Too Many Whites, Men Leading the Military?

[delta6]

Post 14, why are you shocked about post 7.

[Texas_Shooter]

Originally Posted by delta6

Post 14, why are you shocked about post 7.

Second his request. You can not just leave us hanging like that.

[bluebb]

Competent and professional!

Blue

[bluebb]

Originally Posted by delta6 View Post
Post 14, why are you shocked about post 7.

Because he is Richard

Blue

[ZonieDiver]

Originally Posted by delta6

Post 14, why are you shocked about post 7.

He didn't say he was shocked; he said he disagreed.

I'm shocked that you might wonder why he might disagree.

[delta6]

Because he is Richard.

[dennisw]

Here's a link to the commissioners and the commission's staff

http://mldc.whs.mil/index.php/about/commissioners
http://mldc.whs.mil/index.php/about/staff
Attitudes Regarding Gender Policies

http://mldc.whs.mil/download/documen..._in_Combat.pdf

Women in Combat Legislation and Policy, Perceptions, and the Current Operational Environment

Issue Paper #56 Page #3 November 2010

The U.S. military depends upon female servicemembers to satisfy military requirements. The performance of female servicemembers is frequently applauded, and is recognized with awards (McSally, 2007).6 Servicemembers and commanders returning from Iraq, when questioned about the assignment policy, consistently informed researchers that both male and female servicemembers had performed well during deployment. Nonetheless, challenges to the assignment policy and the prescribed roles of military women remain.

Those who argue against expanded roles for military women mention several issues. One issue is an expected negative effect upon cohesion and mission effectiveness. Neither research nor practical experience has supported this concern (Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services [DACOWITS], 2009; Harrell & Miller, 1997). Another argument is that women in combat impede mission effectiveness because they cannot handle the same equipment or tolerate the same physical stress as men. Indeed, women get the same training and must meet generally the same health standards and qualifications as men, although sometimes the physical requirements differ. For example, the Army Physical Fitness Test, which consists of push-ups, sit-ups, and a two-mile run, uses the same scale to score sit-ups for both genders, with an easier scale for females in push-ups and the run (APFT-standards.com, 2010). According to one female soldier,(looks like they did a lot of research) however, varying fitness expectations “automatically sets women soldiers apart and makes us appear less capable than men” (Ross, 2010). When it comes to arguments about carrying equipment or even wounded soldiers, some argue that inability may be more a function of size than gender, and that the capabilities of smaller men and larger women overlap. Ultimately, there is a lack of empirical data on female fitness and correlation with battle performance other than basic physical requirements by the Services.

A related contention suggests that women cannot deal with the emotional ramifications of combat as well as men (Cave, 2009). However, the limited published studies on gender differences in mental health impacts of combat exposure suggest the evidence is mixed; some research shows slightly more negative impacts for women but other research finds no gender differences (Street, Vogt, & Dutra, 2009). Further- more, DoD officials noted that initial studies of veterans with similar time outside secure bases in Iraq revealed increased mental health issues for males and females in nearly the same proportion (Cave, 2009). Taken together, the existing evidence does not support the claim that women are neces- sarily less equipped than men to handle the stress of combat.

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by ZonieDiver

He didn't say he was shocked; he said he disagreed.

I'm shocked that you might wonder why he might disagree.

Because it's like disagreeing that the sun shines.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by scooterdude713

Second his request. You can not just leave us hanging like that.

Because scooterdude and delta6 the draft has been discussed on this board many times.

You two are failing to get a feel for the board and the long time posters. It's more like you're shooting your mouth off in a frat house.

Step up your game or you might be on the outside looking in.

[Buffalobob]

The draft never should have ended, these kids today have no clue about anything other than their Ipod/texting and wearing their jenns at the knees. Even if they hated the military the eyes and ears were opened to see what it takes to be a free country with respect for the flag and those that fought for it. Rank was earned along with respect after completing the required course not before, color/sex had no place in the line as we were all equal. The PC shit is destroying this country and it needs to go where all shit ends up, along with the Lib thinking politicians. Let men be men and women be women and serve the purpose that we were created for.

Well, I agree that military service or some service should be mandatory. And I agree that it would make people more aware of the price of freedom and more aware of the price of wars.

