I remember reading up on WWII and how so many men sent over seas never wanted to kill anyone. They basically went through boot camp and were dumped in Europe and given a gun and said, go kill the Axis powers. Some stories I have read where at times they refused to fight (and some of the times it was both sides refused to fight). After WWII our military learned some pretty valuable information, and our military then took that information and used it to their advantage, by training the military soldiers a certain way. They build up something inside of your mind that makes you not question such things.
They know what they are doing, and if you can't do the job then don't sign up. I don't think I could ever shoot someone unless my life depended on it. Granted in times of war it does depend on it, but that doesn't mean I agree with what our government and military have done. The politicians (all of them) bomb countries, back certain military groups and leave them to dry leaving a very well trained and pissed off regime at us. Our government has it's collective head so far up it's *** when it comes to foreign affairs that I don't think I could ever back anything they wanted to do when it comes to going to war just short of us getting invaded.
I digressed a bit, but back to the subject. If you join, and you are good at what you do then you should do it. If a woman is a great combat solider then let her be up front, if she is a medic and great at it then let her be a medic, if she is an awesome pilot, then let her fly the planes.
I think that men have an advantage over women when it comes to just brute force and combat, but then again with how our military is trained they rely a lot on their technology as well. Side arms, blades, explosives, air support, etc.
So, really it would be the application of the technology and strategy. Knowing what calls to make and when to make them. I am not seeing any reason why a woman couldn't do it, and do it just as good as a man. I just think that men have a more aggressive mind set in general and it may make them a better combat soldier.
Arter an exhaustive study, it was found, that up to and including WW2, only 15% of the troops were really trying to kill the enemy. The training process was modified, and they got the numbers up to just over 50%. By the time Vietnam came around, they had moved the numbers to 90%. All this was accomplished, by changing the way the recruits were trained. A retired Colonel, and pyschologist, has done an extensive study, and came out with several volumes, on the military pysche. I can't think of his name, this second, but two of the books are "On Combat", and "On Killing". They are very interesting reading for us old veterans, and may help some understand better, what they went through, during the war.
But back to the subject of the thread, I say set the bar, and leave it in place, for all to be judged, at the same level. If they qualify, then let them serve. If they don't, put them in a support position, but don't LOWER the standards for anyone, no matter how much they complain about it being unfair. There's nothing unfair about one test for ALL applicants. And keep the standards high enough, that you get only the very BEST!!!!
Arter an exhaustive study, it was found, that up to and including WW2, only 15% of the troops were really trying to kill the enemy. The training process was modified, and they got the numbers up to just over 50%. By the time Vietnam came around, they had moved the numbers to 90%. All this was accomplished, by changing the way the recruits were trained. A retired Colonel, and pyschologist, has done an extensive study, and came out with several volumes, on the military pysche. I can't think of his name, this second, but two of the books are "On Combat", and "On Killing". They are very interesting reading for us old veterans, and may help some understand better, what they went through, during the war.
But back to the subject of the thread, I say set the bar, and leave it in place, for all to be judged, at the same level. If they qualify, then let them serve. If they don't, put them in a support position, but don't LOWER the standards for anyone, no matter how much they complain about it being unfair. There's nothing unfair about one test for ALL applicants. And keep the standards high enough, that you get only the very BEST!!!!
I would agree. But if you simply make it policy to exclude women from combat MOS's you eliminate a problem before it becomes a problem. And this 'problem' can and WILL get people hurt and killed!!!
Common sense is not always politically correct!!!
__________________
An armed society is not always polite, but it is a FREE AND SAFE SOCIETY!
I would agree. But if you simply make it policy to exclude women from combat MOS's you eliminate a problem before it becomes a problem. And this 'problem' can and WILL get people hurt and killed!!!
Common sense is not always politically correct!!!
Agreed. All services should follow the Marine Corps model which is the most successful in both combat and support. Everybody is trained in the art of combat arms regardless of primary duties, male and female Marines alike. However, male Marines have the primary duty to fight, and female Marines have the primary duty to support. Female Marines will fight if the rapidly changing dynamics of the modern battle space dictates such, but only until they can fight their way out, or be quickly displaced by male Marines.
