Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

US to allow women into combat arms roles.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • US to allow women into combat arms roles.

    Sec Def Leon Pannetta has decided in his infinite wisdom that PC trumps evolution and the need to actually win in combat (from firefight to the war in whole) and has commanded the US military to allow women into ground combat roles. This is not going to end well.

    A normal Army infantryman carries 63lbs worth of gear. SAW gunners, grenadiers, AT gunners, mortarmen etc can carry over 100lbs. That is without accounting for specialized environmental equipment. Load 99% of the women in American down at those levels and they will be profile cases in short order. Its not sexists, its a matter of bone density and muscle mass. Men with much denser bones and gobs more muscle mass still get injured carrying those loads.

    Similar problems exist for most of the combat arms. Women might excell at being MP's, but what about engineers who carry even more kit than the infantry. Can a woman feed a gun tube all day? Maybe, if she can pass a mans PT test and prove her upper body strength. However i am willing to bet the PT standards wont merge.

  • #2
    "...Load 99% of the women in American down at those levels and they will be profile cases in short order..."

    I'd be curious how many female enlistees would volunteer for a combat arms MOS and then meet the requirements. I'll be equally curious if specific MOS-related APFTs emerge. It's reasonable that MOS-related APFTs should be considered. What's necessary for a male finance clerk is far less than an infantryman. The minimal standards shouldn't be eased. They really are minimal. Perhaps the APFT should be modified to fit within the SQT requirements for a specific career track.

    I don't anticipate an entire generation of G.I. Janes flooding our recruiting offices. I am concerned about the adjustments asked to accomodate privacy requirements along with the inevitably likely slew of sexual-discrimination and sexual assault litigation that will come. A combat arms battalion deployed in training or battle is messy, dirty and crude place.
    "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
    "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

    Comment


    • #3
      I had the same POV regarding women in army combat role, but my perception changed when I came across the women in one of our covert SF battalions. They are tough to beat in a 5 km run with in Scale A. However, these are hardy mountain people. It would be difficult for women from the plains to have the same physical fitness levels.

      Cheers!...on the rocks!!

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by lemontree View Post
        I had the same POV regarding women in army combat role, but my perception changed when I came across the women in one of our covert SF battalions. They are tough to beat in a 5 km run with in Scale A. However, these are hardy mountain people. It would be difficult for women from the plains to have the same physical fitness levels.
        India has women in Combat?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Defcon5 View Post
          India has women in Combat?
          Yes my man.

          Cheers!...on the rocks!!

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by lemontree View Post
            Yes my man.
            Captain,

            India has no women in the infantry or other formations? Then? How is it possible. Tibet Sector?
            I agree and understand the need for a women SF operators, it adds a lot of possibilities in infiltration.

            Comment


            • #7
              We've had women in combat roles in Canada for a while now, and they've served in Afghanistan.

              Female infantry officers and soldiers are still pretty rare, though. They certainly haven't been joining in droves... As far as I know, standards haven't laxed, but if they can keep up, it's all good.

              I don't think this is going to be the disaster some people fear. Realistically, you're only going to see a very few "exceptions to the rule" female combat engineers and infantry.
              Last edited by DPrime; 24 Jan 13,, 13:17.

              Comment


              • #8
                When the orders came down, we lost a lot of good people. A lot of Sr NCMs and Officers refused to serve alongside women and took their early leave. The experience loss was tremendous. And we have shifted the qualifying levels from the recruit course to the battle schools. Instead of deciding at the recruit course who is and who is not qualified, we lowered the standards to allow more people in and then shfited it up to the battle schools. It increased costs but those were the orders.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                  When the orders came down, we lost a lot of good people. A lot of Sr NCMs and Officers refused to serve alongside women and took their early leave. The experience loss was tremendous.
                  That's really too bad. :(

                  It begs a question, sir. Was there any similar mass release when gays were allowed, or maybe even for the history buffs, blacks? Of course, this all happened in the CF before my time...

