets return home and what their stories are.
Oh wait, the media isn't going to cover that part of it.
Lower55: “Women should be in combat troops if only for the sex.”
Well, I guess there IS an upside to this, eh?
Will the enemy schedule attacks for "that time of the month"?
Given PMS, perhaps that could be turned to an advantage.
Do we really need this conversation? It's being forced on us.
Women aren’t “automatically out of commission for 1/4 of combat service.” Some might be at less than optimum performance for a day or two, but that’s not the point. Even at optimum performance, they’re not physically up to some jobs. Shoot, most men couldn’t qualify for some jobs.
Even if some small number of women were capable of qualifying, they would be more prone to injury and they would disrupt their units. A woman might not care about stripping, bathing, or sleeping alongside male comrades, but the men would certainly be distracted by her.
The current military leadership thinks they can just order men to not notice women, just like they think they can billet open homosexuals with heterosexual men. General order: no sexual relations in the field. It makes far more sense to me NOT to create such situations in the first place.
We have transformed political correctness into political insanity.
“Let’s see how America responds when the first wave of “battle shredded” women vets return home and what their stories are.”
One of the more insidious motives of this move is to make it less likely for the United States to commit troops to battle. The Left hates America and everything it stands for. They have been to varying degrees blatently supported most of our adversaries since WWII.
The only use of American military power the left will back will be its use against the People.
All the result of women who think the government needs to protect them from the law abiding citizen.
Worse yet, they voted overwhelmingly for Obama.
I expect this announcement any day. Watch the feminists howl...
I agree.
If I were a man and during battle was wounded, I want a man with that upper body strength to get me out of there - not a woman who doesn't have comparable upper body strength. One can say put a woman in battle, but those muscles inherent in a man's body are not in a female body and she is weaker by genetic makeup.
As a woman, if I were in battle, I want a strong man next to me, not a woman. Why is that? Because that man is stronger.
This is another liberal move make quickly by one man and now that's the way it is.
I believe gays and women in battle spells losing the battle. I also think regular guys won't be as prone to join the military due to this. How many men will think, “Join the military and have to fight in a fox hole with gays and women - no thanks.”
When my sons registered with Selective Service, along with the usual little card, they filed specified "conscientious objection" documents with Selective Service, our elected representatives at every level (even our county sheriff's office), and with the Department of Defense, based on their Biblicist Christian upbringing, faith, and practice.
1. Cannot serve in close quarters or combat with women.
2. Cannot serve in close quarters or in combat with admitted sodomites (homosexuals for the politically correct minded).
3. Cannot serve under United Nations command, or as anything but a clearly identified United States soldier.
4. Cannot serve in any capacity where open, verbal witness for Jesus Christ is forbidden.
5. Cannot serve in any capacity where the consumption of alcohol is a prominent feature of military socialization.
. . . and several more items.
The good news is that such stupidity will be punished by actual warfare. That’s also the bad news.... Moral of the story: diversity and equality are descriptions, not achievements.
You are correct, Marcella, that upper body strength will mean that a man can evacuate a wounded female, but that a wounded female cannot evacuate a wounded male. What this will eventually lead to is a bitterness and cynicism within the unit that will seriously degrade small unit morale.
The notion being advanced that some women can meet the standards set for the men is a red herring because the male standard has a minimum and a maxium as does the female standard. Essentially, the maximum female standard regarding upper body strength barely exceeds the minimum male standard, and with the youngest troops, those likely to be on the front lines and in small unit engagements, the maximum female score is exactly the same as the male minimum allowable score.
This is a significant difference, because the notion is that a soft, young, Nintendo, couch potato male is expected to vastly improve. He can get out of basic training with that low score, but the future intent is to move him much higher on the chart, and especially if he is going to a and infantry or other front line type small unit.
With this female that is exactly the same as the lowest male standard, she is considered to be the ultimate female at her age, incredibly in shape and the epitome of what an in-shape female is to be.