By the way, the Marines have already defied Administration policy once during the Clinton years; they'll gladly make the leftists mad and do it again ... and still remain a premier fighting force.
SNS, to what defiance of policy do you refer? The retention of the .45 ACP as a service sidearm? Their telling the Draft Dodger that they would not confiscate priavtely owned firearms from citizens even if ordered to do so by the Chief Executive because that would be an illegal order? Or in training all their people how to shoot straight and not leave their buddies behind on the battlefield?
SNS, to what defiance of policy do you refer? The retention of the .45 ACP as a service sidearm? Their telling the Draft Dodger that they would not confiscate priavtely owned firearms from citizens even if ordered to do so by the Chief Executive because that would be an illegal order? Or in training all their people how to shoot straight and not leave their buddies behind on the battlefield?
Cyrano, The Clinton Administration pushed hard for the Marines to further incorporate female Marines into combat roles in the mid 90's. The Marine Corps countered with the argument that female Marines are already combat trained in the event that they may need to perform in a combat environment due to the changing dynamics of a rapidly shifting battle space environment. Presently, there are no female 0311 (infantry) Marines; however, all female Marines could perform in the role of the rifle squad if need be; not in the primary role, but as force multipliers or combat augmentees in the event their positions are overrun. Their training at Parris Island is identical to that of male recruits.
I live and work in the military community which includes Marine Corps Recruit Depot-Parris Island, Marine Corps Air Station-Beaufort, and Naval Hospital-Beaufort. The Marines are pretty stoic in their philosophy that non-infantry Marines, male or female, are as capable, or more so, than a combat arms MOS in the Army. Likewise, all of the Navy corpsmen assigned to Marine expeditionary forces that I know are males, and they double as riflemen in the Marine squad. That’s the way it is here, and the way it was when I was in western Iraq. However, no female marines are specifically assigned to combat duties.
You may remember when First Lady Hillary Clinton, the initial driving force behind the issue, was asked why the White House backed down on the issue, she courtly referred to Marines as, "...being extreme." Shortly after her statement, "Extreme Marine" bumper stickers appeared on the highways around Washington, DC, Quantico, Camp Lejeune, Parris Island, Twenty-Nine Palms, Camp Pendleton, San Diego, etc. I’m not certain if there was an official executive order violated, but certainly the expressed wish of the Administration was resisted firmly enough to kill the issue.
It's not wrong to train and arm female warriors to fight. In fact, it's the opinion of a lot of service personnel that men and women, combat and support, should be trained to fight at the squad level as they are in the Marine Corps model, but not assigned to specific fighting occupations.
Good point about Marines letting it be known that they won’t participate in any private arms confiscation. Every Marine I know seems to be adamant that the Second Amendment and the rest of the Constitution is to be taken in its literal form. The Constitution must be discussed somewhere during that 13 weeks of basic, because it sure isn’t discussed to any level of confidence in high school these days.
Last edited by SightNSqueeze; 11-24-2008 at 05:08 PM.
The above article is rather interesting. It appears Hillary Clinton had a rather ..."short"... experience with the Marines. She said she tried to join many years ago. I guess I can't blame her for at least inquiring. It's probably a greater effort than that of Obama or Biden.
Last edited by SightNSqueeze; 11-24-2008 at 03:12 PM.
Location: Virginia, just outside of Washington D.C.
Posts: 3,800
By front line do you mean with the grunts in a hole 50 to 100 meters away from the enemy? Or do you mean in a cockpit at 5000 feet, or a ship at sea or with a Signal Bn a mile ot two behind the front lines?
I realize because of cultural norms it is required that woman go with most patrols outside the wire in Iraq and Afghanistan, and have no problem with it. Nor do I have a problem with women in ships or aircraft or a ground unit not on the front line. However being a ex infantryman I believe that woman have absolutely no place in an infantry unit on the real front line. They have neither the physical strength or stamina of your average infantryman, yes I know there are some Amazon types that might do well, however they are by in far the execption.
As an ROTC cadet at Ft Bragg back in the summer of 1980 I trained side by side with female cadets. They couldn't keep up with their male counterparts and we constantly had to slow down road marches, runs and take breaks more frequently than is standard for the real Army. And one last delicate point, nothing will give your position away faster to the bad guys than a woman who has inadequate personal hygene opportunities in the field for any length of time. I found that out the hard way after a Bn five day Field Ex. It got so bad that the male cadets were ordered to keep their mouths shut and not say a word.
