Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Women in Combat Could Blunt 'Tip of the Spear'
CBN News Middle East Bureau ^ | Monday, February 25, 2013 | Lee Webb and Tracy Winborn

Posted on 02/26/2013 8:07:19 AM PST by robowombat

Women in Combat Could Blunt 'Tip of the Spear'

By Lee Webb and Tracy Winborn CBN News Anchor and Producer Monday, February 25, 2013

As the Pentagon pushes forward with plans to fully integrate women in military combat units, many are considering the move a victory for equal rights.

Still, others argue it will hurt our nation's ability to fight and win the next war.

Women currently make up 14 percent of our military. They've served across the board except in infantry, armor, and special operations units, like the Navy SEALs, Army Rangers, and Green Berets.

"Everyone, men and women alike, everyone is committed to doing the job," outgoing Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said in announcing the policy change. "They're fighting and they're dying together and the time has come for our policies to recognize that reality."

That means more than 230,000 positions could soon be open for women.

Former Army Capt. Tanya Dami applauded the decision.

"With this momentous shift, America once again reaffirms its core values of equality and respect, values predicated upon a person's capabilities and demonstrated competence, not an immutable characteristic like gender," she wrote. "This is good for our military, and our country, too."

Pentagon's Double Standards

Ret. Gen. Jerry Boykin couldn't disagree more. A former commander of Special Operations, he is also one of the founding members of the Army's famed Delta Force.

Boykin acknowledges that women have served bravely under fire. But those situations have largely been in support roles, not offensive operations. They have not served in units trained and equipped to pursue, engage, and destroy a hostile force.

"A female that can run a marathon does not necessarily translate into a female who can drag a man, let's just say an average man of 175 pounds, with all of his combat gear," he said. "It is not the average female that will be able to do that. So it's a readiness issue and no one is considering readiness."

The Army's physical fitness standards are currently different for men and women. For example, a 22-year-old male soldier is required to do at least 40 pushups. A 22-year-old female soldier is required to do only 17.

The Pentagon now says that women serving in direct combat units will have to meet the same standards as men.

But Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey offered one big caveat.

"If we do decide a particular standard is so high that a woman couldn't make it, the burden is now on the service to come back and explain to the Secretary, why is it that high?" he said. "Does it really have to be that high? With the direct combat exclusion in place, we never had to have that conversation."

"I don't know if that bothers you the way it does me, but that's frightening," Boykin said in response. "And what that really is saying is if women can't meet the standards, we will lower those standards."

Band of Brothers

Boykin said he believes that will have life and death consequences. A soldier needs to know the soldier next to him will get him off the battlefield if he's wounded.

"That's why we give medals of honor. And if you look at who gets a Medal of Honor, it's normally because he was trying to save a buddy," he said.

The HBO series "Band of Brothers" depicts the rigors and horror of close quarters combat in WWII. Seventy years later it hasn't changed.

The series highlights the one aspect of warfare that another retired general believes the Pentagon is ignoring in allowing women on the front lines.

"One of the things that neither I nor anyone else in the military really understands is the so-called 'band of brothers' effect," Ret. Maj. Gen. Robert Scales said. "It's the buddy-teaming which makes up the essence of cohesion in small units."

"Remember, the American soldier doesn't really die for his country, and he doesn't die for the mission. He dies for his buddies," he said.

Those small units are better known as squads made up of anywhere between nine and 13 soldiers or Marines. They're the "tip of the spear" on the battlefied.

Scales said he believes the Pentagon owes it to them to perform an objective study on the effects of lifting the ban.

"Units that are thrown together or who have bad psychology or that are poorly led, tend to die in hugely disproportionate numbers," Scales explained. "So increasingly the weight of these wars is falling on the shoulders of this very, very small band of brothers and before we break it up and re-assemble it, we better be darn well sure that we're doing the right thing."

Fighting Women

Not all women agree with the plan either. One former army captain and West Point graduate, who asked CBN News to protect her identity, is an airborne-qualified combat engineer who served tours in Afghanistan and Iraq.

She said at one time she wanted to serve in a front-line unit. But she changed her mind because of the wear and tear her body took during five years of active duty.

"I guess I was naive to think I would be invincible forever, but right now I have two small children and my quality of life has degraded because you can only hold them for so long because your back hurts and you need to put them down," she said. "You know, it changes the way I'm able to live."

