PDA

View Full Version : Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms Units


Pete
01-10-2011, 15:26
Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms Units

http://www.military.com/news/article/army-mulls-women-in-combat-arms-units.html

".........Women are currently barred from infantry, armor and Special Forces branches, Casey said. He did not say whether the Army is considering opening up all three areas to women, but he did say the study looked at the possibility of women in infantry.............."

That short end of the log is going to get mighty heavy for some individuals.

But maybe we could drop the log since it wouldn't be fair to short people.

Or maybe we could give short people smaller logs - but we're not going to lower the standards.

uplink5
01-10-2011, 16:05
Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms Units

http://www.military.com/news/article/army-mulls-women-in-combat-arms-units.html

".........Women are currently barred from infantry, armor and Special Forces branches, Casey said. He did not say whether the Army is considering opening up all three areas to women, but he did say the study looked at the possibility of women in infantry.............."

That short end of the log is going to get mighty heavy for some individuals.

But maybe we could drop the log since it wouldn't be fair to short people.

Or maybe we could give short people smaller logs - but we're not going to lower the standards.

Hopefully, they'll fight this effort with a bit more success than the last social experiment. After DADT was repealed though, it was inevitable that the next round of correctness would be forthcoming. Sky's the limit for these folks and their on a roll. .....jd

trvlr
01-10-2011, 18:07
Or maybe we could give short people smaller logs - but we're not going to lower the standards.

:lifter

I spent a little time at Sand Hill. I can think of 1 female of around 200 of them in my battalion that could make it through the Infantry Training Brigade. Why change the standards when they aren't lining up to try out in the first place? Do they honestly think the "glass ceiling" would be any better for the .001% of women that end up in the infantry?

Let's not even get into the pregnancy vs deployment rates. My platoon had 10 women in Jan of 08 when we got orders for a year long Korean field trip. By our November ship date, 6 were pregnant and ineligible to deploy. Months of training down the tubes. Infantry platoon deploying to a combat zone minus 15% strength due to pregnancy? Sounds like a great idea.

Dusty
01-10-2011, 18:14
Open homos. Broads in combat.

Next headline: "Army begins drive to recruit both Grey and Reptillian ET's."

wet dog
01-10-2011, 18:24
There are already women in Special Forces, they're called "wife".

Surgicalcric
01-10-2011, 20:36
...RICHMOND
A new study says female military members returning from Afghanistan and Iraq are more likely to suffer from mental health conditions than their male counterparts...

http://www.wtvr.com/news/wtvr-report-women-at-war-suffering-01102011,0,1748862.story?track=rss

One would think that since Sen Mark Warner is party to this study this would be taken into account when deciding whether the ban on women in direct combat units should be lifted.

Buffalobob
01-10-2011, 20:39
Infantry platoon deploying to a combat zone minus 15% strength


You have my sympathy to have to go to Korea for a year minus 15 %. What a hardship.

I went mission after mission minus 55% and the max strength I ever had was still down 35% and you don't see me whining and complaining now or even back then.

TrueBeliever
01-10-2011, 20:52
BAD, bad idea. Though I truly believe that we women should be given equal opportunity in some areas of the military and civilian life, combat is NOT one of them. We don't belong on the front lines.

But what really makes me angry is that the women who bitch and moan the most about inequality are generally those that go out and get themselves pregnant so that they will not have to deploy or they deploy, then get themselves pregnant while in theater so that they re-deploy early. Gives a bad name to those of us who know when to fight for equality and when to let the men do those jobs best suited to them alone.

My .02

cmts58
01-10-2011, 20:54
My only concern is a different standard for females. The APFT standard is different for females. Is it lower? I have no authority to say. Females in combat arms will only work if the weak are culled from the herd.

TrueBeliever
01-10-2011, 21:01
My only concern is a different standard for females. The APFT standard is different for females. Is it lower? I have no authority to say. Females in combat arms will only work if the weak are culled from the herd.

Respectfully, I think it has much to do with more than the APFT standards. Not having been in combat myself, and not trying to present myself as knowing what that is like, I do not think that the average woman has 'what it takes' to perform to standard, whatever that is, in combat. Unless the enemy has done physical harm to one of her family members - in that instance, I believe that we could do more harm if we have the physical capability.

I think that we are not capable of the mental strength required to do combat and that we are not wired to be that way (generally, there is always an exception to every rule).

