Women in Front Line Combat

[CodyTeti 0]

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has authorized women to serve in combat roles in the
military. Good idea or bad idea? Will it impair the effectiveness of the fighting troops?
Or will it enhance effectiveness? Is is just a move for social experimentation which puts
the lives of troops at risk?

[aphid 0]

Quote

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has authorized women to serve in combat roles in the military. Good idea or bad idea?

"Canada has allowed women into all military trades, including combat arms, for 22 years."

http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/930155--u-s-to-allow-women-into-combat-a-move-canada-made-decades-ago

"One of the people who reportedly had input in the US decision was Major Eleanor Taylor of the Royal Canadian Regiment as she was was the only woman to lead a NATO combat unit in Afghanistan."

http://www2.canada.com/saskatoonstarphoenix/news/world/story.html?id=b076ddf2-1189-4e43-889c-7f62425cfaed

ETA: "American women often served with distinction in combat during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet despite the fact that more than 800 of them were maimed and more than 130 of them were killed in firefights or by homemade landmines while on patrol, they did not technically serve in combat units because this was officially forbidden."

[billvon 2,400]

>Good idea or bad idea?

Neither. Just a good option for a woman to have.

>Will it impair the effectiveness of the fighting troops?

Not any more than allowing blacks or gays to serve alongside everyone else did. There will surely be problems between some women and some men, just as there were problems for the other two groups. But those problems were worked out as they will be here.

>Is is just a move for social experimentation which puts the lives of troops at risk?

Again, no more so than allowing blacks to serve alongside whites was "social experimentation." It was just the right thing to do.

[quade 3]

Except in this case it's not a future "right thing to do"; it's history.

We've been doing it for about a decade. We're just now acknowledging it so they can get some credit for their combat service.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Gravitymaster 0]

If you were severely wounded, lying in a foxhole, would you rather rely on a 95lb woman or a 200 male to drag you to safety?

[billvon 2,400]

>If you were severely wounded, lying in a foxhole, would you rather rely on a 95lb
>woman or a 200 male to drag you to safety?

In Speaker's Corner world? If that 200lbs was all fat, I'd rely on the chick - because she would have had to prove herself far more than the couch potato would have, and will be stronger overall.

In the real world? I'd rely on whoever was next to me, no matter what their sex, size, race, religion or sexual orientation. So would you.

[Gravitymaster 0]

That wasn't my question.

[promise5 17]

I just think most guys would take more responsibility and greater risk to protect a girl then a guy. Also,women in combat and captured have a greater chance of being not only tortured but raped as a form of torture. I don't think guys have that added threat.

No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible.
Believe me I tried.

[Bolas 5]

Quote

That wasn't my question.

You must be new here...

I have no issue with anyone being allowed to serve in combat, just as long as everyone meets the same criteria, which is currently not the case.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[Arvoitus 1]

Have you been in any sort of armed service?

IMO there is a massive difference between fighting alongside a black/gay man then there is to do it with a woman. My experience is only from non-combat service and can only imagine what would happen in a stressful combat situation but I don't personally think that it is a good idea to mix men and women in active duty combat situations. If women want to serve let them but keep them separate from men as much as it is practical.

Your rights end where my feelings begin.

[davjohns 1]

Quote

I just think most guys would take more responsibility and greater risk to protect a girl then a guy. Also,women in combat and captured have a greater chance of being not only tortured but raped as a form of torture. I don't think guys have that added threat.

Wow! You jumped right to it.

Generally, dragging you to safety isn't much of an issue. And with all the gear we wear today, it's hard for anyone to do.

However, America will have to prepare itself. Two women were captured in Shield / Storm. It was covered up for years, but guess what happened to both?

Males are going to get manipulated. It happens in the military all of the time. Romantic relationships are going to come into play. Males will die for a female faster than for another male (minimal, but there). All of these will work themselves out over time.

The biggest issue is the increased danger to the woman. Move slower - make a better taret - die. Get captured - have a vagina - get raped.

America is going to have to live with the reports one day. I'm not ready for it. But I will learn to accept it. It had to happen.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Remster 24]

Quote

America is going to have to live with the reports one day

America has already been having to deal with it since women have been acting on the front line in support roles for 2 wars now.

Remster

[winsor 186]

Quote

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has authorized women to serve in combat roles in the
military. Good idea or bad idea? Will it impair the effectiveness of the fighting troops?
Or will it enhance effectiveness? Is is just a move for social experimentation which puts
the lives of troops at risk?

James Webb was asked about women in combat, and I liked his answer. He was fine with the idea until after spending time in the Marines in combat in Vietnam.

When it was pointed out that the physical training standards had to be lowered in order for a sufficient percentage of women to pass muster, he noted that training for touch football does not do much good if you are going up against the Green Bay Packers.

There are, of course, women that would be picked in the first round if you wanted someone to cover your six in bad guy territory. They can walk farther carrying more in worse conditions than their male counterparts, and can hit anything they can see with whatever weapon is available.

OTOH, there are also guys who look like buff studs, but are completely useless after a couple of weeks in freezing rain without hot food or dry socks, and are found quivering in the fetal position at the bottom of a foxhole when things start going "bang."