So what does it say about nation that allows its women to do its fighting for it?

"Right now Congress is working on legislation to protect women from violence and domestic violence and then on the other hand we're turning around and saying to women, 'Fix bayonets, and charge that group of men over there, most of which are stronger than you, bigger than you and capable of killing you,'" Boykin said.

"It is inconsistent with our ethos," he added. "I think the Bible is very clear that we're the stronger sex and we have a moral obligation to protect our women."


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: combat; military; women
At the risk of being labelled a misogynist, my observation of women in the US Army over a period of a couple decades is that most enlist to get a comfortable job behind a desk with good childcare benefits. many of these females do a good job as women tend to be detail oriented and like things to be orderly and uniform. In support units in field situations they are not worth the trouble they cause. Female soldiers have a higher sick rate than males partly because they are more prone to getting infections and partly because there is no 'suck it up' ethic among women so if they get the sniffles or have an the trots then they have to hurry off to see the medicos and get a few days light duty or bed rest. On top of this every woman i have ever known is morose, sick, or just plane crazy for a few days every month due to PMS. In an office it is no big deal in the field it means more days of duty lost or degraded by the female soldiers. In combat arms the relative handful of enlisted females that will sign up are likely to be more dysfunctional and maladaptive than the run of the mill soldier and have a big chip on their shoulder looking for an opportunity to run to the 'social actions or EEO officer' to whine about some chauvinistic outrage by one of the male soldiers. Just imagine a younger Roseanne Barr as a female soldier in your platoon. On top of this sour atmosphere an infantry platoon or a tank section with two or three women soldiers suffering from PMS is a picture of a bad accident waiting to happen or in combat real degradation of combat capacity. As several military friends have noted the elites who dream these social experiments up don't much care. If straight , mostly white, men get to endure more BS or have their careers harmed or even get killed as a result of one of these experiments then too bad , they are just stupid expendable oafs. What is that compare with diversifying the general officer ranks so that some women pseudo-soldier officers can get some brief combat arms career punches so they can get to fill command billets and become generals. In fact it would be hard for any of these would be Hillary Generals to be worse than the current turkey, Martin Dempsey who is CJCS.
1 posted on 02/26/2013 8:07:23 AM PST by robowombat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: robowombat

Key is set a standard ..... Male or female. If the six mile run is 38 minutes then everyone regardless of sex meets that standard.

Same for all qualifications be they physical or mental.

Can’t wait for fat out of shape weaker wannabes when your getting shot at. That’s why some males fail the courses now.

If the standards are lowered on mere PC basis then “special” or “elite” etc is just a lable versus ability.

Meeting physical standards set forth is the key. Do not lower the standards . If a troop, again, male or female , can meet the standards then they should be allowed in.

My opinion...


2 posted on 02/26/2013 8:34:06 AM PST by Squantos ( Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everyone you meet ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robowombat
Completely agree with you: with rare exceptions, adding women to the combat arms will degrade any efficiency and just be a millstone around the neck of the unit. Women aren't suited to true combat and can't be made to be and the interactions within the unit will destroy any unity.

The female senior officers have been uniformly useless in any combat arms capacity and the few I have served with in the Marine Corps never understood what the Marine Corps was really all about: killing people effectively. This isn't about "job creation" for women - it's about the survival of our armed forces and our country.

3 posted on 02/26/2013 8:43:04 AM PST by Chainmail (A simple rule of life: if you can be blamed, you're responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chainmail

There is a tipping point as to how much of this PC nonsense can be crammed down the throats of our warriors. At least I hope so.


4 posted on 02/26/2013 8:46:31 AM PST by don-o (He will not share His glory, and He will not be mocked! Blessed be the Name of the Lord forever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: robowombat

If you still think this is up for discussion, have at it.

To me, the concept is absurd. Discussing it - at all - is to become delusional yourself.

Either there will be ground combat in the future, or there won’t. Either we will allow females to lead fire teams, on up to platoons, companies, etc., or we won’t.

If there is combat and if we do allow that, we will be crushed by enemies who are not delusional themselves.

Everything else that is being discussed is beside the point.

Don’t waste your time.

