Women in Combat? Why?

You're not tracking with me. Nobody doubts those women were raped, but is a rape victim going to be untraumatized if the perp is a gorilla rather than a man?

You said it "didn't really bother them", but your quote indicates otherwise, since no one can be said to be untraumatized who is enraged at the victimizers.

 

I never said the Germans weren't traumatized. I'm saying that the Soviet soldiers who systematically raped millions of German women at the end of WWII did so largely because they didn't view the German's as regular people. The Germans raped and pillaged their way through Russia (20 million dead) and showed no respect for human life. The Soviets fought a bitter war for survival and when they were finally in the position to crush the Germans they took revenge. The nature of the conflict on the Eastern front was such that terrible war crimes were committed in mass without a second thought. It was tit for tat. It got so bad in Berlin that Soviet authorities had to restrict Russian troops to their barracks because no matter how many orders they posted prohibiting it, the Soviet troops still continued to assault German women.

 

Yes you did. You said the German women weren't bothered by the rape because they considered the rapists subhuman; and if you're not bothered by something, you're sure as hell not traumatized by it either.

 

Read my post again:

"They(Soviets) said it didn't bother them really because they viewed the Germans as sub-human."

I didn't say anything about German women not being bothered by it. I said the Soviets weren't bothered by raping the German women because they didn't really see them as people.

 

OK, I didn't pick up on "Germans", but the the preceding two sentences made it look like "women" was the referent of "they".

 

OK, you were talking about the Soviet women's account of the rape of the German women. My mistake.

 

It's all good. I'm glad we can be civil about a simple misunderstanding.

 

So, you are one of those that think women are all sweet and nice, sugar and spice-LOLOLOLOL. women can be just as mean, vicious, evil nasty and murderous as men, get used to the idea, you may have to live with them in a few years. Or, hmm, seeing some of your remarks, maybe not, lol.

 

you are so amazing!

 

Light infantry is very important because the mechanized infantry can't get into some of the places that the light infantry can and the heavy infantry do not have the mobility of light infantry. So, having mobility is essential for speed and surprise and because the light infantry has more mobility and can get into places (and also operate in terrain that mechanized infantry cannot) the mechanized infantry can't, light infantry plays a key role for winning wars.

 

I don't know how the topic got sidetracked, but I read that 1 in 10 German women
who were raped by Soviet soldiers, committed suicide.

Needless to say there was a lot of hatred on both sides of the coin.

Both regarded one another as sub-human, but the German zeitgeist of the time
was that unless a person was of pure Aryan blood, they were to be subjegated
by the master race.

 

We do not agree. Infantry is needed for clean-up, and police work, not for winning wars.

 

The role of Infantry is simple. To close with and destroy the enemy.

 

Sadly, there are too many people in this country today that think like that. They believe it is more important for a military to be politically correct than to be effective.

Political correctness is a cancer. It distorts priorities, arranging them in order of what feels best to what feels worst as opposed to what is healthiest to what is most detrimental.

 

The infantry is the main ground combat force and the backbone of the Army;
therefore their importance to waging and ultimately winning a war should be obvious.

I don't know why the debate keeps drifting from it's central point...
Infantry jobs are currently closed to women...

The question is, should women be allowed to serve in the infantry.
Main arguments against include the physicality of the job and
the detrimental effect on unit cohesion.

Those in favor of allowing women into the infantry should argue for reasons
other than discussing the overall importance of the infantry; which is just
a sidetrack from the main point.

So I ask those in favor of allowing women in the infantry, what are your arguments
in support of that statement.

 

I think the importance of Infantry is very releveant to this discussion. Allowing women into combat could (I think would) reduce the efficiency of this very important component of the U.S. military. Also, tom is so far off the mark he has to be straightened out.....if for no other reason than to ensure no one else accidentally thinks he's right.

 

I don't buy into the argument on the basis of inferrance.
Women can currently pilot and crew combat aircraft in the Air Force (U.S.).

An inferrance can be made by the statement that air power is non-essential
therefore women can be allowed into non-essential combat roles.

In previous posts, I've provided historical precedence of the value of air power.
For example, air power destroyed as much 50% - 60% of Saddam's forces in Gulf War I...
citing Brig. General Scales book entitled "Certain Victory: The U.S. Army in the Gulf War."