The real front line is no place for a woman or a weak male for that matter.
__________________
Those who forget History are condemed to repeat it.
That's a good observation Dallas. The problem with the Army is that that service, by its size alone has been plagued with the inability to attract enough male recruits. It's unfortunate that since 9/11, women have answered the call when many men wouldn't. Most of the female war fatalities and permanent maiming are from within the ranks of the Army because the Army felt compelled to place their support female soldiers in greater harm's way than the Marines, Navy, and Air Force who don't face the same manpower shortages. It's more likely that Army female support personnel such as military police, engineers, maintenance personnel, motor transport, etc. will find themselves in a fight a lot faster today than they would in years past due to the fluidity of the battle front.
Likewise, the Navy long resisted having women aboard ships because modern naval warfare could mean the immediate loss of an entire crew, or at the very least, loss of most of the crew and horrific burn injuries among survivors. The next naval battle fought between industrialized countries with cruise missiles and thermonuclear warheads will wake up a lot of smug thinkers among the politically correct in our nation. I was in the submarine service and submariners then as now are an all male profession, but it’s a difficult profession to get into, and even more difficult to remain in due to the hardship of underwater patrols and time away from home. My Air Force veteran wife expressed “less horror” of the ongoing danger of submariners living in constant danger from the deep sea and cruise missile and torpedo attacks that could take the lives of all aboard in an instant, as the never ending smell of oil, sea water, sweat, and cigar smoke. The latter discomforts alone would have kept her from ever volunteering. However, she served in the capacity of a medic; an important job that I certainly would not have been qualified to fill.
Men and women should answer the call to arms in their best capacity. Women are better in support roles which are just as important as combat arms. When certain support rolls become part of the battle environment, then it’s time for more men to step forward. The quality and worth of a society is measured in many ways; and military service is probably the biggest. However, when it becomes the implied duty of our women; sisters, mothers, aunts and nieces, to take up the rifle in the face of our enemy, then something is wrong with our society.
I guess some of you just don't get it.
One example:
One fine day while setting in a hot LZ awaiting our turn to get the hell out of there (come to a hover, make a petal turn and nose it over) the bird behind us took a mortar/rocket hit. The Peter Pilot and the Gunner (right side) got the worst of it and were not ambulatory. The AC and the Crew Chief were ambulatory, just barely. I had to go back and grab the two who couldn't walk and carry them both (at the same time) while 'herding' the other two disoriented guys to our bird to get out of there. My gunner was also (right side) wounded and couldn't help. How many women could do that?? If it were you who was wounded and were helpless would you prefer to have a man or woman there to haul your sorry ass back to cover/safety?
A little real world experance goes a long why when ask hypothetical questions!!!
I would agree that people who don't have the physical strength required for a task (male or female) shouldn't be used in that capacity. Our military isn't a social experimentation grounds, and exists with a specific purpose. To that end, we need to hire the right people for the right jobs.
When it comes to operating any of our aircraft (which demands some degree of physical stamina, but not a great deal of physical strength), women are just as adept as men. I'd feel equally as comfortable with a capable woman wingman (or flight lead for that matter) as with a man. The female fighter pilots I flew with in the not so distant past were entirely as competent as the males, and just as good at killing people and breaking things.
__________________
In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit -- John Galt
I guess some of you just don't get it.
How many women could do that?? If it were you who was wounded and were helpless would you prefer to have a man or woman there to haul your sorry ass back to cover/safety?
A little real world experance goes a long why when ask hypothetical questions!!!
Well, the chick who won the Silver Star sure as heck could haul (someone else's) ass while taking fire.
That's it, to me. If a woman can do it, then she should have the choice to do so. You'd be surprised what women can do, physically, if they are trained for it. Our culture doesn't encourage it. In fact, it actively discourages women from being strong. In mortuary college, I saw a 110 lb girl haul a 230 lb dead guy onto a table. My wife stands about 5'6" and can and has thrown a person going into diabetic shock over her shoulder...guy weighed over 300lbs (big indian) and hauled him to an ER. Then again, she did crew in college and is training for mountain rescue in the Mojave desert. But then, she wants to be strong, and therein lies the difference.