And why excuse yourself by your “at the risk of being labelled a misogynist..” intro? What do you care if they label you? They will label you whatever you say, if what you say is the truth. F*** ‘em.


5 posted on 02/26/2013 8:54:35 AM PST by Jim Noble (When strong, avoid them. Attack their weaknesses. Emerge to their surprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robowombat

If you still think this is up for discussion, have at it.

To me, the concept is absurd. Discussing it - at all - is to become delusional yourself.

Either there will be ground combat in the future, or there won’t. Either we will allow females to lead fire teams, on up to platoons, companies, etc., or we won’t.

If there is combat and if we do allow that, we will be crushed by enemies who are not delusional themselves.

Everything else that is being discussed is beside the point.

Don’t waste your time.

And why excuse yourself by your “at the risk of being labelled a misogynist..” intro? What do you care if they label you? They will label you whatever you say, if what you say is the truth. F*** ‘em.


6 posted on 02/26/2013 8:55:11 AM PST by Jim Noble (When strong, avoid them. Attack their weaknesses. Emerge to their surprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robowombat

Former Army Capt. Tanya Dami NEVER met the men’s standards.

She got by by meeting the lower female standards.

Unless ALL women in the military are forced to meet the men’s standards or GET OUT, there won’t be true “equality”.

Of course, men and women are different.
Forcing TRUE equality upon them would victimize them.


7 posted on 02/26/2013 9:04:40 AM PST by SJSAMPLE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Squantos

“Do not lower the standards”

That statement assumes the standards haven’t already been lowered.

As one example, the Army Physical Fitness Test has had two sets of standards for around 3 decades. Due to political pressures, the military is simply incapable of keeping equal standards. They never have been able to do it, and they never will.


8 posted on 02/26/2013 9:06:03 AM PST by lacrew (Mr. Soetoro, we regret to inform you that your race card is over the credit limit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: robowombat

Politics is about rewards. There is no rationality in it. The Democrats are fine with this because they think it appeases the feminists and will bring the Democrats money and votes. Turn it around on them. MAKE women be in the Infantry. Use their favorite policy of Affirmative Action and make all women register for the draft, and then draft them until the Infantry is 60% female. There’s no glamour in the Infantry. Any woman who says she wants to be in the Infantry because it’s so cool and fun and high-paying is a liar and an idiot. The Democrats want to play this game, then rub their nose in it. How many women do you know who want to live in a hole and get their brains blown out? Well, too many women have been voting Democrat with no fear of the consequences. Let’s let them have some of the fear that men have had.


9 posted on 02/26/2013 9:13:09 AM PST by blueunicorn6 ("A crack shot and a good dancer")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
Either there will be ground combat in the future, or there won’t. Either we will allow females to lead fire teams, on up to platoons, companies, etc., or we won’t

Yes, the Progressives will have pregnant women in combat and fought over by the men for sex. Not only that but they must be salivating over the idea the Mommy can be drafted.

Brave new World, Huh?

10 posted on 02/26/2013 9:16:09 AM PST by sr4402
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
Either there will be ground combat in the future, or there won’t. Either we will allow females to lead fire teams, on up to platoons, companies, etc., or we won’t

Yes, the Progressives will have pregnant women in combat and fought over by the men for sex. Not only that but they must be salivating over the idea the Mommy can be drafted.

Brave new World, Huh?

11 posted on 02/26/2013 9:16:13 AM PST by sr4402
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: robowombat
In combat arms the relative handful of enlisted females that will sign up are likely to be more dysfunctional and maladaptive than the run of the mill soldier and have a big chip on their shoulder looking for an opportunity to run to the 'social actions or EEO officer' to whine about some chauvinistic outrage by one of the male soldiers. Just imagine a younger Roseanne Barr as a female soldier in your platoon.

Or worse:


12 posted on 02/26/2013 9:16:25 AM PST by Ezekiel (The Obama-nation began with the Inauguration of Desolation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robowombat

Blunting the tip of the spear is the purpose behind this ridiculous order.

Our military was getting the job done in spite of the outrageous ROE etc. they were saddled with, so the marxist/muslim cabal had to come up with something they plan to sell as “fairness.”