This was in fact a plan of action instituted by then CENTCOM commander Gen. Schwarzkopf. The air war began a full month before ground forces were engaged.
These are historical facts collaborated by after action reports. Air power was essential
to victory.

My point is, that women are allowed in air combat elements that are as equally essential
to success on the battlefield as the ground combat elements. Taking OIF and OEF
out of their historical context and making the claim that (paraphrasing) "only infantry matters"...is somewhat fallacious.

Mark my words Afghanistan and Iraq (Gulf War II) will fade into oblivion like any other war and will be replaced by other conflicts....because the burden in currently placed
on ground elements now does not mean that this is a precursor to all future conflicts.

The only real argument of any merit is the physicality requirements in direct ground combat...and that's a valid argument.

I don't think making a qualitative statement like "the infantry is too important" to
inculcate politically correct affirmative action programs is valid; when the bottom line
should not be the value of said combat force...but the ability to do the job a
sailor, soldier, Marine and airman is tasked with.

That's all that matters, can a woman do the job as an equal to any man...regardless
of the job's overall importance to the scope of waging a war...as the scope
changes as the conflict changes. Future conflicts may place less emphasis and less
burden on ground forces...who is to say. All contingencies should be planned for.

A woman can fly a combat aircraft equal to a man...is a valid argument...
not "air power is irrelevant, therefore even if a woman is not equal to a man, it doesn't
matter as air power doesn't matter"...that's fallacious and shows a certain amount
hubris towards ground combat as the primary means to wage a war...historically invalid.

 

Piloting an Fighter is different than humping 100lbs through the mountains for days on end.

 

That's a valid point.

However Ignorance is Bliss, maybe not directly...but inferred that
infantry is too important to allow civilian policy like affirmative action programs
to be instituted.

It happened in the Air Force, women were allowed to pilot combat aircraft...
and no detriment has been seen as to the Air Force's ability to influence
the battlespace.

Why?

Because the physical nature of flying a combat aircraft is different from that of
an infantryman. I'm agreeing with that; just not an obtuse claim that infantry
is vastly more important as an element of waging a war.

I don't buy that statement, it's certainly not supported by the minimum ASVAB (AFQT)
scores that 11Bravo MOS allows. It's typically lower than most support jobs
the Air Force offers. The physical standards are typically much higher as the
the job is much more physical...but I don't see a correlation with mental standards..and
if infantry was indeed "all that matters" I'd think the requirements for that MOS would
be higher than any other occupation the military engages in..higher minimum requirements in all aspects.
and there's no evidence that 11Bravo offers the highest requirements as compared to other occupations.

Physicality is the only discerning attribute that is essential that would prevent a woman from doing the job;
and I'm agreeing with that. Women simply aren't strong enough.

 

Well then we are in agreement.

A very high majority of women just can't cut it physically, and the costs in trying to find few who can are just way to much.

 

I am pretty sure this agreement was made 80 pages ago.

 

Haha, yeah....probably right.

 

I think women should be permitted to serve in all combat arms fields. I know some women that would make fine officers and enlisted personnel in the infantry and other combat arms field. If a woman wishes to serve in any combat arms field and can meet the professional standards required, women should be given a fair shake and permitted to serve. Now, some men might view this unfavorably or "dishonorable" but the only dishonor and shame is not offering a fair shake and opportunity to those women who can meet the standard and who wish to serve in combat arms field. If women are permitted in all combat arms field, then all personnel should be held to professional standards of their conduct as written in military law and regulation. Military personnel are held to a higher standard in all aspects of conduct and professionalism. There is no place for misplaced masculinity or jingoism in the military. True professional soldiers train hard, offer a fair shake to everybody to prove themselves, hold themselves to a higher standard, are smart, modest and never allow arrogance or misplaced jingoism to get in the way of fighting and winning wars. Arrogance or misplaced jingoism simply gets people killed in combat.

 

I misspoke. I meant women in "infantry/ground combat." I've made my opinion about women's ability to do every other job in the military quite clearly in previous posts.

I'm not doubting airpower's importance in war. It can clearly be a game changer. I'm saying that in the end against any determined foe you need boots on the ground.

 

So you see nothing dishonorable about using the military to promote a political agenda with no concern for the effect on battle readiness? Really??

How on Earth can masculinity ever be misplaced, other than in women?