                  I do remember reading of similar threats to leave, etc. from US soldiers' letters in the ol' Stars and Stripes when the news hit that gays would be allowed in the US military while I was on tour. Not sure if anything substantial ever really materialized, though.

                  And we have shifted the qualifying levels from the recruit course to the battle schools. Instead of deciding at the recruit course who is and who is not qualified, we lowered the standards to allow more people in and then shfited it up to the battle schools. It increased costs but those were the orders.
                  I'm not sure that's a bad thing, necessarily, having lived through that system in basic training (and then, in an odd twist of fate, having to do CAP after qualifying in my trade and serving in the navy for several years, heh).

                  The physical standards for soldiers should be higher than airmen and sailors, and that goes doubly for the combat arms (and even more so for infantry and combat engineers).

                  Then again, this doesn't apply whatsoever to the US, since we're "unified" up here, so I guess I'm getting off-topic. :)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    These came along during the time that we were downsizing. In my regiment, no one really advertised their sexual orientation and frankly, neither did I. I took female dates to the Mess when required but who I was seeing was really no one's business ... especially when it was the Colonel's daughter.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I like S2's idea about AFSC or MOS specific PT tests. While the minimal standards are minimal - you can still be an overweight, donut eating, pack and a half a day smoking, soda drinking slob and still be pretty good at quite a few jobs in the military. The minimal standards are (IMO) only to keep you looking like you are in the military. For these types of jobs, male and female PT tests are fine.

                      For combat arms, you need to have one test, one standard. If women can keep up, fine. But I won't hold my breath on decisions being made by people who understand the subject.



                      Why the Heck don't politicians ever ask questions of NCO's? If you want to cut a budget, easiest way is to ask an NCO how best to eff the system, and make the appropriate changes (as just one example).
                      "Bother", said Poo, chambering another round.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by tuna View Post
                        Why the Heck don't politicians ever ask questions of NCO's? If you want to cut a budget, easiest way is to ask an NCO how best to eff the system, and make the appropriate changes (as just one example).
                        Are you seriously telling me that if I go to my RSM and asked him how the hell he fucked up my system that he's going to tell me?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          No - but he'll gladly tell about the fraud, waste and abuse that the officers get away with.

                          Or - just buffoonery in general from the civilian leadership, like:
                          1) Use all your budget this year or you'll be cut next year - leads to stupid purchases to ensure meeting the budget
                          2) Flat screen TVs ARE NOT COMPUTER MONITORS!!!! - you wouldn't know this walking into an Air Force building
                          3) New doesn't mean better - especially when new means broken already


                          etc, etc, etc
                          "Bother", said Poo, chambering another round.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Just wanted to share a few good opinion articles:

                            The New York Times
                            January 24, 2013
                            Armed Forces in Canada Resolved Issue Long Ago
                            By IAN AUSTEN

                            http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/25/wo..._20130125&_r=0

                            OTTAWA — When Sheila A. Hellstrom first joined the Royal Canadian Air Force in 1954, she was limited to one of three roles: nurse, dietitian or administrator. As the decades passed, she would become the first Canadian woman to reach the rank of general and the Canadian military would integrate women into combat roles.

                            On Thursday, Brigadier General Hellstrom, who retired a year after a human rights tribunal ordered the full integration of women in the Canadian military in 1989, said that the debate following the Pentagon’s decision to allow women into combat was both familiar and frustrating.

                            “People are bringing up the issues we had to deal with then,” said General Hellstrom, who is 77. “We have shown here that we can do it.”

                            Opening the Canadian military to women followed a protracted debate, but the questions over the suitability of women as combat troops have now all but faded from the nation’s collective memory.

                            “It doesn’t even enter into conversation anymore,” said Capt. Jaime Phillips, a female artillery officer who commanded not only Canadian men but male American and Afghan combat troops in Afghanistan. “It’s just so ingrained in my generation that it seems silly to hear the same old arguments again.”

