Interesting report on Females in combat - Page 10

**Julie** · 03-29-2005, 01:09 AM

This letter was sent to The Honorable Joseph E. Schmitz, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Defense, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4704, from Elaine Donnelly, President, Center for Military Readiness. The letter was written March 9, 2005. She is trying to get these women OUT of these positions.

"Now the Army has admitted publicly that female soldiers have been and will be assigned to the land combat-collocated FSCs. (Boston Globe, Jan. 26, 2005) Army officials have simultaneously contradicted themselves by claiming compliance with the DoD collocation rule, adopted in March 1992 and affirmed by then-Defense Secretary Les Aspin in January 1994."

http://cmrlink.org/WomenInCombat.asp?docID=244

Anyway, these women are stuck between beauracracy, and the men soldiers who do not want them there. Believe me, it is not blackmail.

lemontree · 03-29-2005, 01:17 AM

Quote:

CMR supports women in the military, but maintains that this rationale is not valid. Female soldiers have historically been promoted at rates equal to or faster than men for several decades. Even if career advancement were a problem, the overwhelming majority of female soldiers, who are in the enlisted ranks and are known to oppose involuntary land combat assignments, should not have pay the price for bureaucratic errors and career advancement for a few female officers aspiring to flag rank.

Military effectiveness should not be sacrifised at the alter of political correctness.

**Officer of Engineers** · 03-29-2005, 01:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julie

Anyway, these women are stuck between beauracracy, and the men soldiers who do not want them there. Believe me, it is not blackmail.

I re-read this thing over and over again and I cannot see where and how you can imply that women are being accepted/tasked into the combat arms. They're in the same area but not in the same unit and certainly not withe same taskings. This is still a forward support company which by classification is a combat support company which again women have been allowed in for the longest time.

Again, this has NOTHING to do with the combat arms. The women are in the FORWARD SUPPORT COMPANY with totally different taskings. Yes, they can pick up a rifle but unless under the most dire circumstances, (ie, do or die), they would not be allowed nor ordered to take the enemy head on.

In fact, I don't see a problem. They're not integrated into an infantry company.

Again, women will be exposed to combat. This is just one such scenario. I can think of a few more. PFC Lynch's is another example.

**Julie** · 03-29-2005, 01:29 AM

Okay OoE, the million dollar question. Why would someone like me be so interested in women on the ground in Iraq? Maybe a relative there perhaps? Yes I do....from Ft. Stewart. Is she partaking in combat in arms? She's kicking ass and taking no names, and doing it legally, under the loophole word "collocated." Did she know she was going to be in that position when she got there? No. When she got there, the word "collocated" kind of disappeared.

Now goodnight!

**Officer of Engineers** · 03-29-2005, 01:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julie

O She's kicking ass and taking no names, and doing it legally, under the loophole word "collocated."

All the power to her and God bless her and God keep her safe. And you should be damned proud of her. However, she's not combat arms and no amount of ink, saliva, nor wishful thinking is going to assigned her to a combat arms mission. She's going to do her mission just fine and very likely damned proud with the people around her.

Again, that does not mean that she would not see combat and kicking ass and taking no names. What it does mean is that she would not be jumping out of an airplane or repelling out of a helo into the middle of a firefight.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julie

Now goodnight!

My apologies for getting you riled out. Good night.

**Officer of Engineers** · 03-29-2005, 01:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julie

Anyway, these women are stuck between beauracracy, and the men soldiers who do not want them there.

Clarify this for me when you get back. Are you saying that the members of her platoon don't want her there or that the force she's "co-located" with don't want her there? The former is a problem. The latter is not.

Confed999 · 03-29-2005, 01:59 AM

This seems to be a terminology problem.

**Officer of Engineers** · 03-29-2005, 02:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Confed999

This seems to be a terminology problem.

I have a feeling as much.

Ray · 03-29-2005, 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julie

Meals at home, I do grilled chicken/baked potatoes, veggies alot (I do cheat a little and put a slice of monterey jack cheese melted on top of the chicken -- it's yummy). If you have a Japanese restaurant around, the hibachi vegetables are delightful, with a little side of seasoned rice.

Like I said, check the grocery stores, the frozen food sections have many low/carb low/fat items -- I like the Chicken and oriental vegetables. They are pretty good, and feed 2 people.

One of my favorites is a country boil (seafood). Crab shrimp boil (seasoning packets or liquid). Boil water with the seasoning, place small white potatoes, corn on the cob, an onion or two, and (sausage for seasoning). When the potatoes are done, put in shrimp and/or crab legs, boil for an additional 3 - 5 minutes, and cut off, and drain. It is very good and healthy.

