Definition of Combat

[AngelsSix]

How does one define combat today?? I guess the reason I am asking is because the age old question of females going into combat has come up quite a bit lately as I am headed to that lovely place. I am certaintly not worried about it, but it gave room for thought about how the military is telling females that they cannot be in ground combat units. I thought there was even a provision that they had to be so many miles away from the actual fighting. How does all of this apply today?? And being that we are ALL sort of in the middle of it, how do you tell someone that they aren't in combat when mortar rounds are thumping in and AK's are rattling rounds in your direction?? And how about IED's?? What category do the folks that are killed by mines fall into if they aren't supposed to be engaged in combat?

I am not trying to start any arguments here, I am just curious to see if the military has managed not to give the folks that are going out there the recognition they deserve. I feel like a feamle who has served in a combat zone as an MP, pilot, etc. deserve some recognition.

What do y'all think??

[Adam White]

There is a big difference between being a potential target (we all are, heck civilians are) and having as a primary mission that of closing with and destroying the enemy.

I have never heard of any policy based on a specified physical distance from "combat." US Army Forward Support Battalions (my former world) contain many females and doctrinally must provide their own security, to include patrols - these naturally often include females. Such units are not expected to operate only in secure areas. This does not make them a combat unit - they are still CSS units, albeit with an additional security mission.

It is not unusual for a chemical company smoke generator to precede a tank column, or for engineers to breach obstacles ahead of the actual maneuver units - this is no doubt dangerous and in harms way, but it is not combat, it is combat support. Admittedly, the engineers doing this are usually in male-only coded jobs, I am not sure about the chemical company smoke guys.

My next deployment should be as an EOD company commander. EOD guys and gals (and too many Engineers) go right up to IEDs to render them safe - this is no doubt dangerous, but it is in no way closing with the enemy. This is combat support / combat service support, not combat.

Any armed forces member should expect to potentially engage in combat (i.e. 507th Maint. Co.) - this does not make it their MISSION to do so. It is that MISSION that is the critical difference in terms of what jobs female personnel can fill.

[Sacamuelas]

Originally posted by AngelsSix
I feel like a feamle who has served in a combat zone as an MP, pilot, etc. deserve some recognition.

What type of recognition are you talking about A6?

[The Reaper]

Adam:

You beat me to it.

Being forced to defend yourself is not the same as being MOS trained and employed as an infantryman (NOT Infantryperson. Ever).

A6:

If you were in the Army, you would be a veteran entitled to wear a combat patch and receive whatever awards your CoC felt you had earned. I suspect that as an AF member, the threshold would be somewhat lower for these awards.

What makes you think that flying around for a few hours every day in an aircraft or handling POWs and issuing citations puts you in the same category as a man who humps (and lives out of) a ruck, kills people with everything from a Carl Gustaf to his bare hands, and digs what could be his own grave every night? You are aware that casualties among infantrymen average about a dozen times higher than the other branches? You going to pick me up, toss me over your shoulder, and carry me to an aid station a mile or two away? You going to beat a man to death with an e-tool after you run out of ammo?

Being in a combat zone as a female entitles you to what? The same thing as every other combat vet.

I think that females do a fine job in support units. I do not want one in my deployed Infantry or SF unit.

Just my .02, YMMV.

TR

[AngelsSix]

Here is the definition of combat according to the dictionary:

Combat:
Definition: [n] an engagement fought between two military forces
[n] the act of fighting; any contest or struggle; "a fight broke out at the hockey game"; "there was fighting in the streets"
[v] battle or contend against in or as if in a battle; "The Kurds are combating Iraqi troops in Nothern Iraq"; "We must combat the prejudices against other races"; "they battled over the budget"

Specifically, DOD defines direct ground combat as engaging “an enemy on the ground with individual or crew served weapons, while being exposed to hostile fire and to a high probability of direct physical contact with the hostile force’s personnel.”

In addition, DOD’s definition states that “direct ground combat takes place well forward on the battlefield while locating and closing with the enemy to defeat them by fire, maneuver, or shock effect.” According to ground combat experts, “locating and closing with the enemy to defeat them by fire, maneuver, or shock effect” is an accurate description of the primary tasks associated with direct ground combat units and positions. However, DOD’s definition of direct ground combat links these tasks to a particular location on the battlefield—“well forward.” In making this link, the definition excludes battlefields that may lack a clearly defined forward area.

Going by the DOD's first definition, everyone who has ever shot at someone in defense in a war zone has effectively engaged in combat. So I guess you could say that the folks on the convoys that were attacked in the beginning of the war in Iraq were engaged in combat. They obviously weren't seeking it, but yet they were engaged in combat with the enemy. But they were support troops. So how do we define them now?

