Women in combat discussion continues
Our buddy, Rowan Scarborough at the Washington Times writes this morning that the Pentagon is having a little trouble trying to decide whether or not they’re going to allow women in direct combat roles in the military.
ArmyGen. Raymond T. Odierno, a Joint Chiefs member, has gone on record as saying he wants some restrictions lifted. He said he disagreed with the Army’s report, which was completed before he became chief and was submitted to Mr. Panetta. It apparently recommends the status quo.
On the WUSA-TV program “This Week in Defense News,” Gen. Odierno said female intelligence and signal officers, for example, should be able to serve below the brigade level in combat battalions.
Gen. Odierno did not endorse women as infantry, armor or special operations soldiers in the interview. His spokeswoman declined to comment this week.
I think, since they’re so determined to put women in the same jobs as men, they’d be doing women a big favor by making PT standards the same for men and women. There are no bullets on the face of the planet that kill or wound differently based on sex and the standards have to be the same for wvwryone. I’ll grant that there are men who can’t meet the standards of their profession, but that is no excuse to treat women like poorly conditioned men.
I’m not saying that women should be excluded from amle duty positions completely, but they should be able to meet the same standard required of men, or be excluded.
However, having been involved with the military and training at the entry level, they are mostly willing to pass people to the next step despite soldiers’ abilities for politically expedient reasons – this is not acceptable when we’re talking about survival on the battlefield.
If the Army is willing to put women in combat, they have a responsibility to those women to insure they are prepared for combat operations. If they’re not willing to do that, then I recommend continuing the status quo.
Category: Military issues
I am not sure what the current PT standards are for the Air Force. But, up until 2004 or so, the toughest female standards were for an 18 year old female and those were easier than the standards for a 50 year old male…
All the current arguments for women in combat arms now revolve around the same fallacy that has plagued the military since the beginning of time. The arguments are in terms of the current conflict and not future ones. Anybody arguing for women in combat arms out there that can with 100% certainty tell me that all future conflicts will be like the current war on terror will win me over. Just like the budget battle for defense. The arguments are always made in the here and now without a look to the future.
While we’re at it, let’s raise the emlistment age ceiling for men. As a matter of fact, when we do that we can have a separate PT standard based upon age. But I don’t think that will be needed, though. Many 40 or 50 or 60-something males can pass the female PT test. Heck, some can easily pass the male PT test.
I’m all in favor of letting the women pull the enemy’s hair and scratch his eyes out.
It makes sense that all be held to the same standard. My only objection to women in combat roles would be that most of ladies I met in my time in the service were pure evil, so it might raise some tough moral questions when they engage the enemy.
Are we really back to this discussion, again? I’m not talking here on the blog, but rather another attempt by the media to throw it against the wall and see if it will stick, this time.
The argument about PT standards, that gets brought up by those that think it is a measure of favorable combat readiness, isn’t enough to sway anyone, and if it does, then the people using it as the standard for admission aren’t being honest about what all is entailed, as has been argued quite extensively already.
Long ago in my youth, I asked my parents why women weren’t allowed in combat roles. I remember my Mom said she thought it was because those in charge were well aware that if you get a woman REALLY angry, say in a pitched battle where buddies or civilians were being threatened or killed, that no “rules of engagement” would deter a woman from going full mama grizzly; and that nothing short of complete annihilation of the enemy – or being killed in the attempt – would end it.
Remembering look on my dad’s face when she said that cracks me up to this day.
Hell, I say let’s let them in, but let them in 100%. If they want to be infantry, that’s fine, but its an entire battalion of females. That way its not a sprinkling of women in a male unit that only get buy because we’re stuck carrying more of the crap she should be. A who bat. of females will have to do exactly what a bat. of men are required to do and if they can’t, we disband the lot and shut this argument up forever.
Yeah, well, here we go again!
I just don’t get it. We already require specific aptitude sorts of tests for different jobs. (Yeah, I know that some very smart people have served as pot scrubbers. The mental standards are for minimum required. As they should be.) Why the hesitancy to apply the same routine to the physical requirement to do a job, any job?
I can even live with having a tougher than is actually needed standard which takes into account that folks physical capabilites will deteriorate some with age and just build that into the standard. That would cover the probability that a 45 yr old is likely to run slower than the new recruit, but still fall within the actual requirements to get the job done.
It’s really not complicated. Figure out the requirements (physical and mental) for the job, then apply them. To everyone.