Thanks Julie.

I like to cook.

I will try your suggestions soon.

Anoop C · 03-29-2005, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lemontree

The lifting of heavy weapons will be done by robots on those craggy mountain tops?..The loads carried by him have increased and not decreased over the years.

Captain,

Far be it for me to contradict your experience in these matters. But in the spirit of getting educated, let me pose these hypothetical scenarios:

1. Materials of construction of rilfes and ammo get lighter with advances in technology. The lethality of the ammo becomes more dependent more on velocity and 'tumbling' than on mass.

2. Advances in surveillance and detection make the mortar crew use up less ammo.

3. Need for suppressive fires decrease when rifles can shoot around corners, decreasing weapons load.

4. The mechanical 'mule' comes of age

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/phpBB2...?t=920&start=0

-----------------------

Now clearly none of these are practical in the medium term to equip an army like India's and they all have limitations in a terrain like Kargil. However, the US Army seems to fight differently - with a military industrial complex like it has, technology enters the battlefield much earlier, terrain limitations are overcome by using airpower/SF more than any other force and regular infantry is used mostly in the plains with mechanized/armored columns (if I'm wrong about this, I'll be happy to be corrected).

Doesn't this scenario lend itself more to technology infusion than our case?

**Julie** · 03-29-2005, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray

Thanks Julie.

I like to cook.

I will try your suggestions soon.

Good, it's a southern favorite. Let me know how you like it.

Anon · 03-29-2005, 09:39 AM

"As I was leaning against the fence, and this guy felling my legs up and down, I happened to look down and see my fully charged nail gun, and began smiling. In a split second, I grabbed the nail gun, spun around, aiming it right at him. There he stood smiling, with his paint gun aimed at me, and me with a dangerous loaded weapon aimed right at him. He just smiled, and said, whatcha going to do with that? I turned slightly and began firing off 3" galvanized nails through the woods, then turned it back on him, and I said, I told you I'm out of play. The other guy is just standing by my truck in shock, then the other guy shoots 6 shots of his paint ball gun on my fence ruining it. Needless to say, I was utterly pissed and didn't hesitate to start shooting at the ground around his feet with the nail gun. Both of the dumbasses took off running. They had on jackets and on the back that said FBI. Pffft. Had I not been there alone, they wouldn't have harassed me the way they did.

I can't take my vehicles to a shop and have something simple done without getting some bs story about how this and that has to be done first, and my bill being $600.00 instead of $100.00. That really pisses my husband off."

You're right julie. There are a lot of men that act that way.

Anon · 03-29-2005, 09:45 AM

BONEHEAD: "Like it or not the reality is that women soon will be official active combat participants, shoulder to shoulder with men."

Got that crystal ball out again huh?

"First of all. There has always been excuses why a woman could not do a traditional men's job. every time the women has proven the excuses wrong."

Just like Shannon Faulkner did?

"They are CEOs, doctors, lawers,"

None of those rely on physical strength, do they?

"firefighters, construction workers, and policemen, to name a few."

Interesting that you mention those since pretty much every police and fire dep't in america lowered their long held height/weight/ and physical performance standards so they could actualy get some women that would qualify. Just like in the military.

What a coincidence.

"It is only a matter of time before the excuses (and thinly veiled chauvanism) in this thread will be put to rest as well."

I'll see your chauvanism and raise you a PC thought control.

"The average women CAN do the job as well as the average man. The journys are different, but the destination is the same."

OK, your proof that US women can perform equally well in the combat roles comes from.....where?

Or is this just another of your boneheaded theories bonehead?

Anon · 03-29-2005, 09:51 AM

"Then I guess updated DoD Congressional reports are not credible, and I shouldn't believe everything in them I read."

You're entirely misreading that report Julie.

There is nothing new about the support units, just their proximity to the line units. Their duties are still exactly the same as before, they're just closer.

The women in the report that was posted are at issue because of their proximity to the line units, NOT because of their role.

A supply clerk, tank mechanic, truck driver, medic or whatever, even if embroiled in the heat of a firefight is NOT, repeat NOT a combat arms soldier.

SpecOps, Infantry, Artillery/FO, Armor, and Engineers are the ONLY combat arms forces in the US Army and USMC.

Support units can see combat(see the battle of the bulge), but they are NOT combat arms troops.

