Posted on 03/15/2014 2:11:50 PM PDT by QT3.14
On 20 November 1943, during the horrific fighting on Betio atoll during the battle of Tarawa, two Japanese tanks mounted a counterattack against the fragile Marine toehold on Red Beach 3. The Marines were huddled there at the base of a seawall in the face of withering fire from Admiral Keiji Shibasaki’s fanatical Japanese Naval Landing Force defenders who were slaughtering hundreds of their 2nd Marine Division comrades in Betio Lagoon during 76 hours of some of the most savage fighting in the history not only of the Marines, but the US armed forces.
Marine anti-tank gun crews were trying to figure out how to get their 912 lb 37MM M3 antitank guns over the 7 foot plus seawall. The battery commander ordered his 5 man crews to LIFT them over. Being Marines who always obeyed even seemingly impossible orders, they did EXACTLY that and promptly knocked out the tanks. They then engaged several enemy bunkers whose dual purpose guns were repeatedly knocking out the approaching landing craft and put them out of action. Finally they routed a local counter attack of 200 or so Japanese against the south shore of Red Beach 3 with canister shot, all of this at a critical and precarious point in the landing.
Whats that about upper body strength being not as important in modern warfare anymore and that women are just as likely to be able to do the job of combat infantry?
I mean no disrespect to the female perssonnel of the US Armed Forces who have served and ARE serving their nation honorably and well. I respect them as fellow vets and comrades in arms. Policy decisions are above their level for the most part.
But as a matter of POLICY, I think that women should be excluded from the armed forces for the most part, with a few exceptions and COMPLETELY from combat and most combat support roles, particularly when the armed forces are a small percentage of the total population, as is the case now. The use of significant numbers of women should be reserved for large scale mobilization as was the case in WWII. The population base is more than twice as large now as then and there would be no problem securing a sufficient number of qualified men with appropriate incentives for such a relatively small armed forces.
The advantages for the armed forces, particularly the Army would be greater flexibility as to how personnel can be deployed in combat emergencies and other contingincies and a lesser logistical strain as involves clothing, barracks and housing, and innumerable other considerations that are exclusive to the maintenence of large numbers of women. I think morale and discipline would also be improved as well.
The courts have repeatedly ruled that the armed forces are exempted from many of the equal opportunity requirements of the civillian world, and for the very good and sufficient requirements that are unique to the armed forces. This contretemps is being propelled largely by the cultural marxist wing of gender equity feminism who wish for the placement of a leftist Chairwoman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The resultant detriment of the ability of the armed forces to fight plays no consideration in their calculus, other than as an peripheral side benefit.
Thanks for sharing a great mnemonic!
Yep, if they aren’t inadequate, then what argument is there against 100% females?
The words Experimental do not go well with the words TASK FORCE
Will this be handled by Obamascare Navigators Laid Off while waiting for ObamaPremiums to be paid?
Buraq Obama and the followers of the Wizard of Odd are clearly not done Fundamentally Transforming The Sane World
Woo-hoo!
That is mis-said soooo often.
“I assume that combat effectiveness might drop for about 3-4 days each month.”
That Depends.
If some hawk came up with this idea, it might be to taunt an enemy with “We beat you using women!”
But that is surely not what the Obamanation has in mind.
Well, they sound a lot alike, and people just aren’t exposed to the Bible the way they used to be . . . :-(
Or correct grammar...
Or correct spelling...
Or coherent ideas...
;-P
Active Duty ping.
Pathetic!
In modern mechanized warfare a lady at the controls might have a fair chance. Assuming this was not a lady driver (duck’n & runn’n).
Anyhow, now the squad cannot be addressed as “men.” “Ladies and gentlemen”?
The old hymn just is not the same when done as “At Cavalry”!
Could you imagine the parents of a young male Marine being assigned to this unit? It sounds like a death sentence for your son.
My nephew is a newly commissioned Lt in USMC. I pray to God he isn’t assigned to this social experiment.
They will get their asses experimentally kicked.
Rest assured, in all future conflicts, be they sea walls or mountains, they will be lowered to an acceptable height so that the women can get over them. Guns will be lighter, too.
Let them in the SEALs if they desire but don't change one iota of training.
No 'shame' if they wash out, many men do (as well as in Submarine Service, Special Forces, Airborne, Recon, Force Recon etc)
While realizing that ALL the features that came with UDT training may be outdated or outmoded today, it has to be DIFFICULT, mentally, intelligently and physically, not watered down so as to allow 'others' to join. You can't afford 'slackers' or dummys when in 'Indian Country' and it is just the 5 or 6 of you against thousands..You look out for each others back BUT you can't 'baby sit' them or hold their hand.(figuratively). The Black Guys in your outfit may not like being called 'N', the women(?) not like being called a 'C' or the 'do funnies' being called a 'CS' etc, if the enemy captures you that will be the least of your problems.
Also make sure the PYSCH test is VERY DIFFICULT.
If your tender 'ego' can't stand a pat on the rear, some one yelling at you, physical abuse in training, someone calling you dear, honey, baby, making sexual innuendos, then MAYBE, just MAYBE you are not ready to be captured by a hostile 'other guy' that is trying to kill you or obtain information from you or just wanted to screw you.
That standard should be a prerequisite for a MALE or FEMALE, as the bottom line (hostile 'other guy') is the same.
Like George C. Scott (as Gen Patton was quoted Maybe??) No man ever won a war by dying for his country. Wars were won by making the other poor bastard die for his.
Patton probably didn't say it BUT it is a good line.
Patton did say - and he had MANY gems
"You can't run an army without profanity; and it has to be eloquent profanity. An army without profanity couldn't fight its way out of a piss-soaked paper bag."
It’ll all be hypothetical, so don’t posit a worry.
Of course Patton did not realize he was actually offending God and worsening his chances. Many people scoff at godly virtue. But it wasn’t cussing that braved the lions.
But if Murphy is active in the vicinity and everybody has to get out and walk (or run, or fight their way home), she's going to be a hand-wringing liability.
PING
Maybe 25% casualty rates are acceptable these days.
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.