Combat is, by its very nature, an insane environment. People who would likely get along famously under other circumstances endeavor to turn each other into rotting hamburger - not a well adjusted line of work. Training people to survive in this combat has historically been as cruel, capricious and unforgiving as the job description warrants.

If I have to jump behind enemy lines with a group of people, I really do not care about their sexuality. I do, however, want to know the each and every one of them had to pass a set of very unforgiving standards to be there in the first place.

If a woman can schlep a full compliment of field gear day in and day out and function in a world of carnage, she's cut out for the Infantry. Not everybody is.


BSBD,

Winsor

[davjohns 1]

Quote

Quote

America is going to have to live with the reports one day

America has already been having to deal with it since women have been acting on the front line in support roles for 2 wars now.

It wasn't reported immediately. It was suppressed until much later, when nobody was paying attention. That will not be the case in the future.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[wmw999 2,122]

Quote

If a woman can schlep a full compliment of field gear day in and day out and function in a world of carnage, she's cut out for the Infantry. Not everybody is.

Nailed it, right there.

And if, for some reason, the standards are changed, they'd damn well better be changed for both men and women.

And those women who are noticeably impacted by menstruation (i.e. who don't function well when they're on their period?). Yeah, that makes you less qualified for infantry.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Gravitymaster 0]

I agree. Keep the standards where they currently are. If a woman wants to go into a combt unit and can pass the physical and mental requirements. then let her do it.

With this latest "advancement" for women, should they now be required to register for the draft?

[davjohns 1]

I think the change in standards that I saw was a poster saying they should raise the standards for women. Currently, women are not required to do as many pushups, situps or run as fast in the Army as the males. It seems if there is one enemy, there should be one standard; whatever that standard might be. There has been talk of making the test more functional. Infantry would be tested on 3-5 second rush like in combat, speed of reloading, ruck march, etc. Always made sense to me.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

I agree. Keep the standards where they currently are. If a woman wants to go into a combt unit and can pass the physical and mental requirements. then let her do it.

With this latest "advancement" for women, should they now be required to register for the draft?

Absolutely. Actually, I've held that opinion since the days of the Vietnam War. Get rid of the college deferments, and get rid of the exclusions for gender. If there's going to be mandatory national service, it should be truly universal, and absolutely gender-neutral. (MOS can and should be a separate issue once they're out of boot camp.)

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

And those women who are noticeably impacted by menstruation (i.e. who don't function well when they're on their period?). Yeah, that makes you less qualified for infantry.

OK, now I'm confused. I thought blind rage and unremitting hostility was an asset in combat.

[wmw999 2,122]

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[davjohns 1]

Quote

Quote

And those women who are noticeably impacted by menstruation (i.e. who don't function well when they're on their period?). Yeah, that makes you less qualified for infantry.

OK, now I'm confused. I thought blind rage and unremitting hostility was an asset in combat.

Only if you can drop them behind enemy lines so there is no damage to friendly forces.

There was an SNL piece once where a female US President was ordering invasion of countries that pissed her off...at 28 day intervals. It was hysterical.

ETA: Found it http://youtu.be/R3HK_rwFUHs

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

If you were severely wounded, lying in a foxhole, would you rather rely on a 95lb woman or a 200 male to drag you to safety?

If you're in a foxhole, you're in a defensive position with others all around you and probably in the spot you wouldn't want to be dragged from until it's secure.

Second - picture more like a 135 pound woman. Or a 150 pound woman. It's more of what we see.

Third - they've done a fantastic job so far in combat so far.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

If you were severely wounded, lying in a foxhole, would you rather rely on a 95lb woman or a 200 male to drag you to safety?

If you're in a foxhole, you're in a defensive position with others all around you and probably in the spot you wouldn't want to be dragged from until it's secure.

Second - picture more like a 135 pound woman. Or a 150 pound woman. It's more of what we see.

Third - they've done a fantastic job so far in combat so far.

All you have done is twist my question to one that better suits your thinking.

So lets try it another way. Suppose you are on patrol with a 135lb woman and you weigh 265lbs. You get wounded by a sniper but are still alive as long as you can get medical treatment within 15 minutes. Would you rather have a 135lb woman to drag you to safety of a 220lb male?

Why not just answer the question instead of twisting it? (I know you lawyers like to do that but this isn't a Court)

[wmw999 2,122]

I would rather have the person who's motivated drag me to safety, whether it's a (larger than average) 220-lb male, or the (average) 135-lb female. Since I'm not much heavier than those 135 lbs, it really doesn't make much difference for me.

If they're in the job, then they've qualified themselves, hopefully including some sort of drag-your-buddy-to-safety test.

If we base it on weight, then all those scrawny little guys gotta go, too.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[davjohns 1]

In a combat situation today, you are only going to drag anyone a few feet to a covered position. The body armor has a handle at the top rear for that purpose. So do backpacks. It's really not that much of a problem. First aid is provided on the spot by your buddy. Medics will get to you at some point. There is no fireman carry for a mile to the medics like in WWII. It's possible, but not frequent.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.