Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Should women be allowed in combat roles?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Should women be allowed in combat roles?

    Currently, the US military, among other nations, dictates that women may not serve in ground combat roles. The conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have, however, seen a blurring between front and rear-line areas, with many women having fought in battle. Do you think that military policy should allow women to serve in ground combat roles, and why or why not?
    87
    Yes
    44.83%
    39
    No
    55.17%
    48
    "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

  • #2
    Why not?

    Females currently serve in MP Units; one, a reservist, won a Silver Star for her actions in a firefight in which her convoy was ambushed. They jump out of perfectly good airplanes, carry SAW's and M-203's. It is a violation of General Order Number one to "play" with them.
    J. J. Ogershok, Jr.

    Comment


    • #3
      God, what a controversy! Yes, apparently women have done many things men do, including combat, but that's a small population. For all practical purposes women have a role to play, that of being a mother and raising the children and physically and mentaly they are built to support this role. This is no mean or an inferior task. Man can not be complete without a woman. The children of those women who are not on this track suffer. This has to be accepted. There is lot at stake when a woman does not stick to this. No offence meant.

      Comment


      • #4
        I for one would be distracted looking after one, just the way I was brought up.

        Comment


        • #5
          A thorny issue, my friend...but a good question. I think when all is said and done, it doesn't boil down to questions of skill or bravery but rather of anatomy.

          Very capable, superbly trained young women are flying Cobra and Apache gunship support missions in OIF and OEF...FA18s off carriers...and performing with great courage and audacity in a number of high-risk jobs.

          But ask those of us who have humped (or yomped) a 100-pound ruck and full combat load over klicks of rough terrain, in sweltering heat or numbing cold, wet half the time, sleep deprived, snapping into sudden violent contacts with all the stress it entails...

          By the way, I answered "Yes" to the poll question, because they already are serving in combat roles...but my answer would be "No" if the question was "should women be allowed to serve as infantry or SOF troops."

          Surely, there are women out there who can bench-press more than many fit young men; certainly women equal men in courage and skill, probably surpass us in intellect ;)...But the physical demands of infantry and SOF work and the subtle influences and intrigues of nature with regard to opposite sexes living intimately together would make me opposed to the idea.
          Last edited by Red Seven; 19 Jan 09,, 15:18.

          Comment


          • #6
            Women in combat roles

            A touchy issue.

            A 'No' would have the pseudo feminists in arms while a 'Yes' would burden the vast majority of women who wouldn't even know of this debate brewing with the onerous task of living up to the impractical demands of a Military combat job.

            So i would go on to state the reason for my NO. I would be talking about my country's armed forces and not US's. Mine is a developing country with ethos entrenched in cryptic corners of our minds and weather one likes it or not, look at the womenfolk with gaze that's a mixture of condescending and lecherous designs.

            I speak here about the very highly educated who hold the reigns of higher echelons and not the undereducated Man of the ranks. And the situations as you would guess gets worse as the dealings get murkier in the quagmire of ground level situations.

            While i do believe that there exist women out there who can put the fittest of men to shame with their level of fitness, such cases are far and few between and are merely exceptions rather than the rule. And mind you, being a fit women doesn't immunise her from the meaningful gazes she has to learn living with.:confused

            Well, gloomy as it may sound, It's as true as the hypocrite in you wanting to peg me down for my rather politically incorrect view.

            Comment


            • #7
              I have very mixed feelings about this. I'm somewhat of a traditionalist in regard to women eg women and children first kind of mentality. To intentionally put them in the danger's way goes against the grain. But I voted yes solely based on can they perform the function, their freedom to choose, and the fact that Canada's army already does.

              Women in the army does does pose problems socially and supply wise. In addition they would in many cases face greater danger if they were captured. On the other hand modern weapons eliminate many of the disadvantages they faced in earlier times and even in those times women have been known to fight as found in some but not all Celtic tribes. Whatever the answer no comprimises should be made in regard to physical standards, this a matter of survival for both women and male soldiers who work with them. They should have to meet the same requirements as men.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Red Seven View Post
                A thorny issue, my friend...but a good question. I think when all is said and done, it doesn't boil down to questions of skill or bravery but rather of anatomy.