With respect to those of you who have served in combat, this is my opinion.

bubba
01-10-2011, 21:07
The real issue that will stop this from moving forward is the draft. America will not allow it's mothers, sisters, daughters, and wives to be drafted. If they are "allowed" into combat arms, then they should be required to register for the draft. What is good for the goose.............

cmts58
01-10-2011, 21:12
Respectfully, I think it has much to do with more than the APFT standards. Not having been in combat myself, and not trying to present myself as knowing what that is like, I do not think that the average woman has 'what it takes' to perform to standard, whatever that is, in combat. Unless the enemy has done physical harm to one of her family members - in that instance, I believe that we could do more harm if we have the physical capability.

I think that we are not capable of the mental strength required to do combat and that we are not wired to be that way (generally, there is always an exception to every rule).

With respect to those of you who have served in combat, this is my opinion.


No offense taken. I just used the APFT as an example that the Army has no problem with setting a different standard for women. As for combat, I have no experience in that area. Can a woman carry a heavy load when the mission dictates, both mental and physical? Sure some can. And some men can not. But is what might be gained by women in combat arms offset by the problems it might cause?

TrueBeliever
01-10-2011, 21:34
The real issue that will stop this from moving forward is the draft. America will not allow it's mothers, sisters, daughters, and wives to be drafted. If they are "allowed" into combat arms, then they should be required to register for the draft. What is good for the goose.............

I agree; let's hope that the powers that be consider that as well.

trvlr
01-10-2011, 23:00
You have my sympathy to have to go to Korea for a year minus 15 %. What a hardship.

I went mission after mission minus 55% and the max strength I ever had was still down 35% and you don't see me whining and complaining now or even back then.

Buffalobob, I'm not an infantryman. Korea is not a combat zone. What I was saying is imagine losing the same numbers due to pregnancy before a real deployment i.e. OEF.

I called it a field trip because that's exactly what it was :D

Guy
01-10-2011, 23:02
http://www.wtvr.com/news/wtvr-report-women-at-war-suffering-01102011,0,1748862.story?track=rss

One would think that since Sen Mark Warner is party to this study this would be taken into account when deciding whether the ban on women in direct combat units should be lifted.They (politicians) can't, won't, will not, etc. see the correlation between the two....:munchin

Stay safe.

trvlr
01-10-2011, 23:04
The real issue that will stop this from moving forward is the draft. America will not allow it's mothers, sisters, daughters, and wives to be drafted. If they are "allowed" into combat arms, then they should be required to register for the draft. What is good for the goose.............

Another great point. In terms of 'fairness' it should be the same for both.

Peregrino
01-10-2011, 23:07
Just like every other social engineering "stunt" progressives have tried. I can hear the argument now - "Because it's failed everywhere else it's been tried doesn't mean it'll fail here. After all - now we're in charge."

11Ber
01-11-2011, 08:35
Not saying this applies to all women or that all men are up for getting shot at but... The one time a woman was allowed to spend the night on our COP during my last deployment with 10th Mtn we were attacked. Due to her emotional breakdown she was disarmed and flex cuffed/guarded in the aid station. We, on the walls fighting, could here her screams over the gunfire and RPG explosions. I know this does not cover all women but I am jaded towards them ever being able to handle a 12 month no-shit combat deployment as an infantryman/person without having a complete emotional/physical breakdown.

Raine_n_Roses
01-11-2011, 09:58
sound like the whiny female who has been thru a comabt zone , we were not fobbits, 2003-2004 OIF 4th ID. We females of a support company did supply runs every 3days with no escorts no infantry, no scouts, no MP's taking us. we loaded up and did our thing. We had no armor vehicles or high speed weaponery. We had 2 saws and M16's. We did support an SF group for a time, they came in and asked for food and gave what we could. and once or twice they actually came with us b/c they needed to go to Ananconda

I did do the Air Assualt trng when the NG was allowed to send Soldiers to an assesment weekend. Did i pass? No i missed the 12mile ruck march by 30 mins. my knee gave out last 2 miles. but i finished it. I max my APFT b/c i know that is what is expected, not required. but is a great feeling knowing i can do more then expected.

Does this mean i can go kick in a door and kill on sight, or last days in the mountains of Afghanistan. No this just means i dont like to turn down a pyhsical challenge. I am in remission. why I push myself. let me know i survived and still living.

I go to the Vet center and go thru a group with guys who were infantry, and really mental stability is different with each person. Each person handles there
situations differently and react differently. I dont think gender has anything to do with it. i think studies are made up to justify those who need it. congress/VA/ military personeel. Still doesnt prove that a female can do combat arms. but it is not test to make us look any better.


I am proud to say I am in support position for combat arms. I am proud of the job i did in Iraq 03-04 and in 09-10 as support. And i am proud of the men who go out and kick a** and proud to know when they needed something they had someone to go to.