However, as I understand the current situation there are more kids wanting to get into special forces than special forces needs. The issue is first seen in infantry school which IIRC is 80+% white male. This is a video of my sons infantry school graduation.
http://www.youtube.com/user/Microcys...44/ZLMwqT81L0w

I do not know what part of the nation you grew up in where men and women and people of color or different languages and religions were treated equally according to what they earned but it certainly was not Alabama in the 1960's and 1970's and it certainly is still not in existence at the present time. I remember the days of Lester Maddox, Eugene Bull Connor or Robert Shelton and find no recollection of anything other than the good ole white boys having a good ole white boy time. In the end, old white men invoke the name of god to rationalize their oppression of others, especially women.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by dennisw

Here's a link to the commissioners and the commission's staff

http://mldc.whs.mil/index.php/about/commissioners
http://mldc.whs.mil/index.php/about/staff

Déjà vu all over again!<<LINK>>

Originally Posted by dennisw

http://mldc.whs.mil/download/documen..._in_Combat.pdf

Women in Combat Legislation and Policy, Perceptions, and the Current Operational Environment

Issue Paper #56 Page #3 November 2010

The U.S. military depends upon female servicemembers to satisfy military requirements. The performance of female servicemembers is frequently applauded, and is recognized with awards (McSally, 2007).6 Servicemembers and commanders returning from Iraq, when questioned about the assignment policy, consistently informed researchers that both male and female servicemembers had performed well during deployment. Nonetheless, challenges to the assignment policy and the prescribed roles of military women remain.

Those who argue against expanded roles for military women mention several issues. One issue is an expected negative effect upon cohesion and mission effectiveness. Neither research nor practical experience has supported this concern (Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services [DACOWITS], 2009; Harrell & Miller, 1997). Another argument is that women in combat impede mission effectiveness because they cannot handle the same equipment or tolerate the same physical stress as men. Indeed, women get the same training and must meet generally the same health standards and qualifications as men, although sometimes the physical requirements differ. For example, the Army Physical Fitness Test, which consists of push-ups, sit-ups, and a two-mile run, uses the same scale to score sit-ups for both genders, with an easier scale for females in push-ups and the run (APFT-standards.com, 2010). According to one female soldier,(looks like they did a lot of research) however, varying fitness expectations “automatically sets women soldiers apart and makes us appear less capable than men” (Ross, 2010).

You raise a good piont. When does anecdotal evidence become reliable? When it resonates with our experiences? When we agree with it? When we don't? Or does it entirely depend upon the credibility of the person offering it? Source is here.

Catherine Ross served in the Army Reserves for eight years. She deployed to Balad and Mosul in Iraq in 2003 and 2004 as a civil affairs sergeant with the 445th Civil Affairs Battalion, attached to 3rd Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT), 2nd Infantry Division. She lives in Columbus, Ga., with her husband, an Army staff sergeant, and her 3-year-old daughter.

[Sdiver]

Originally Posted by ZonieDiver

He didn't say he was shocked; he said he disagreed.

I'm shocked that you might wonder why he might disagree.

Originally Posted by Dusty

Because it's like disagreeing that the sun shines.

aka = Because he's Richard.


Although I do have to say ... (I can't believe I'm gong to say this ) I agree with Richard, in the fact that he disagrees with post #7, to which I too disagree with delta6's post #7 ... but only the first few words ..... in so much as the draft ending.

IMO ... our military is stronger now-a-days, being an all volunteer military as opposed to having the draft in place. Those that want to serve, choose to do so, and in some ways, wants to be there.

[Peregrino]

Originally Posted by Sdiver

Those that want to serve, choose to do so, and in some ways, wants to be there.

And therein lies the crux of the problem - the military reflects the makeup of those who chose to serve. The leadership reflects the makeup of those who chose to lead combat arms units. And that's how it should be. We have enough opportunities for herbivores in CS/CSS, we don't need them leading carnivores, nor do they need to be in charge of combat formations. And for the politically correct out there - combat is what the military exists for. Deter if possible, win when deterence inevitably fails.

[dennisw]

Increase the Pool of Eligible Candidates
Recent statistics from the Pentagon show that three out of four young people ages 17–24 are not eligible to enlist in the military (Gilroy, 2009). Many fail to meet entry requirements related to education, test scores, citizenship, health status, and past crim- inal history. Further, racial/ethnic minorities are less likely to meet eligibility require- ments than are non-Hispanic whites, and that gap is widening. This is a national secu- rity issue requiring the attention and collected effort of top public officials, such as the President, members of Congress, and State and local leaders, all of whom can turn the tide by developing and executing strong, united, action-oriented programs to improve eligibility among the youth population. Together, these officials and other stakeholders, such as DoD, the Department of Education, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of Homeland Security, can and should improve educational and physical readiness among American youth and foster new interest in military service.