IOW, there isn’t much improvement that’s even considered possible
However, let’s consider urban warfare and consider female height versus male height. Are the females able to reach a high window for an alternate entry point, or are they always going to have to come in the door?
Consider as well that a female must IMMEDIATELY be removed from the front lines as a response to pregnancy with zero impact on her career. How many would time their ovulation just to get out of hell? I had an wise old female military surgeon tell me once....quite a few.
What is the replacement flow? How long does it take to get a replacement? How badly is a squad hurt if it loses 1,2, 3 people out of 10? Enormously. Who has your back then? Which squads now have to pull double, triple duty?
Enormous morale problems are on the horizon.
Don’t disagree with anything you wrote. If a female cannot throw a wounded soldier over her soldiers in an evacuation, she has no business in combat.
I hate to be politically incorrect, but if I am on the fourth floor of a burning building with a broken leg, the last person in the world I want to see coming up the fire ladder is some 120 pound affirmative action female.
And if I am am a wounded soldier lying on a hill in a fire zone, the last person I want to see coming to carry me out of the line of fire is some 120 pound affirmative action female.
Women can pull a one pound trigger, but they can’t carry a 240 pound man across a battle zone on uneven ground.
I think it is time to bring back the draft. Make it a requirement that at least 20% of ground forces be taken from the ranks of draftees. That would put an end to this whole social experiment involving homosexuals and women.
Thanks for your reply. Let's go back to cave man days. There was no affirmative action there, it was the strongest would survive and the weak wouldn't unless the stronger helped the weaker. Men hunted together to get the food and there was no woman in that group. Why was that? Because even at their stage of development, they had the sense to know that woman was not as strong as they were.
I live by myself and wish I was as strong as a man, but guess what? That is never going to happen because muscles are aligned on men differently from women.
Our legs are also not like a man's leg. Women's knees are slightly turned in and when they run, you can see it - a man will run faster due to this.
I hold two medals for the 50 yard dash and for hurdles - against women, not men. Several years ago, I found out why I was a fast runner. An MRI was done from my knee down on my right leg. The attendant had to adjust the mechanism and she said, “You must have been a runner because your leg is more than normal length for a woman from the knee down.”
I never knew that, I just knew I could run fast. Being able to run fast would be an asset in the military, but I could never match a man in strength - it would be idiotic to think I could. I was a psychological therapist and an EMT, not a runner for my livelihood.
Cavemen knew, could see, women couldn't hack hunting for the beast - what's wrong with us that WE can't see it?
It hasn’t been easy, but I’ve come to grips with the fact that America elected (and re-elected!) an African communist as its president and commander-in chief of the armed forces. The place is now little more than a land mass populated by cretins, ingrates, and parasites who have absolutely no respect for the military and who vote for big government to confiscate money from their neighbors so that it may be “redistributed” to them in exchange for their votes. It is simply not a nation worth defending anymore. That America no longer exists.
The parasites outnumber the hosts now, and there’s no going back. America is dead.
The Democrats have won.
Therefore, it’s tough to worry about Ubama’s sodomization and feminization and destruction of the once-proud US military. I will, sadly but with a smile, always remember America fondly for what it was. The grand experiment of the founders had a great run. But now?
I’ll just shrug and take care of my family, and do whatever I can to stay under the radar, preserve and hide what I’ve got and deny, to whatever extent possible, the scumbag government the fruits of my labor. But mostly, I will keep on having myself a blast! There’s no point being down in the mouth about anything.
Good luck everybody. Please don’t get agita over any of this. Let others wallow in the nightmare. Rise above it and have some fun.
You mean Blow Fly Barry? Seriously. That wasn't just a "housefly" after him. It was a blow fly.
I have a 22 year old daughter. If somehow she were to be drafted there is NO WAY she would ever go.
But it has been mentioned before it is known that women living in close proximity tend to end up cycling at the same time. Properly managed there would always be a battalion or two of PMS troops READY TO KILL.
And hey Girlene. Where were you today when I pulled the bed off my pickup to change the fuel pump?????
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.