The second part of the definition states more clearly that women would not be attached to troops that were operating within the listed parameters. I agree that women have no place in a ground combat unit.....but I do not agree that women (or anyone else for that matter) should not be able to be awarded combat decorations simply because they were not a combat troop.
I think you see where I am going with this. I think that if someone is in a combat zone, and engages with the enemy, they should be allowed a combat badge. Also, I would like for someone to please define "well foward" as it pertains to Iraq.

If I sound ignorant of the policies, I am. I am trying to understand how the military can "skirt" the issue, IMO. I would like some discussion, not trying to start a gender war. I personally have no compunction about humping 200 lbs of gear, mainly because I weigh 110 lbs. That would be more than even my ass could handle!! So as long as everyone agrees it's not that I am talking about putting women in ground units, simply how it applies to folks that are not in ground units that do engage in combat.

Now that all of that is clear as mud.....thanks for putting up with me!
:D

[The Reaper]

When have you "engaged an enemy on the ground with individual or crew served weapons, while being exposed to hostile fire and to a high probability of direct physical contact with the hostile force’s personnel ”?

So all you want is a medal?

How about I give you one of mine?

You will have earned it as much as you have a CIB.

Doesn't the AF have awards?

TR

[AngelsSix]

No, Mr. Reaper, it has NOTHING to do with me personally. I have earned my medals, each one of them. And in 13 years in the military I never got anything I didn't deserve, and certainly wouldn't expect anything more than that.
I am looking for clarification on what I think is a sort of muddy issue of combat in today's battle field as opposed to WW1/2 and Vietnam, etc. To me there doesn't seem to be any diffinitive "forward area"; hence the confusion.
I apologise if I made it seem personal, I tend to make everything sound that way if it's important for me to understand it.
I would certainly not compare myself with anyone who has served in a combat unit. Please don't think I am. I was simply asking why someone outside a combat unit that engaged in combat wouldn't be eligible for a combat award........

[The Reaper]

Originally posted by AngelsSix
I was simply asking why someone outside a combat unit that engaged in combat wouldn't be eligible for a combat award........

Why do you think they are not?

TR

[Sacamuelas]

Originally posted by AngelsSix
I was simply asking why someone outside a combat unit that engaged in combat wouldn't be eligible for a combat award........

A6.. this soldier/food service supervisor was awarded the Silver Star even though he was in a support unit in Iraq. :cool:
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1081857386252020.xml

[AngelsSix]

That's just the point!!:D I don't know.....are they?? I never met any personally......except the guys from my unit that went into A-Stan with some of the 82nd guys. They wear the airborne and Special Operations patches now. I was just curious how that works for them. Do they get any recognition for being in a ground combat unit??

[Adam White]

With the exception of a brief stint in a Reserve Field Artillery battery as a young private, I have only ever served in jobs open to both men and women. Therefore, I feel I can say this without making it a gender issue.

I have never once in my nearly 12 years in the military, thought of myself as a "combat" troop. I have always recognized that I was a "combatant" and thus responsible to know how to handle myself should combat occur around me (and likewise train my subordinates the same) but I have never felt the need to try to claim recognition as a combat soldier. I used to laugh that we wore the green combat leader tabs on our uniforms in my Air Defense days. Interdiction of enemy aircraft before they can take off is far more "combat arms" oriented than shooting them down overhead. Combined Arms Air Defense is a responsibility of all units - we simply had better tools for the job.

The risks inherent in being one of thousands of potential targets for ambush, deep interdiction, terrorist attack, etc. are completely different from those involved in ACTIVELY SEEKING OUT the enemy.

Nonlinear battle is as old as warfare itself - I am not clear what distinction you are seeing in today's operations. Enemy raiding parties have always attacked rear supply lines. Mass bombing of civilian populations became popular in WWII. Throughout the Korean war, whether fighting Guerrillas in the south (no US forces involved really, though) or finding themselves infiltrated at Division and Corps level with mass Chinese Forces, non-combat troops found themselves frequently fighting and dieing among their combat arms brethren. The operations of guerilla fighters in South Vietnam are part of American pop-history. In none of these examples did involvement in fighting make those under attack combat troops, just merely soldiers doing their job - one that is inherently dangerous. Simply being a potential or actual victim of combat violence does not make one a combat soldier.

I think most of us are unclear exactly what you are asking for. Awards of valor medals for operations in combat are not exclusive to combat soldiers, but can be awarded to anyone who finds themselves in a fight (or, in the case of the AF, sometimes anyone who refuels aircraft without leaving central Missouri :cool: )

The Army tradition of wearing a combat patch applies to all soldiers in theater. The only MOS-specific combat awards I can think of off the top of my head are the CIB and the Marine Corps Combat Action Ribbon - those both have very specific guidelines for receipt. Oh yeah – and the Air Medal.