Combat Arms soldiers are held to a much higher physical and discipline standard, and are far better trained.

A typical light infantryman in a combat environment must be able to carry over 200lbs of equipment and still complete a 20 mile road march at a blistering pace, almost regardless of weather, rest levels, the amount of food they've had, whatever.(And the actual performance required can be much higher in actual combat).

Most MEN can't do that without being in excellent physical and mental shape.

As stated earlier in this thread in a poll of national law enforcement officers the men were on average 56% stronger(i could be off by a few % points here). The disparity among men and women in the military is likely even higher, since the average soldier is in much better physical shape than the average cop.

Just as the average soldier is in much better shape than the average cop, the average combat arms soldier is likewise in much better shape than the average support soldier.

Therefore it is highly likely that the 56% in the police poll would be significantly higher, perhaps as much as 100%.

As far as women filling active ground combat roles, the closest you're going to find in Iraq is female MPs escorting convoys. However, these are motorized forces, and therefore many of the inherent disadvantadges of the fairer sex are heavily minimized.

Look, there's a reason men are not allowed to fight female boxers in the ring. There's a reason there are no women in the NFL, NBA, MLB, and NHL.

And each and everyone of us here knows the reason, and it's got nothing to do with discrimination.

**Officer of Engineers** · 03-29-2005, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

You're entirely misreading that report Julie.

Not her fault. She read an article by someone with an agenda to push

Quote:

This is NOT written by Julie but posted by Julie

The Army's Third Infantry Division has added scores of female soldiers to newly created ''forward support companies" that provide maintenance, food service, and other support services to infantry, armor, and Special Forces units that commonly engage in combat. ''The Third ID is the first unit to deploy with the reconfiguration, so this will be the first time where this is in question."

The Army, for its part, is closely watching the Third Infantry Division deployment. According to the December briefing by Woods, the Army will ''incorporate lessons learned from Third ID into future decisions on policy affecting assignment and utilization of women soldiers."

''They are able to bond with men or pick up and shoot an automatic weapon when that is necessary. They have no problem living hard in the field," Manning said. ''All those old excuses for why women can't be in combat are falling by the wayside."

''The general take is that they are doing very, very well," said Manning of The Women's Research & Education Institute.

Both Manning and the reporter's language is extremely deceptive in suggesting that women are doing combat arms jobs.

03-29-2005, 01:59 AM	#142 (permalink)
Confed999 Staff Emeritus Join Date: 09-10-03 Location: Florida Posts: 10,681 Country:	This seems to be a terminology problem. __________________ No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

03-29-2005, 09:51 AM	#149 (permalink)
Anon New Member Join Date: 08-03-03 Posts: 0	"Then I guess updated DoD Congressional reports are not credible, and I shouldn't believe everything in them I read." You're entirely misreading that report Julie. There is nothing new about the support units, just their proximity to the line units. Their duties are still exactly the same as before, they're just closer. The women in the report that was posted are at issue because of their proximity to the line units, NOT because of their role. A supply clerk, tank mechanic, truck driver, medic or whatever, even if embroiled in the heat of a firefight is NOT, repeat NOT a combat arms soldier. SpecOps, Infantry, Artillery/FO, Armor, and Engineers are the ONLY combat arms forces in the US Army and USMC. Support units can see combat(see the battle of the bulge), but they are NOT combat arms troops. Combat Arms soldiers are held to a much higher physical and discipline standard, and are far better trained. A typical light infantryman in a combat environment must be able to carry over 200lbs of equipment and still complete a 20 mile road march at a blistering pace, almost regardless of weather, rest levels, the amount of food they've had, whatever.(And the actual performance required can be much higher in actual combat). Most MEN can't do that without being in excellent physical and mental shape. As stated earlier in this thread in a poll of national law enforcement officers the men were on average 56% stronger(i could be off by a few % points here). The disparity among men and women in the military is likely even higher, since the average soldier is in much better physical shape than the average cop. Just as the average soldier is in much better shape than the average cop, the average combat arms soldier is likewise in much better shape than the average support soldier. Therefore it is highly likely that the 56% in the police poll would be significantly higher, perhaps as much as 100%. As far as women filling active ground combat roles, the closest you're going to find in Iraq is female MPs escorting convoys. However, these are motorized forces, and therefore many of the inherent disadvantadges of the fairer sex are heavily minimized. Look, there's a reason men are not allowed to fight female boxers in the ring. There's a reason there are no women in the NFL, NBA, MLB, and NHL. And each and everyone of us here knows the reason, and it's got nothing to do with discrimination. Last edited by Anon : 03-29-2005 at 10:15 AM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Articles and links for the Military Professional	Officer of Engineers	The Staff College	115	11-20-2006 11:28 AM
U.S. Army report: Israel can't stop Iran nukes	troung	The Iranian Question	3	12-08-2005 19:54 PM
Final Report on USS San Francisco Grounding	rickusn	Naval Forces	7	05-10-2005 16:08 PM
Band Of Sisters - Army "Lionesses" Hit Streets With marines In Combat	Lunatock	The Western Alliance	215	01-07-2005 08:37 AM
Midlink 78 - Excercise B/w Usaf And Paf - Nov./Dec. '78 from PAF Base Masroor	visioninthedark	South Asian Defense Topics	4	08-10-2004 21:34 PM