                            Those arguments included concerns about battlefield fraternization, worries about the difficulty of providing field accommodations, and fears that male soldiers might feel compelled to protect female soldiers at the expense of military objectives. While Captain Phillips and others inside and outside of the Canadian military now view those objections as outdated and disproved, reaching that point was not an easy process.

                            The move to allow women into combat roles in Canada began with recommendations issued in 1970 by a government commission that conducted a sweeping examination of the place of women in Canada. The military started with a series of trials to see what combat roles were suited for women. Lt. Col. Shirley M. Robinson, a nurse in the Royal Canadian Air Force who was deputy director of women personnel at the time, said the trials were more of a stalling exercise to put off integrating women, a move that the military leadership opposed.

                            “Those trials should never have happened,” she said. “Women had already been out there in harm’s way.”

                            As the military delayed, and an internal report recommended allowing combat roles for women only in a relatively small number of helicopter squadrons, four people, three men and one woman, took advantage of Canada’s relatively new Charter of Rights and Freedoms to launch a formal challenge. The tribunal’s 1989 ruling opened all combat roles to women except for those in submarines. That restriction vanished in 2001.

                            Colonel Robinson, who retired from the military to consult with the tribunal before returning as a civilian consultant, said that the record since then has been largely positive. “We did not lower standards,” she said. “We put appropriate standards on every job in the armed forces. It had nothing to do with gender. A lot of men can’t meet the standards either.”

                            Women make up about 12 percent of the total military force but Canada’s Department of National Defense did not disclose how many of them are in combat roles. A study presented in late 2011 by Krystel Carrier-Sabourin, a doctoral student at the Royal Military College in Kingston, Ontario, found that 310 women filled combat roles in Afghanistan between 2001 and 2011.

                            Captain Phillips, who is now an adjunct at an artillery school in New Brunswick, said that she found herself commanding soldiers from both the United States and Afghanistan.

                            “They were not used to it, that’s for sure,” she said of those troops. “You could tell it was a curiosity for them and they were of the mind of ‘that’s fine for you guys but it’s not our way’.” Nevertheless, Captain Phillips said that her orders were always obeyed and she was never the subject of overt hostility.

                            Cpl. Katie Hodges, whose time with an infantry unit in Afghanistan was partly documented for the film “Sisters in Arms,” said that it is important to note that combat roles are voluntary for both men and women in the Canadian military.

                            “I went because I wanted to,” she said. “I wanted to be in the exact opposite of an office job.”

                            During her training and once she was deployed to Afghanistan, Corporal Hodges shared sleeping accommodations with men, like all women in the infantry. The only time she experienced separate quarters, she said, was when she went down to an American military base for joint training. In the Canadian military, only showers are segregated by gender.

                            Corporal Hodges, who is now a military photographer stationed at a base northwest of Toronto, is among those surprised that there has been any controversy in the United States about including women in combat roles.

                            “It’s hard to believe that there is a such a draconian attitude,” she said. “I certainly don’t want to sound offensive but the U.S. is far behind.”

                            Afghanistan is also notable for another waypoint in the history of women in the Canadian military. On May 17, 2006, Capt. Nichola Goddard, an artillery officer, was in a light armored vehicle when it was hit by two rocket-propelled grenades. She was the first female member of the Canadian military to die in combat.

                            Her father, Tim Goddard, an educator who lives in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, said that he believes she partly joined the military because a recruiter at her high school only directed his attention to the boys.

                            Mr. Goddard rejected the argument that women should not be placed in combat roles to shield them from harm.

                            “I can assure you that a mother misses a son as much as a father grieves for a daughter,” he said. “Grief has no gender.”

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              And here's one on the other side... Should be pretty jarring to anyone contemplating life in the infantry, whether male or female.

                              Though I'm not sure "it's too gross" is much of an argument for many. Just talk to a nurse or anyone who has worked at an old folks' home. ;)

                              Wall Street Journal - OPINION
                              January 23, 2013, 7:01 p.m. ET
                              Ryan Smith: The Reality That Awaits Women in Combat
                              A Pentagon push to mix the sexes ignores how awful cheek-by-jowl life is on the battlefield.