13 posted on 02/26/2013 9:17:06 AM PST by Let's Roll (Save the world's best healthcare - REPEAL, DEFUND Obamacare!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
I do have a personal reason about what you feel is an obsession. When I was just a boy my second cousin was a GI. One of those who enlisted and wasn't a draftee. He was assigned to the 8th Cav Regiment in the 1st Cav Div on occupation duty in japan. This fellow was a sort of recruiting poster soldier, bright, well motivated and to the degree he could prepare himself combat ready. He was also a genuinely nice fellow. I remember him spending a fair amount of one afternoon, when he was back in the states on the last leave he got to come stateside (that must have been late summer 1949) trying to teach me how to throw a curve ball. I remember eavesdropping on the ‘adults talking’ and my cousin describing how housed up US Army units in Japan were. Flabby, out of shape, corrupt NCO’s, careless officers and more emphasis on seeing that the Doolittle Board's findings be implemented than even training people to field strip and dry fire their weapons. Even a kid like me was impressed hearing that senior NCO’s that had been in the pre war US Army made derogatory remarks that even in the late 30’s soldiers might not have gotten in much range time but they at least had to disassemble and put their rifle back together within a fairly short time frame. The cav, of course , was one of the first three US division committed when the North Koreans invade the south in 1950. My cousin was one of those hundreds of 8th Cav soldiers who was killed in the ambush of that unit at Unsun in october 1950. His body was never recovered. Years later i read ‘This kind of War’ by Fehrenbach and understood what my cousin had been talking about. The pukes who are busy gutting today's army are setting it up for another experience like the summer of 1950. My granddaughter's fiance, another decent young man who wants to make something of himself, is trying to arrange a delayed enlistment and wants to go infantry/airborne, ranger and use that as a path to the SF. All i can tell him is to be forewarned and i have given him a copy of ‘This kind of war’ . Yes, i suppose i could be said to be obsessive on this topic.
14 posted on 02/26/2013 9:19:59 AM PST by robowombat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: robowombat
Well, the ‘new’ Army is progressive and inclusive. Join up and you have a good chance of sharing a foxhole with a bulldyke, a hairdresser, and a florist or two.

Won't that be fun?

15 posted on 02/26/2013 9:33:57 AM PST by Beagle8U (Free Republic -- One stop shopping ....... It's the Conservative Super WalMart for news .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: robowombat

I don’t think menstruating female navy seals having to operate in shark infested waters would be a good idea.


16 posted on 02/26/2013 9:39:58 AM PST by Rebelbase ( .223, .224, whatever it takes....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U
Yes, it does sound amusing. But the reality of women and queers being treated as
special classes’ in a fighting force means fatal cracks in unit cohesion. When the Army was committed to the Korean battlefield the problems with not being able to trust the people on your flanks or even in the next fighting position immediately appeared. No one expected a third rate country like to north Korea to field a first rate (and vicious) ground combat force. The anals who are doing these things to our Army today are setting it up for another similar experience in some other country most Americans can't even locate on a globe.
17 posted on 02/26/2013 9:42:59 AM PST by robowombat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: robowombat
Generals to be worse than the current turkey, Martin Dempsey who is CJCS.

A total turkey.

Boykin acknowledges that women have served bravely under fire. But those situations have largely been in support roles, not offensive operations. They have not served in units trained and equipped to pursue, engage, and destroy a hostile force.

Boykin is correct. Women will drag down our offensive capabilities leading to unnecessary death and possible defeat and all for PC-ness. Dumb.

18 posted on 02/26/2013 9:47:30 AM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robowombat

Women in combat = mistake.

BIG mistake.


19 posted on 02/26/2013 10:34:43 AM PST by Jack Hammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robowombat

It’s a sick society that sends mommies out to kill people. Mommies are supposed to be kind and nurturing, not killers. That is what daddies are for.


20 posted on 02/26/2013 12:58:47 PM PST by yuleeyahoo (Liberty is not collective, it is personal. All liberty is individual liberty. - Calvin Coolidge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robowombat
We are setting ourselves up for disaster in future wars. The fact we have morons like Dempsey (who should know better) approving of this nonsense is even more scary. They are selling their military birthright and effectiveness out for a pottage of tasty lentils.

Our military has become just another social experiment to "equalize" the sexes. When the real rubber finally meets the hard road, it will fail. But that's what happens when we put Liberals in power; we get failure all the way up and down the line.