When i want to feel hoah hoah, and feel like i need to go out and kick a**.
i go do paintball with my son.


Combat is not for everyone man or woman. takes a special kind to go do what needs to be done. and not everyone has it.


done rambling....

Dusty
01-11-2011, 10:03
I am proud to say I am in support position for combat arms. I am proud of the job i did in Iraq 03-04 and in 09-10 as support. And i am proud of the men who go out and kick a** and proud to know when they needed something they had someone to go to.



As well you should be. Thank you for your service.

DJ Urbanovsky
01-11-2011, 15:49
Women in combat arms? Bad idea. Gays serving openly? Bad idea.

Anything that creates distraction and is a detriment to focus in the workplace is bad for business and is inappropriate. When the result of that lack of focus can be death (as is the case in combat arms), it's doubly bad.

Just because we can do something doesn't necessarily mean that we should do that something...

Maybe that makes me sound like a sexist or a bigot, but that's just what I think. And it's been my experience that most of the people that are for women and openly serving gays in combat arms have never served in combat arms, let alone in the military.

bailaviborita
01-14-2011, 16:55
and I'd add that most people who are pushing these agendas are also anti-military and anti-war- so do we really think they care that the armed forces' effectiveness goes down? Just another reason not to go to war for them...

I think there's a huge difference between being in a combat zone/in combat and being in a unit whose mission is to close with and kill the enemy. Women aren't physiologically in a good place to be a part of a unit with that kind of mission for too many reasons. Regardless of standards for individuals, being a part of a team isn't something you can measure with an APFT. Anyone who has been with women in combat, in a unit, on a coed sports team, or in a coed small group educational experience and who is honest should know this. But this is about a larger- social change agenda- not about making our armed forces more effective. When politics got involved- we said good-bye to honesty.

ryno
01-14-2011, 17:46
I'm glad they are wanting to test all this stuff out right now, it's not like we're in the middle of two wars or anything. :rolleyes: If they insist on this change I believe there will have to be one PT standard in all combat arms branches. You cannot realistically give a Ranger school slot to a female who scored 300 on her PT test over a male who scored 295, unless they are graded on the same scale. To do otherwise is not equality, but special treatment. I started in an infantry unit and later served in MI and MPs. I respect female soldiers, but infantry was a whole different world from the other two.

lindy
01-14-2011, 18:16
Regardless of standards for individuals, being a part of a team isn't something you can measure with an APFT.

Excellent statement!

The previous comment regarding Support Company of Combat Arms unit...what is stopping DA from assigning females to BSC or GSC? SOT-As are V coded so they would be out but what about the Dets and MOSes? I used to fly with female sailors on my crew and I knew if there was an "incident", they could not have carried or dragged any of us males out of the plane. And yes, I was involved in "an aviation class A mishap" but that's another story.

I have never been shot at by small arms fire.

Dusty
01-14-2011, 18:47
Panel Says Women Should Be Allowed Into Combat (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gtMn6kjxkv23s_m9UF_7chTqlgJg?docId=a101f2e5f 3d74898a9347822dee98b3d)


From the link:
"The newest move is being recommended by the Military Leadership Diversity Commission, established by Congress two years ago, and expected to send its report to Congress and President Barack Obama in the spring. The Army is doing its own internal study of the question as well."

'Bout the same time Obama was inaugurated, right? Same panel who pushed the "openly homo" thing, as well?

Sigaba
01-14-2011, 19:09
FWIW, the report is produced by the Military Leadership Diversity Commission (MLDC). The commission's website is here (http://mldc.whs.mil/), its charter is there (http://mldc.whs.mil/index.php/about/charter-tasks). The list of commissioners is here (http://mldc.whs.mil/index.php/about/commissioners), and the staff is there (http://mldc.whs.mil/index.php/about/staff). (Note the reliance on technical writers from Visionary Integration Professionals (http://www.vipconsulting.com/vip/).) The draft of the recommendations is available here (http://mldc.whs.mil/download/documents/Draft%20Report/MLDC%20Final%20Report%20Predecisional%20Draft%2022 DEC2010.pdf).

A summary of the the specific recommendation is on page 120.Recommendation 9—
DoD and the Services should eliminate the “combat exclusion policies” for women, including the removal of barriers and inconsistencies, to create a level playing field for all qualified servicemembers. The commission recommends a time-phased approach:
• a. Women in career fields/specialties currently open to them should be immediately able to be assigned to any unit that requires that career field/specialty, consistent with the current operational environment.
• b. DoD and the Services should take deliberate steps in a phased approach to open additional career fields and units involved in “direct ground combat” to qualified women.
• c. DoD and the Services should report to Congress the process and timeline for removing barriers that inhibit women from achieving senior leadership positions.