                Very capable, superbly trained young women are flying Cobra and Apache gunship support missions in OIF and OEF...FA18s off carriers...and performing with great courage and audacity in a number of high-risk jobs.

                But ask those of us who have humped (or yomped) a 100-pound ruck and full combat load over klicks of rough terrain, in sweltering heat or numbing cold, wet half the time, sleep deprived, snapping into sudden violent contacts with all the stress it entails...

                By the way, I answered "Yes" to the poll question, because they already are serving in combat roles...but my answer would be "No" if the question was "should women be allowed to serve as infantry or SOF troops."

                Surely, there are women out there who can bench-press more than many fit young men; certainly women equal men in courage and skill, probably surpass us in intellect ;)...But the physical demands of infantry and SOF work and the subtle influences and intrigues of nature with regard to opposite sexes living intimately together would make me opposed to the idea.
                I agree with you, Red Seven, especially after reading accounts of Marine and Infantry units' behavior before, during and after combat. Accounts like "One Bullet Away", "This Man's Army", "Generation Kill", and even "Love My Rifle More than You." Mixing the sexes together in an infantry battlefield environment would probably be detrimental to fighting efficiency. Its the before and after the combat that I think there would be problems.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I would have to say no. Or at least if they do, they should be held to the same standards of Physical conditioning that men are. How many women do you know of that could crry a full pack and TO weapon like my MK-19. This is a 64lb weapon, and that's without the tripod and cradle. I carried around 170 lbs of gear when we did our 27 mile macrest. I know a lot of you would argue that they could do other roles. But if one of my gunners dies I need someone that can do his job without question, without having to pick and chose who can do the job. The average wieght of the men in my platoon was 190lbs, and they had a hard time doing the job sometimes, and these were men who were conditioned to do the job. I just think that women put into a full combat role would be a liability that I wouldn't want.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Women in combat

                    Females shouldn't be subjected to potential combat in the military due to the same reasons "women and children" were allowed off the Titanic "first."

                    That social concept is still prevalent in society, as you might have noted recently when an Airbus 320 landed in the Hudson River, and women and children got out first.

                    In combat, that same idea (women first) is grossly unfair to men, as now they not only have to think about themselves and their unit in a fight...but they are expected to defer to the "ladies" in the scrum too! Blah!

                    Women need to decide if they want to share in the workload and the risks...and compete on a truly "equal" basis...or if they want the "perks" their gender receives by virtue of their sex. If they had to compete truly "equally" to qualify to the same standards as the men..and pass muster as a foot-soldier...few females would pass the test... Everyone knows there's a double standard in physical training in the military...Picture "D-Day, and The Battle of The Bulge" if those tough American troops were to have been augmented by about 20% female soldiers in their midst! We'd all be speaking German about now.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Having served in the Air Force for 20 years as a female, I would like to say NO, however, no where in the Enlistment Contract are women excluded from combat. When I signed my enlistment contracts there was never a "Women's Only" clause that I initialed exempting me from combat. I would not have wanted to be in a combat situation but I also wouldn't have deserted from the military if I was to have been sent to war...in a combat position. Could you imagine the ridicule if women were excluded from combat positions. We all sign the same enlistment contract!! What about single fathers? Should they be excluded from combat? This is truly a very thorny issue!

                      Excerpt from the DD4 - Enlistment Contract.