The above excerpt is one of the recommendations from the final report. I find it hard to believe that 3 out of 4 persons ages 17 - 24 are not eligible to enlist in the military. If the results of the commission are based upon faulty research, one has to question their conclusions.


It also appears that the folks doing this study have not reviewed the ongoing work of others.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition...ombat-1.219239

Meanwhile, a group of determined, senior female officers continued to forge ahead. While the men were bogged down in the territories and in Lebanon, the head officers of the Women's Corps (the job title was recently changed to Advisor to the Chief of Staff on Women's Affairs, or Yohalan, in the Hebrew acronym) remained focused on the target. Brigadier Generals Orit Adato, Suzy Yogev, Devora Hasid and the current advisor, Brigadier General Yehudit Grisaro, all sought to further the integration of women as combat troops. "The general staff just couldn't keep track," one of the women admits today. "We carried out a revolution right under their noses." Only recently, a committee has been appointed, headed by Major General (res.) Yehuda Segev, to closely examine the matter of women's military service. Instead of the patchwork approach of the past decade, Segev is trying for the first time to formulate a clearly defined policy on the issue.

For those opposed to the move, this marks the first opportunity to present an orderly objection to the trend fostered by several advisors to the chief of staff on women's affairs. Last week the Segev Committee met for another session, its sixth to date. On the agenda was a presentation that had already aroused sharp reactions during previous showings at other military forums. It is a document authored by several reservist officers, most of them religious.

In the past, the arguments against women serving in combat positions focused on the point of view of the religious soldier, who felt that he was being forced into intimate proximity with women under immodest circumstances. This time round, the arguments are much more sophisticated. The authors of the presentation collected material from a large array of sources, in Israel and abroad, that cast doubt on the usefulness of integrating women into combat. Bottom line, it's a blunt and learned attack on the sacred axioms of political correctness.

In the past, the IDF considered the armies of the United States and Britain as role models. But, in recent years, the policy of accepting women to combat roles has been receding in both these militaries. Thus, a 2002 report from the British Ministry of Defense notes that the army acknowledges that women may constitute a risk to effectiveness in battle. American law prohibits the integration of women in combat or combat support units below the brigade level. In 2002, the U.S. canceled combined basic training for men and women.

Other arguments against integration: The difficulty women have in carrying out the demanding physical tasks - the foremost of which is carrying heavy weights; the high frequency of injuries among female fighters (especially stress fractures); the modification of criteria in IDF units for the purpose of integrating more women; the introduction of sexual tension into combat frameworks; and the adverse effect on a unit's operational performance when put to the real test. So far, though, the evidence does not add up to a very weighty argument. There is just a collection of claims about poor performance or anxiety exhibited by female officers and soldiers during fighting in Gaza and Lebanon.

The central argument advanced by opponents is more interesting. The policy of the Yohalan, they say, was adopted without an orderly thought process or analysis. First the arrow was shot and then the target was marked around it. The IDF did not conduct an in-depth examination of what was happening in other armies or of the move's potential effects. Nor do the authors of the presentation shy from embarking on what might be called a witch hunt. They cite a number of statements by academic researchers who participated in studies initiated by the Yohalan. Some of these scholars have signed petitions supporting refusal to serve and opposing the war in Lebanon. The authors' conclusion: A "radical feminist" faction overtook military thought regarding the integration of female fighters, without the general staff's knowledge.

Déjà vu all over again!<<LINK>>

Sorry about the duplication.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Peregrino

And therein lies the crux of the problem - the military reflects the makeup of those who chose to serve. The leadership reflects the makeup of those who chose to lead combat arms units. And that's how it should be. We have enough opportunities for herbivores in CS/CSS, we don't need them leading carnivores, nor do they need to be in charge of combat formations. And for the politically correct out there - combat is what the military exists for. Deter if possible, win when deterrence inevitably fails.

Is it possible that some of the carnivores would direct their energies in less self-destructive endeavors if there were unequivocal evidence that their careers in the armed forces would only be limited by the needs of the services and their individual abilities and motivation?