Right now, there are non 11-series soldiers patrolling as infantry in Iraq, actively seeking a fight with the enemy. If those guys are ineligible for the CIB, they have every right to bitch. I fail to see what exactly your gripe is. Is there some AF specific thing that you feel more Airmen should be eligible for?

[AngelsSix]

Adam,

Thanks for your perspective and understanding. Your patience is incredible.

I know I am causing some confusion, maybe because I am just trying to understand the way things have changed over the years. While I was a kid during every conflict up to Desert Storm, (I had just gone to boot camp when it kicked off), I only know what I have seen on t.v. or read in a book or spoken to someone about. It seems like during most of the conflicts had a definitive "line" of combat. Now we are just all over the country (Iraq, A-Stan), so how do you define a front?? I know I am confused.....

The whole thing was just out of curiosity of my own spurred by a discussion with some others outside of the military all together that had questions I really had no answers to, hence all the weird questions above. I don't understand the Army, all I have ever known is the Navy and the little bit of the AF that I have so far been exposed to.

So some of the distinctions I was trying to make was if the Army simply makes the definition of a combat soldier and a combat unit and a comat zone as a place where a unit and one attatched to said unit actively seek and engage the enemy.

I am not sure what the CIB stands for, I was under the impression that you had to be in a combat unit to wear one?? I remember the argument about whether Lynch would be authorized to wear one and the general consensus was that she was not in a combat unit.

I guess I am a crusader for the little guy, of sorts. I know I can't change anything...I just want to know why things are the way they are.:)

[brownapple]

AS,

You seem to be confusing "Combat" and "Combat Arms" or "Combat assignments".

[The Reaper]

Originally posted by AngelsSix

I am not sure what the CIB stands for, I was under the impression that you had to be in a combat unit to wear one?? I remember the argument about whether Lynch would be authorized to wear one and the general consensus was that she was not in a combat unit.


This is ludicrous and is one of the most asinine things I have ever read. I am beginning to wonder whether you are asking legitimate questions, or just trolling.

Google CIB or Combat Infantryman's Badge.

TR

[Adam White]

Originally posted by AngelsSix
Adam,

Thanks for your perspective and understanding. Your patience is incredible.



You're welcome. I have spent the last several months as a private, putting up with a shitbag E-7 that I would have likely fired as a platoon sergeant back when I was an LT. This does wonders for one's pain tolerance.



... It seems like during most of the conflicts had a definitive "line" of combat. Now we are just all over the country (Iraq, A-Stan), so how do you define a front?? I know I am confused.....

You need to read better history. Definitive lines may have been present mor ein other battles, but the deep fight and rear battle is nothing new - lines or no lines. The gentlemen who this site is about train to bring the fight behind the enemy's lines. Again, this concept is as old as warfare itself.



So some of the distinctions I was trying to make was if the Army simply makes the definition of a combat soldier and a combat unit and a comat zone as a place where a unit and one attatched to said unit actively seek and engage the enemy.


Combat soldier: mission is to close with and defeat the enemy by means of fire and maneuver.

COmbat zone: no federal taxes, extra pay. The drawback: hostilities are going on and you may get killed.

Combat unit: Made up of combat soldiers and some support troops. Mor accurately, Combat arms unit. Other types of units are Combat Support (direct assistance of combat arms guys whose primary mission is NOT combat) and Combat Service Support (sustainment ops).


I am not sure what the CIB stands for, I was under the impression that you had to be in a combat unit to wear one?? I remember the argument about whether Lynch would be authorized to wear one and the general consensus was that she was not in a combat unit.

Nobody with any clue would have said CIB. This does not, however, rule out that clueless people may have been talking. The issue I recall was over the Bronze Star Medal - and this was not about what kind of unit she was in, but whether her own actions merited it. The CIB is for 11-series and 18-series ONLY. Not even tankers are eligible. It is a Combat INFANTRY[MAN'S] Badge.



I guess I am a crusader for the little guy, of sorts. I know I can't change anything...I just want to know why things are the way they are.:)

It helps to know how things are, before wondering why they are that way.

[AngelsSix]

Okay, that search cleared some things up.

The infantry or special forces SSI or MOS does not necessarily have to be the soldier's primary specialty, as long as the soldier has been properly trained in infantry or special forces tactics, possesses the appropriate skill code, and is serving in that specialty when engaged in active ground combat as described above.

Okay, this is where I am confused. I misread this to mean that anyone attached to an Infantry unit to include support guys.

And yes, Greenhat:

AS,

You seem to be confusing "Combat" and "Combat Arms" or "Combat assignments".

That is exactly what I am confused about!!

Reaper, please don't be mad at me.....I hate that!!

[vsvo]

FYI, this is a front page article in today's (Sunday) Washington Post regarding the debate over the award of the CIB to MOS outside of infantry and SF.

********************************************

Wash Post CIB article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57435-2004Oct23.html)