                      9. FOR ALL ENLISTEES OR REENLISTEES: Many laws,
                      regulations, and military customs will govern my conduct
                      and require me to do things a civilian does not have to
                      do. The following statements are not promises or
                      guarantees of any kind. They explain some of the
                      present laws affecting the Armed Forces which I cannot
                      change but which Congress can change at any time.
                      a. My enlistment is more than an employment
                      agreement. As a member of the Armed Forces of the
                      United States, I will be:
                      (1) Required to obey all lawful orders and perform all
                      assigned duties.
                      (2) Subject to separation during or at the end of my
                      enlistment. If my behavior fails to meet acceptable
                      military standards, I may be discharged and given a
                      certificate for less than honorable service, which may
                      hurt my future job opportunities and my claim for
                      veteran's benefits.
                      (3) Subject to the military justice system, which
                      means, among other things, that I may be tried by
                      military courts-martial.
                      (4) Required upon order to serve in combat or other
                      hazardous situations.

                      (5) Entitled to receive pay, allowances, and other
                      benefits as provided by law and regulation.
                      b. Laws and regulataions that govern military
                      personnel may change without notice to me. Such
                      changes may affect my status, pay, allowances,
                      benefits, and responsibilities as a member of the Armed
                      Forces REGARDLESS of the provisions of this
                      enlistment/reenlistment document.
                      c. In the event of war, my enlistment in the Armed
                      Forces continues until six (6) months after the war ends,
                      unless my enlistment is ended sooner by the President of
                      the United States.

                      http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,163773,00.html
                      Attached Files
                      Last edited by Southie; 19 Jan 09,, 16:25.
                      “When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace.” ~ Jimi Hendrix
                      "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." ~ Eleanor Roosevelt
                      sigpic

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        It's not in the enlistment contract because of things like this war. The front line is blurred, so there is no way that you could be excluded. Look at Jessica Linch, the girl they made the TV movie about. She coward behind that truck as the Men fought back. I don't want that kind of thing to happen when I'm in combat.

                        Another thing to, while I have respect for all branches of the military, as we all work toward the same goal. You were in the Air Force, not many Air Force personnel are subject to combat missions, unless you're a pilot.

                        A women has no business standing next to me in combat. It's just years of evolution, we're not built he same. You can't carry what I can. In all other aspects men & women are pretty equal. If you can't carry your weight then I have to carry it for you, and I shouldn't have to do it for you.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by tuflehundon View Post
                          It's not in the enlistment contract because of things like this war. The front line is blurred, so there is no way that you could be excluded. Look at Jessica Linch, the girl they made the TV movie about. She coward behind that truck as the Men fought back. I don't want that kind of thing to happen when I'm in combat.

                          Another thing to, while I have respect for all branches of the military, as we all work toward the same goal. You were in the Air Force, not many Air Force personnel are subject to combat missions, unless you're a pilot.

                          A women has no business standing next to me in combat. It's just years of evolution, we're not built he same. You can't carry what I can. In all other aspects men & women are pretty equal. If you can't carry your weight then I have to carry it for you, and I shouldn't have to do it for you.
                          And as I said...
                          Having served in the Air Force for 20 years as a female, I would like to say NO
                          I don't think women should be in combat unless they are in the medical field or some other position that doesn't require them to be right on the "front line". You are right, most women cannot carry what men can carry. There are those few that can though! Myself, I know I couldn't be in that kind of position and would feel like I would be a hinderance instead.
                          “When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace.” ~ Jimi Hendrix
                          "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." ~ Eleanor Roosevelt
                          sigpic

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Tough Question

                            There is no doubt that women have performed courageously and admirably in combat in Afghanistan and Iraq. The disappearance of the "front line" has made the battlefield equally dangerous for any type of unit, and thus, females in those "non-combat" units.

                            Fist, I don't like the analogy of pilots (in comparison to Infantry), because I don't think you can really compare the two. I believe a woman should be allowed to pilot any aircraft, because at the end of the day, she doesn't lay her head down with 100 grunts.

                            To me, this debate is not about ability. Many women have the capability of doing anything a man can do. The real issue is about women living with an infantry company in combat on a day to day basis. I will use my own experiences to make this judgment.