03-29-2005, 01:09 AM	#136 (permalink)
Julie Moderator Join Date: 08-04-03 Location: Georgia, USA Posts: 6,340 Country:	This letter was sent to The Honorable Joseph E. Schmitz, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Defense, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4704, from Elaine Donnelly, President, Center for Military Readiness. The letter was written March 9, 2005. She is trying to get these women OUT of these positions. "Now the Army has admitted publicly that female soldiers have been and will be assigned to the land combat-collocated FSCs. (Boston Globe, Jan. 26, 2005) Army officials have simultaneously contradicted themselves by claiming compliance with the DoD collocation rule, adopted in March 1992 and affirmed by then-Defense Secretary Les Aspin in January 1994." http://cmrlink.org/WomenInCombat.asp?docID=244 Anyway, these women are stuck between beauracracy, and the men soldiers who do not want them there. Believe me, it is not blackmail.

03-29-2005, 01:29 AM	#139 (permalink)
Julie Moderator Join Date: 08-04-03 Location: Georgia, USA Posts: 6,340 Country:	Okay OoE, the million dollar question. Why would someone like me be so interested in women on the ground in Iraq? Maybe a relative there perhaps? Yes I do....from Ft. Stewart. Is she partaking in combat in arms? She's kicking ass and taking no names, and doing it legally, under the loophole word "collocated." Did she know she was going to be in that position when she got there? No. When she got there, the word "collocated" kind of disappeared. Now goodnight!

03-29-2005, 09:39 AM	#147 (permalink)
Anon New Member Join Date: 08-03-03 Posts: 0	"As I was leaning against the fence, and this guy felling my legs up and down, I happened to look down and see my fully charged nail gun, and began smiling. In a split second, I grabbed the nail gun, spun around, aiming it right at him. There he stood smiling, with his paint gun aimed at me, and me with a dangerous loaded weapon aimed right at him. He just smiled, and said, whatcha going to do with that? I turned slightly and began firing off 3" galvanized nails through the woods, then turned it back on him, and I said, I told you I'm out of play. The other guy is just standing by my truck in shock, then the other guy shoots 6 shots of his paint ball gun on my fence ruining it. Needless to say, I was utterly pissed and didn't hesitate to start shooting at the ground around his feet with the nail gun. Both of the dumbasses took off running. They had on jackets and on the back that said FBI. Pffft. Had I not been there alone, they wouldn't have harassed me the way they did. I can't take my vehicles to a shop and have something simple done without getting some bs story about how this and that has to be done first, and my bill being $600.00 instead of $100.00. That really pisses my husband off." You're right julie. There are a lot of men that act that way.

03-29-2005, 09:45 AM	#148 (permalink)
Anon New Member Join Date: 08-03-03 Posts: 0	BONEHEAD: "Like it or not the reality is that women soon will be official active combat participants, shoulder to shoulder with men." Got that crystal ball out again huh? "First of all. There has always been excuses why a woman could not do a traditional men's job. every time the women has proven the excuses wrong." Just like Shannon Faulkner did? "They are CEOs, doctors, lawers," None of those rely on physical strength, do they? "firefighters, construction workers, and policemen, to name a few." Interesting that you mention those since pretty much every police and fire dep't in america lowered their long held height/weight/ and physical performance standards so they could actualy get some women that would qualify. Just like in the military. What a coincidence. "It is only a matter of time before the excuses (and thinly veiled chauvanism) in this thread will be put to rest as well." I'll see your chauvanism and raise you a PC thought control. "The average women CAN do the job as well as the average man. The journys are different, but the destination is the same." OK, your proof that US women can perform equally well in the combat roles comes from.....where? Or is this just another of your boneheaded theories bonehead?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)