                              Ryan Smith: The Reality That Awaits Women in Combat - WSJ.com

                              By RYAN SMITH
                              America has been creeping closer and closer to allowing women in combat, so Wednesday's news that the decision has now been made is not a surprise. It appears that female soldiers will be allowed on the battlefield but not in the infantry. Yet it is a distinction without much difference: Infantry units serve side-by-side in combat with artillery, engineers, drivers, medics and others who will likely now include women. The Pentagon would do well to consider realities of life in combat as it pushes to mix men and women on the battlefield.

                              Many articles have been written regarding the relative strength of women and the possible effects on morale of introducing women into all-male units. Less attention has been paid to another aspect: the absolutely dreadful conditions under which grunts live during war.

                              Most people seem to believe that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have merely involved driving out of a forward operating base, patrolling the streets, maybe getting in a quick firefight, and then returning to the forward operating base and its separate shower facilities and chow hall. The reality of modern infantry combat, at least the portion I saw, bore little resemblance to this sanitized view.

                              I served in the 2003 invasion of Iraq as a Marine infantry squad leader. We rode into war crammed in the back of amphibious assault vehicles. They are designed to hold roughly 15 Marines snugly; due to maintenance issues, by the end of the invasion we had as many as 25 men stuffed into the back. Marines were forced to sit, in full gear, on each other's laps and in contorted positions for hours on end. That was the least of our problems.

                              The invasion was a blitzkrieg. The goal was to move as fast to Baghdad as possible. The column would not stop for a lance corporal, sergeant, lieutenant, or even a company commander to go to the restroom. Sometimes we spent over 48 hours on the move without exiting the vehicles. We were forced to urinate in empty water bottles inches from our comrades.

                              Many Marines developed dysentery from the complete lack of sanitary conditions. When an uncontrollable urge hit a Marine, he would be forced to stand, as best he could, hold an MRE bag up to his rear, and defecate inches from his seated comrade's face.

                              During the invasion, we wore chemical protective suits because of the fear of chemical or biological weapon attack. These are equivalent to a ski jumpsuit and hold in the heat. We also had to wear black rubber boots over our desert boots. On the occasions the column did stop, we would quickly peel off our rubber boots, desert boots and socks to let our feet air out.

                              Due to the heat and sweat, layers of our skin would peel off our feet. However, we rarely had time to remove our suits or perform even the most basic hygiene. We quickly developed sores on our bodies.

                              When we did reach Baghdad, we were in shambles. We had not showered in well over a month and our chemical protective suits were covered in a mixture of filth and dried blood. We were told to strip and place our suits in pits to be burned immediately. My unit stood there in a walled-in compound in Baghdad, naked, sores dotted all over our bodies, feet peeling, watching our suits burn. Later, they lined us up naked and washed us off with pressure washers.

                              Yes, a woman is as capable as a man of pulling a trigger. But the goal of our nation's military is to fight and win wars. Before taking the drastic step of allowing women to serve in combat units, has the government considered whether introducing women into the above-described situation would have made my unit more or less combat effective?

                              Societal norms are a reality, and their maintenance is important to most members of a society. It is humiliating enough to relieve yourself in front of your male comrades; one can only imagine the humiliation of being forced to relieve yourself in front of the opposite sex.

                              Despite the professionalism of Marines, it would be distracting and potentially traumatizing to be forced to be naked in front of the opposite sex, particularly when your body has been ravaged by lack of hygiene. In the reverse, it would be painful to witness a member of the opposite sex in such an uncomfortable and awkward position. Combat effectiveness is based in large part on unit cohesion. The relationships among members of a unit can be irreparably harmed by forcing them to violate societal norms.

                              Mr. Smith served as a Marine infantryman in Iraq. He is now an attorney.
                              Violate societal norms?

                              Hey, just because I'm a guy doesn't mean I want someone crapping six inches away from my face.
                              Last edited by DPrime; 25 Jan 13,, 13:57.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X