                            In 2003, I was a LT in an infantry company in Iraq, living on a remote outpost (not a FOB). For the first 5 months of combat, we had no females at our outpost. I would regard the company as one of the more disciplined I've served in. After five months, we required additional support to move our troops out to missions. 3 five-ton trucks with female drivers were attached to us. Even though we afforded them their own living space, problems began almost immediately. All three females started to linger around the platoon bays nightly. They began relationships with NCOs, subverting the chain of command, but were engaged in sexual activity with other lower enlisted Soldiers, as well. This caused more than one fist fight. Sex was happening in the outhouses, in the platoon bays and in the vehicles. Adultery was committed. The staunch discipline we enjoyed prior to their arrival was starting to erode. My commander chose to have them sent back to their support units and "swapped" for male truck drivers. All detrimental effects reversed immediately. We found out later that one of the females became pregnant, and was sent home.

                            As a CPT, living on another remote outpost in Iraq during 2005-2006, my battalion had a combat support company attached. There were about ten females in this company. We weren't there for a month and the drama began. One female became pregnant. Another committed adultery. Fights between male soldiers erupted over girlfriends. Females were hopping on convoys to other FOBs to have "conjugal visits" with their boyfriends in other units. Then another female became pregnant. Then a female NCO began a relationship with a soldier that worked for her. Eventually, there were sexual assault accusations, he said, she said. And on, and on, and on. It was a mess.

                            This may sound like I am blaming females, I am not. I am blaming the fact that they were living with a predominantly male unit. There would have been no issues if they weren't there. Of course, there are many answers to this. Some could blame male Soldiers for lack of discipline. I know I do. Others would say that both males and females are to blame. Others would blame the chain of command for turning a blind eye and not wanting to do anything about the issues. But one must understand how difficult it is for a male commander to do the finger pointing.

                            The best environment for female soldiers is to be around other female soldiers. For one, they will have female leadership that can address the issues specifically. If combat MOSs were opened up to females, their numbers in the infantry battalions would be low, causing situations similar to the ones that I have outlined.

                            I have served in units that were all male, and others that were mixed. Just based off what I've seen, a female presence in an all-male infantry unit will cause a disruption in discipline, and thus, cause a disruption to combat operations. This is not a matter of females being qualified; this is a matter of human nature.

                            As for females in SOF, I would vehemently disagree. The physical requirements are so difficult than in all likelihood, most women would not be able to make it through SOF selection. If they did, it would be likely that there would only be a few females in the SOF force and the same problems I've outlined above would occur. Not to mention, the primary mission of SOF is to work with foreign armies and militias. In most cultures that we fight wars in, a female wouldn't be considered a legitimate counterpart by HNF or militia leadership. This is why that the army doesn't allow females to be advisors for MiTT teams in Iraq or Afghanistan. A good call, in my opinion.

                            I re-iterate, this isn't about the ability of females. This is about the potential disruption that they will cause in infantry and other all-male units. They (females) may not intend for these disruptions, but it will happen. I've seen it to many times to be naive.
                            America doesn't deserve its military

                            -Emma Sky

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I would have to agree with ^^^ on this one. When I deployed the first time there was a big stink because the Navy women were not allowed on the green ships. (Ships that carry Marines, mostly small ships) They threw a fit and even wrote there senators. Eventually they won and a few, maybe 5 per ship were allowed as a trial. There were 4 on my ship. 2 Got pregnant withing the first month, one was arrested for prostitution (They made a mistake on her pay, and when they went in to fix it she had $15,000 in her account as an E-2. The 4th was an officer and handled herself well. But the problem is she was the exception, not the other way around. We never had women on our ships again, and things worked out much better.

                              As for the women in commend with foreign troops. I have heard of problems like this in the Gulf War, and the current one as well. The foreign troops would not allow the women into meeting nor would they follow any order that they thought came from a women. I never dealt with this as we were an all male unit. But I heard a lot about this happening in the Air Force were men and women were more integrated.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X