>That way its not a sprinkling of women in a male unit that only get buy because we’re stuck carrying more of the crap she should be
LOL– And that sums it up right there-why I could never go to combat. I just don’t know how to pack light. For a weekend trip, I pack two suitcases.. Yeppers, please men carry my bags for me 🙂
I’m all in favor of letting the women pull the enemy’s hair and scratch his eyes out.
Faggots have that covered now that DADT is gone.
I find it interesting that this is coming up now as more women are receiving the CAB in Iraq. Drivers, Medics, and other “female” positions are becoming the newest front-line because of Iraq.
Hell, one of my friends got the Purple Heart when her convoy came under attack and she had to un-ass her Deuce and a half when it was soft-killed from an IED. A five minute firefight with her scoring three kills. That was more than the full load of 11-Bozos she was carrying.
@12: No one is saying that women can’t engage the enemy in a firefight. That has been proven many times. The issue is the time in between engagements when the “11-Bozos” are humping their way through their patrol area with full rucks, protective gear, and weapons. Your friend was in a deuce and a half when it was ambushed. That doesn’t lessen her actions when attacked, but it does show the difference when going house to house and on long patrols with all your gear on foot. There have been a couple of female MPs that have been awarded medals for combat while on convoy security and they deserved them. It’s the day to day stuff that the infantry types go through that wears on the body.
The big lie continues! Could they hack Dak To, Chosin Reservior, Anzio etc…?
Wow, I guess nobody told them… When we were in Iraq (04-05) I worked with a LOT of Females who went out everyday. Army, National Guard, Army Reserves and NAVY!!! On convoys they were drivers, truck & team commanders, gunners and team members for what we did.
As far as how brave they were, if they were men, I’d say they had big balls. Ther was one M1114 that usually had a female driver and the SECFOR team leader was female…I always reguested them when I had missions in their AO because they were some of the best!!!
Could women do the stuff I did when I was a grunt and combat engineer…of course they could.
When chicks can complete the TCGST and load HEAT and SABOT, let them in. Of course they also have to master the “pissing in a bottle” skill for when you just can’t stop for a potty break
John, I actually agree with you. I always ensured that I passed the APFT by male standards. I am a Soldier – whether male or female shouldn’t matter when I’m doing a job. If I wanted to be infantry, I would demand I be treated exactly the same as men! Lives depend on it.
With all the non 11 series being in combat is it not time to standardize all the tests to combat arms levels.
How will women make up for the lack of testosterone that helps a lot in the last 25 meters of the “close with” portion of the mission? When the adrenaline flood puts you into overdrive and time slows down and you just react without much thought.
There’s a whole other aspect to this debate that doesn’t even get discussed for the most part: unit cohesion. I have never seen integrated units that did not have issues about who was sleeping with whom, who was getting preferential treatment from the hot new LT, and so on. Not to mention the “sexual harrassment” problem that is so rampent we have to watch videos on how it is bad. I have served in the infantry for my entire experience, so I comment on this as an outside observer, but an observer who worked closely with integrated MP units in Iraq. And frankly, it makes sense: take a bunch of people of opposite sexes, place them in close living conditions 6,000 miles from their spouses/significant others and boom, instant problems. Why is the military attempting to change nature in the name of political correctness? Here’s an idea: if women want to be in combat arms units so badly, institute segregated (all-male/all-female) units. It doesn’t solve the problem of physical ability, but it might go toward solving this one.
I read in a comment some time ago that if a muslim male is killed by a woman, especially a kuffar woman he cannot go to heaven. I don’t know if it is true, but if it is women on the battlefield could be a negative morale factor for the enemy.
May I volunteer to go to the front????
(Just kidding, guys! You’d not only have to carry my gear, but my person around. But #21’s idea alone sure makes me wish I could go to sniper school.)
I’m not going to deny women have seen combat. But there is a big difference between taking an IED on the MSR and going on a 3 day patrol humping the korengal or living on an LP/OP for 15 months. Women cannot do it.
Like a previous poster said what about TCGST or BCGST? I’m currently a bradley gunner and dissasemble and assembling the 25 is a motherfucker. So I say no but fuck no. Combat Arms MOSs especially the grunts need to stay men only
You know I continue to agree on this one. The exception should not change the rule… and the woman who can out perform a man in THIS is the exception.
3 days.
#1 Arby, do you know the oldest enlistment age for the services? Air Force? Last I read the Air Force’s oldest enlistment age was 27. So a male age 50+ has at least 23+ years of service, knowledge, and experience proving himself as your theoretical 18 year old female who is likely several grades his junior. If she can’t outperform him physically then why is she in the service?
Arby, nevermind I read that wrong…it’s been that kinda of day.