Peregrino
01-14-2011, 19:17
Sounds like it has more to do with perceptions of "glass ceilings" than enhancing operational effectiveness. Personally I don't believe anyone who has not been a combat arms soldier should be promoted above BG, nor should they ever be allowed to command anything resembling a combat formation. One needs only do a direct comparrison of CA and CS/CSS soldiers to see why I feel this way. And yes - I conceed that it's an apples vs. oranges (carnivore vs vegitarian more realistically) comparison. Speaking for myself - when it's getting tough, I want to be surrounded by other carnivores.

bailaviborita
01-15-2011, 07:22
Sounds like it has more to do with perceptions of "glass ceilings" than enhancing operational effectiveness. Personally I don't believe anyone who has not been a combat arms soldier should be promoted above BG, nor should they ever be allowed to command anything resembling a combat formation. One needs only do a direct comparrison of CA and CS/CSS soldiers to see why I feel this way. And yes - I conceed that it's an apples vs. oranges (carnivore vs vegitarian more realistically) comparison. Speaking for myself - when it's getting tough, I want to be surrounded by other carnivores.

I would agree- but today IMO the combat arms colonels and generals are neutered at the rank of colonel and/or LTC- so they turn out much the same as the CS and CSS folks. They lead from the rear, using power point and UAV feeds, prioritize risk assessments above mission, and worry about their next rank. If our carnivores turned back to eating meat- then I'd agree, but they're taking out their fangs when they get to that level... (except for the Marines- I've been impressed with the Marines absolute unwillingness to compromise and play PC even at G.O. level...).

As to this group- it was solely founded to increase women at general officer level. Period. That was their mission. Is it any wonder they arrived at this conclusion? I didn't see much in the way of them worrying about combat effectiveness- except for some fuzzy civilian business PC-speak about how diversity makes an organization better.

Dusty
01-15-2011, 07:44
I would agree- but today IMO the combat arms colonels and generals are neutered at the rank of colonel and/or LTC- so they turn out much the same as the CS and CSS folks. They lead from the rear, using power point and UAV feeds, prioritize risk assessments above mission, and worry about their next rank. If our carnivores turned back to eating meat- then I'd agree, but they're taking out their fangs when they get to that level... (except for the Marines- I've been impressed with the Marines absolute unwillingness to compromise and play PC even at G.O. level...).

As to this group- it was solely founded to increase women at general officer level. Period. That was their mission. Is it any wonder they arrived at this conclusion? I didn't see much in the way of them worrying about combat effectiveness- except for some fuzzy civilian business PC-speak about how diversity makes an organization better.

Good post, Bro-makes a lot of sense. :cool:

trvlr
01-15-2011, 10:20
I would agree- but today IMO the combat arms colonels and generals are neutered at the rank of colonel and/or LTC- so they turn out much the same as the CS and CSS folks. They lead from the rear, using power point and UAV feeds, prioritize risk assessments above mission, and worry about their next rank. If our carnivores turned back to eating meat- then I'd agree, but they're taking out their fangs when they get to that level... (except for the Marines- I've been impressed with the Marines absolute unwillingness to compromise and play PC even at G.O. level...).

As to this group- it was solely founded to increase women at general officer level. Period. That was their mission. Is it any wonder they arrived at this conclusion? I didn't see much in the way of them worrying about combat effectiveness- except for some fuzzy civilian business PC-speak about how diversity makes an organization better.

I may be giving them too much credit but I think they may have put an escape hatch in their recommendation. As I understand it, the commission wants women to be able to serve anywhere within their current MOS designation, and eventually be able to serve with any MOS designation.

Hopefully, an administration with some common sense will one day look at this and see that with the current system (AR, IN are both overstrength, the PT system means women get more promotion points for doing half the PT, most women do not want to be and/or couldn't handle combat arms anyway) and ditch the 'phasing in at all MOS positions' recommendation. Even their primary recommendation will take decades to implement.

Since the majority of the house is republican I would like to see their reaction on this. Something tells me the PC pixies are spreading their fairy dust on both sides of the aisle.

Sigaba
01-15-2011, 11:24
I may be giving them too much credit but I think they may have put an escape hatch in their recommendation. Agreed. The specific recommendation, like the rest of the draft report, is laden with "consultant-speak."

It almost seems that the commission is handing off a deliverable that fulfills the 'scope of services' without giving concrete guidance. (For instance, the draft report does not really develop its two core assumptions that an increased focus on diversity will improve operational effectiveness and civil-military relations.)