I don't doubt women would be a minority in say...infantry roles, but if they can and want to do it, I see little reason not to let them. I'm certain that studies have indicated a flat minimum set of physical requirements to do it properly, even scaled for age and the like. If the amazons want in, well...why not? More people on our side with guns equals more people on our side with guns. Good for us, right?
Of course this must all be hashed out (standards, training, sleeping arrangements) before a single woman ever goes into a front-line combat role. The preliminary research aspect is very important, but once that's done (it would likely take several years), there'd be no reason not to phase them in.
I don't see a problem with encouraging America's daughters to serve as well as sons. I think our society would benefit immensely from teaching women that we expect them to be capable and strong, instead of weak and frail.
Frankly, anything to improve the general health of Americans would be good about now. I swear, more I've been working out and training, the more I'm noticing lots of people around me are in just terrible condition. Then again, I'm in Vegas, it's a pretty fat city.
Had a female E-5 workin for me some years back....She was loadin some highly volitile fuel cells, when the pressurized valve gave way.....fuel drenched her. had emergency measures in place, but not ONE of the guys moved to help, since it involved stripping down. I grabbed the front of her uniform and tore it off, along with her trousers. I led her to the emergency shower, and washed her down, then covered her with a blanket. That little lady would have died, had I not done something. My 1st Lt. tried to ream me for it, can ya believe it?...CO gave me an "Atta Boy", and told the 1st shirt to stand down. Point I'm makin, is...in combat, there are men out there who do not have the right mindset to render proper aid to our sisters in arms....Sad though it may be, it is nonetheless true.
I believe women should be posted on the front line to hold back the enemy while I perform my heroic duty and go look for help for them.It won't be hard to get the men up there once they find all they have to do is get shot to be with the women.Men are pretty smart. sam.
No, you can push the equal rights all you want but women are different from men, dont mean to sound like a pig, but women have certian issues that men dont, and the front line is not the place for some of those issues. This could lead to relation problems and other crud you can already see it the military and it is not a good thing on a battle field. Sorry Dallas hit the nail dead on the head!!
i think that if a women wants to serve we should let them as long as we dont have to make any changes to let them serve. i am a service technician and i had a woman work in my shop at one time i have no problems with that as long as she can do the same work i can do and doesnt require anymore help than anybody else. they do reject people from the military.... me. im 6'4" about 290 and they rejected me. i am over weight but am in good shape if that makes sense. they measured my bicep at a little over 21 my neck i think was 23 and my waist was 44. they turned me down. i can run a mile in about 1030 and am strong as an ox. i passed the asvab with 79 and asked nothing more of them than to let me serve my country as a man.
If the question is, "Do we need women on the front lines?" The answer is, “No.” However, we need ...somebody... to do the job. The reason why the Army in particular is pushing so many support MOS's with women in them into harm's way is because there aren't enough men volunteering to do the job. It was that way before 9/11, and it’s that way now. The Navy, like the Army, is a large organization that faced a similar dilemma when they placed women initially on surface support vessels, then surface warships. Why? Because there weren't enough men stepping forward for the defense of our nation. Concerning the issue of women who want to serve; yes, by all means, in support capacities where they are as needed in those areas ... as men are needed on the front lines.
As I mentioned earlier, the Marine Corps model is the best model. The Marines train all recruits; men and women, combat and support, to fight at the squad level; however, the men are assigned to combat and combat support roles, and women Marines are assigned to support roles. If and when a female Marine inadvertently finds herself behind the trigger and facing the enemy ...though never intended... she can serve as a highly trained but temporary force multiplier until she can be relieved by male Marines.
Thanks for answering the polls & your comments. Everyone commented freely & without arguments! What really surprised me was the number of "no"'s that were polled.
I did expect the "yes" to be pretty high...the generations are now more for equality & have the attitude of letting women do what we feel we can. But the high numbers of "no" show me that there are still quite a few folks out there who think/believe that either women don't belong in such a hardcore environment or should only be there after proving themselves as strong-willed & as physically capable as the men. I read & appreciated everyone's comments.
__________________ Love the earth...Love the creator.(Rom. 20:1)