We may be kidding ourselves, but we are not kidding our enemies. They are no doubt laughing and licking their chops right now in anticipation of our full implementation of such insane policies. They can smell victory and our looming disaster and must get excited at the thoughts of our gutting our softened, feminized military - even as our government overlords perfume their hankies and demurely waft them over their tender noses to help disguise the oncoming stench of our own death and destruction.

Is it worth this just so a few ambitious females can get on career tracks to the stars? Is it?

21 posted on 02/26/2013 3:03:09 PM PST by Gritty (The 2nd Amendment protects the right to shoot tyrants effectively, not deer-Judge A. Napolitano)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Squantos

Infantry Combat OPS and a six mile run are not the damn same.

For those who have humped the bush through thick bamboo and wait a minute vines,the nam’s(mountains), the swamps in waist deep swamp water with 40 mags of 18 rounds each, some 8 or so grenades from smoke to concussion, to WP, and; we’ve had our ruck loaded down with an extra battery for a PRC 25 plus a 60 mm mortar round, and; add 100 plus M60 7.72 mm rounds dangled around our necks, while carrying some 60-70 plus pounds in our ruck plus extra on our web gear,while walking and sweating all day, then freezing at night, no chance for a bath/shower nor did we want a damn bath/shower as we damn sure did not want the enemy to smell soap or anything.Please Think. We took a pill before every OP that would constipate a horse for 4-5 days, and; we had to take a brown bomber when we came back to even defocate. No one has time to drop his drawers for a crap on a combat OP.It is risky as hell to have to find water as the enemy will be where water is. So drink it out of bomb craters filled with rain. Now, imagine your men getting wounded in waist deep swamp water and you as a LT or CPT are up front next to one who cannot walk due to a leg wound or both. How are you going to carry him and his equipment out of that swamp? What about those leeches that we used to get on our legs, arms and occasional in a private area? Do women want a leeches on them? I do not want my wife nor any woman to go through what I did. I do not want to see 18 women blown to pieces like I did men, nor do I want to see 30 plus wounded or their body parts laying exposed on the ground. I do not want to see any females guts hanging out, nor any private parts blown off. I really do not want to have to take a woman’s fatigue/jungle pants off to try to stop a femoral artery from pumping.

I wish folks would listen to Gen Brady who commanded a medical unit in RVN. He received the CMH, but; he can tell you how woman effected HIS medical BN’s readiness. Medical Evac BN’s are not INFANTRY. They are very damn important. Please google him.


22 posted on 02/28/2013 7:45:25 PM PST by Lumper20 (`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Lumper20

My words were brief to make same statement relating to standards and ability that related what you said ..... In one sentence versus the detail you posted .

Sorry if you did not understand my analogy.

If male or female cant meet the standards and keep up and endure they have no business in combat arms or in direct support of such.

Concur with all you’ve said ...... Been there done that and do not want male or female there that can’t do it or tries to administratively bypass standards due sex or ability.

Then and only then would I mention the facts you did as to horrific injuries, personal opinions and such because I already know the results of mixed sex units. The complications associated as experienced and implied.

Good informative post..... Thanks for your service

I’m retired EOD (72-96)..., agree with all you said.

Stay safe...


23 posted on 03/01/2013 5:46:38 AM PST by Squantos ( Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everyone you meet ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Squantos

This entire effort led by Obama, Leon Panetta and General Dempsey comes from clowns who have never been in the military, and; Dempsey does not even have a frigging CIB. Yes, the nation has had non Infantry Generals as Chief of Staff of the Army before, but; until the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, this nation had generals in ever previous war who had been platoon leaders and/or company commanders in Infantry units in every other war from WWII through Vietnam.

I served with many of those older Korean War NCO’s in SF who were the the one’s who started SOG recon. Hell, in 66 I had mostly LTC’s and above who had served in WWII. By the 1970 timeframe we had a few WP types make LTC who had not served in the Korean War, yet; they had two tours in RVN and /or were on their second. What I am saying is you cannot throw fags and women on the Infantry. I do not know a man with a CIB who would want either in his unit in combat. A man who entered the Army in 72 never saw combat in RVN. Hell, we had men in SF who were at Bragg in summer 1969 who never saw Vietnam.


24 posted on 03/01/2013 9:50:06 AM PST by Lumper20 (`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson