Women in Combat? Why? (Part II)

If 1/100 females pass the requirements, think of how much money is lost to training the other 99 who failed.

Pregnancy.

 

I have to kind of chuckle at this...

"The key question is not what is best for the individual, but what is best for the unit and the military as a whole"

I've heard this argument many times.

In 2007, 9,000 recruits needed moral waivers in order to be allowed to enlist.

Gang members have been known to infiltrate the military with both waivers and fradulent records...why?

Because the Army was desperate for volunteer recruits..they lowered their standards for a period of years. Where was the outcry then?

"what is best for the unit and the military as a whole"

It's a horse(*)(*)(*)(*) argument....when the Army gets desperate enough, they take warm bodies and little else.

 

Of course. The Germans took old men and young boys at the end. That doesn't mean that in 1938 they didn't enlist mostly 18-25 year old males for combat arms.

 

You've issued nothing but contempt for grunts yourself. Your snide remarks about $800 rifles, warm bodies, AH-64s, and low ASVAB scores are a perfect example. The only difference with Wezol and I is that we haven't been openly discrediting anyone, as you directly have. I could take the time and find half a dozen or more places where you discredited Infantry. Your comments have fit perfectly with the elitist technological/officer role stereotype. It's strange too, because I spent a lot of time with our BN's air officers and they seemed to be some of the most laid back down to earth officers I knew. Those FA-18/Cobra pilots fit right in with us stupid, 800 dollar rifle carrying, warm bodies.

 

As Wezol said, it costs a ton more to train a tiny minority of women to become Infantry/Combat arms.

Segregation didn't involve sexuality. Race tends to go quickly out the door when you're in a combat zone. People get judged on their abilites in those situations rather than the color of their skin. In contrast, in close quarters sexual attraction and emotional attraction tends to intensify a lot more. See the difference?

We didn't mention upper body strength because you said what would be the issue IF women could meet all male standards. If you want some info on the physical side of things here you go.

Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces (report date November 15, 1992)

 

Let us not forget how I get shat on when I do not live up to Herkdriver's Tebowesque standards.

 

Oh really...

so you didn't diminish this gentlemen's service?

Pardon my French..but how the (*)(*)(*)(*) do you know what that man's service record is?
You write off his comment with a sweeping generalization.

He could be a Vietnam combat veteran for all you know...

So pot meet kettle....

You come across like a know it all punk to me on these boards quite frankly...
since we're being blunt.

I've never seen you once thank anyone for their service...just your war story anecdotes...
patting yourself on the back....so let's just be blunt...

So fine, you know a few Marine aviators who are just so "regular" guys...

The combat veterans who I know aren't braggarts...as you appear to be...so back atcha hypocrite.

Somebody disagrees with you and you diminish their service...that's your modus operandi.



.

 

I wasn't talking about "his" service record. I was referring to his insistence about always obeying regulations and his comments that Infantry somehow thought they were above the law. You'll also see I used "many" SNCOs, not "ALL". I also included Infantry SNCOs within my broad sweeping comment. So it had nothing to do with the grunts/non-grunt argument. And although in responding to his comment it may seem I was assigning him to said SNCOs I was mentioning, I wasn't. I don't know what his service record is or that he's even a SNCO. I don't know enough about him to ever make comments personally about him. I was saying that his attitude on regs seemed to be very similar to one shared by "many" SNCOs that I hold in contempt.

Your opinion on me as a "know it all" is just that. I always try and back up my comments with facts, and if proven wrong, do my best to admit it. I generally find that "know it alls" refuse to acknowledge when their wrong. You seem to take these discussions too personally. I think you somehow think that when I mention the world of Infantry or seem to glorify it, I'm doing it at the expense of all other military specialties. I assure I'm not. If you read closely I never directly disparage any job or profession, though I may occasionally joke about living situations and what not. Infantry is all that I know, so its what I talk about.

What war stories have I told? When I have ever talked about my personal exploits on the battefield? When have I claimed I've done something glorious? All my little stories here usually relate to Wezol, Etheral and other guys who were in similar places. They're about MREs, sleeping conditions, training etc; Not kill counts, medals, or dick measuring competitions. Even Gov, a high speed figher pilot who probably calculates indefinite integrals in her head and doodles secant lines on her cockpit window, can relate to many of them.

You're right, I don't thank many veterans on the board for their service. For me, its a bit cheesy. I prefer to thank them by contributing to run for home base, attending fallen hero dinners, and advocating for student veterans in my city. I think helping someone get into college is doing a lot more than saying thank you on an annoyonmous online board. (Don't take that as an affront to your choice to do so, I don't doubt you help veterans in other ways too.) If you think that makes me a "punk" then so be it.

You seem to be fighting with everyone in this thread Herk. I don't understand why. I really go out of my way to NOT disparage any one individual, and any criticisms I make of any group are by no means all encompassing.

 

So you're a figher pilot, a snake eater, AND a football fan? What the hell. I hope you have an extremely effeminate brother. I'm concerned the world might be out of whack.

 

My father was in the infantry in WWII. I realize I'm 47 and that seems a fabrication but I was born when he was in his late 30's. He was drafted at 18 in '44 and after basic training and advanced infantry training he was on his way to the frontlines with an M1 in hand to the Ardennes. 75th Infantry...replacements. Not grizzled war veterans like many of the guys...just a young naive kid. Not a war hero by any means, just a reluctant soldier who did not flinch in the face of combat...he did his service, and moved on. He instilled in me a great respect for all those who serve but in particular the Infantry. That's what I grew up with. Not the exploits of a glamorous fly boy. A dog face grunt, as he referred to them.

Now I may, on occasion, come across like a dickhead in here and say things that can interpreted as contempt towards groundpounders..but at my core I have a great deal of respect for those young men...my service...was dedicated to supporting them. Airlift in one facet or another. I've also said that many times in here, you just choose to pick and select out of nearly 13,000 posts I've made in here...most of which...aren't even military related. In fact most of which aren't even serious in nature.

 

I think what appeals to me about the Infantry is the common man attitude. I showed up to my fleet unit with a 90 something ASVAB score. I was surrounded by a lot of guys who barely passed high school and couldn't write an articulate, grammar-free paragraph. I thought I'd be an all-star.

I was very quickly humbled. I learned that "intelligence" comes in many forms; That Jim-bob from Tennesse could field strip a machine gun he'd never touched in one try, or that Sergeant Jaurez from inner-city LA could fine tune 12 other Marines and make them follow him into hell without any "team building" excersises or motto speechs. Then there's heart and toughness. Inherent athletic or intellectual abilites that are quantified and admired by society at large, have a nasty tendency to fail under pressure and distress. I'd take heart, determination, and common sense over innate ability any day. Of course many military professions live with similar realities, but in my opinion, none as much as the Infantry, which defines itself completely by such intangible metrics.

My point here is that everyone knows figher pilots and crypto analysts are smart; That officer training is extremely difficult, and that regulations should be followed. What I'm trying to get at is that little intangible cultural aspect of Infantry that can't be quantified. This is what makes grunts so thick-headed and proud. Its why they have such a "nasty" culture that is one of the roadblocks to women serving in Infantry. That's what I've been trying to get at. When you just look at the debate in pure numbers you're completely boiling away this vital part of infantry culture and not considering the whole argument.

I understand that everyone does their part. I know the MREs and ammo that got dropped in front of me didn't come from thin air, that the intel we operated on and the medical treatment we got came from someone else, and that everyone has done their part and accepted danger. I apologize if I came off as arrogant.

 

I apologize also....and piloting doesn't require extraordinary intelligence, mainly a good memory under pressure...if I appear as "elitist"...that's not who I am in real life. I've posted my photo in here before, I look much closer to Joe "six-pack" average than a squared away dude. I'm sorry if I come across as anything that would reflect poorly on my peers. Above all, I don't want to do that.

We're all on the same team! Good natured ribbing goes along with the territory...perhaps I do take the conversation too seriously at times and read more into it than is there.

 

That seems pretty definitive to me--and, to be honest, I never thought it was a good idea--but the fact remains this will happen. The politically correct crowd will see to it. Perhaps the only reason it hasn't so far would be the simple facts of the situation. But common sense rarely intercedes where politics are involved. The "least gender barrier" and all that nonsense.

So how do you see it playing out?

 

Definitive?

Quotes were shown from a 1992 report, that's almost 20 years ago.


Here's something more recent...http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub830.pdf

Women in Combat Compendium published by Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College in 2008

I haven't read it in it's entirety, therefore can't provide a definitive narrative or conclusion.
I have provided Quotes from the study that are interesting in terms of ending the ban.

Listing of the contents.

I. USAWC Women in Combat Survey Interpretation
Christopher Putko .........................................................................................................1
II. The DoD Combat Exclusion Policy: Time for a Change?
Jimmie O. Keenan …………………….......................................................................21
III. The Combat Exclusion Policy in the Modern Security Environment
Michelle M. Putko …………………….......................................................................27
IV. Impact of Revising the Army’s Female Assignment Policy
Mark R. Lindon ……………………...........................................................................37
V. Women Leaders In Combat: One Commander’s Perspective
Paul L. Grosskruger ……………………...................................................................43
VI. Leading Soldiers on Today’s Battlefield: Considerations on Contributions
and Challenges of the Integration and Role of Soldiers Who Are Women
Katherine M. Cook ……………………......................................................................53
VII. The 95th Military Police Battalion Deployment to Iraq—Operation
IRAQI FREEDOM II
Randall E. Twitchell ……………………...................................................................69
VIII. How the Army Can Meet the Intent of Policy and Statute
on Ground Combat Exclusion for Women
Robert J. Botters ……………………..........................................................................71

 

In November 2003, Army Chief of Staff Peter Schoomaker demonstrated his
commitment with the comment:
No longer is a soldier’s value measured by how close he or she is to the front line─there are no front
lines on today’s battlefield. Every soldier is a warrior; every soldier has to embody not only the Army
Values every day but take to heart the soldier’s Creed and, most specifically right now, the Warrior
Ethos that will be around that soldier’s neck and lived by soldiers every day

Not to toot my own horn, but basically that's all I've been saying...
women are already exposed to direct ground combat....lifting the ban will legitimize their service. The lift on the ban does not necessarily equate to women filling up the ranks in the combat arms. They would still have to pass the training and meet the necessary qualifications. Lifting the ban, or at minimum altering the policy...will allow commanders to utilize their skill sets to full advantage and this includes females. Women would be allowed to be on the front lines right along with men, but with different skill sets perhaps. Let's face it also..as the study I provided earlier indicates...the "front line" does not exist in asymmetrical warfare. Women are, for all intents and purposes already serving in direct combat.

There is no such thing as a rear echelon mother ....well you get the picture.

The Army has already had a policy in the past to alter it's moral and educational standards to allow primarily male enlistees in.
They raised the maximum age of enlistment from 35 to 42.

They've already sacrificed some levels of professionalism and standards to meet the enlistment quotas...in this modern era of an ALL VOLUNTARY military, it's absurd to think that they would allow someone of dubious moral character into the ranks, or below educational standards...and then claim that women would have a severe negative impact on the unit level...

"Folks might die because of it"

It's absurd to me...
but hey...I'm done with this thread...other folks can discuss it...I'm done with the topic.

 

I generally agree that they could modify the restriction. Females just shouldn't be allowed to be permanently attached to direct combat elements. No one disputes that the front lines are all over the place, but there's still a vast difference between infantry operations and other operations. Getting ambushed in a convoy, suppressing the enemy, and pushing through the kill zone to accomplish the mission is certainly combat, but it's not the same as going out looking for the enemy every day and directly closing with him. Its a big distinction, and one that most people wouldn't understand.

Direct ground combat is defined as taking deliberate offensive actions against the enemy while under fire. The vast majority of support units who are in "combat" don't deliberately go after the enemy.

Also, in the past year or two recruiting restrictions have become a lot more strict. I've heard several OCS candidates say that in some cases they won't even accept ANY waivers.

 

I wouldn't mumble it under my breath. I'd say it to his face, then slap him on the back and buy him a beer.

Sh*t-talking is just part of the grunt personality. We talk sh*t about everything. PFT scores, ASVAB scores, uniforms, medals and ribbons, service stripes, commendations, girls, combat, everything. We can't help ourselves!

 

I have to disagree. There are "front lines", they're just not symmetric. The guy who sits on a FOB for seven months does not experience what the grunt does, not even close.

Do not think I am trying to denigrate the fobbit's service - dude has a job to do - but to suggest or imply that he's as close to the battle as a grunt is just absurd. They get air conditioning, showers, quality meals, clean bedding, video games, DVDs, satellite TV, etc. They're on a vacation compared to the grunt. When they have to stay up for five days straight filling sandbags and going without a shower for six weeks, then they can talk about "front lines". And I'm not asking for any special recognition - our generation ain't sh*t compared to the Marines who fought at the Chosin or in the Pacific - I'm just stating a fact. If the higher-ups don't like the facts, then they can suck it.

 

There are just some medals and awards that are not worth it. I see no shame in somebody who simply raised their right hand, took the oath, followed the lawful orders of their superiors and did their time. There is also no shame in being a fobbit. Some of the fobbits have been KIA by enemy action (suicide bombers, mortar, rocket attacks and enemy attacks on FOBs). The main thing is looking out for your fellow soldiers and doing your job. It's not about being a hero. It's about doing your job and doing your best to get your buddies and yourself home alive. That's it. Everybody is important in the service and nobody is any better than anybody else and everybody in the service took an oath.

 

Insurgencies are radically different from your 'average' war--there are no front lines to get behind. Combat is but an ambush away at any time. Nobody said anything about women not being involved in that combat; only that men are better at it in certain roles.

Frankly, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to fire a rifle. It does, however, take someone properly trained with the right physical attributes to consistantly perform on the battlefield, whether in hand-to-hand combat or simply rucking from point 'a' to point 'b.' The discussion as to women's participation is moot--we all know they're in the fight. The discussion as to mental ability is moot, as we all know they can and do kill whomever needs to be killed when it needs to happen. And we all know they execute their duties well, with courage under fire when required.

Discipline issues aside (and I would maintain that proper leadership and education would solve the discipline problems) it is only a question of pyshical ability to perform the task. There is no denying the average man is stronger than the average woman and there is little anyone can do to compensate for that. No amount of trianing is going to overcome that problem.

As far as 50 grunt and one women and the problems that would engender (no pun intended)--you want to be treated like professionals, act like it.

 

So how many people do you figure join the military thinking it's a bloodier version of the Olympics?

 

What is this? An interrogation? Who are you? This smells like a baiting question. Why are you trying to bait me using this kind of question? It's insulting. Try not to read too much into any statement. I wonder if you are projecting something in your interpretation of my statement.

 

Am I holding a gun to your head?

A US citizen.

Sounds like there might be a bug in your olfactory analysis software.

I submit that neither is it exactly respectful to falsely accuse someone of baiting when the question can so easily be answered straightforwardly and, AFAIK, without any self-incrimination.

I know the feeling.

 

I agree. I just don't like it when people try to draw an equivalence between grunts and non-grunts. The guy who played XBOX for seven months in the FOB was not on the "front lines", sorry. If they're truly proud of their service, then there's no need for them to sex it up by embellishing what they did in country.

 

I agree. Nobody should misrepresent their service and it's disrespectful to do so. Not all Fobbits played XBOX either. Some had to defend the FOBs from enemy attacks and VBIEDs and protect from suicide bombers. It's a serious job and everybody depends on each other to do their part so that hopefully everybody gets home alive.

Infantry has a very rough life, a tough and very important job. You can't win wars without the infantry. However, I also show respect to non infantry as well as everybody has an important job and everybody depends on each other. To me, before anything else, soldiers fight for each other first.