Women in Combat?

[Joker]

Originally Posted by MisoMed

Joker,...- I wonder if some of the push to gain combat status for females has to do with what happens after war? When a female veteran tries to obtain benefits from the VA, sometimes she's relegated to the back of the line for her non-combat status even if she received her wounds in combat. If her paperwork isn't coded as such, she isn't getting care and falls behind her brothers in the long line of the wounded. A friend of mine has a purple heart and she can't get timely care but of course, who does?

...Your experiences may be really different. What are you running into?

MM,
I personally do not believe anyone that has wounds due to combat should be relegated to the back of the line regardless of sex. True combat wounds can take place anywhere – in a village, FOB, or on the way to the Embassy.

I am now a sr. civilian at Star Fleet Command and we see no true combat nor have I heard of one female saying that they wanted to go Infantry, Ranger, or SF. The only ones that I have heard this from is the male(?) Pentagon Leadership, who are even farther removed from the action and are not Combat Arms, and a few congress women (note the little “c,” you figure it out), who never have, or will, see some military combat.

Joker

[The Reaper]

Excellent read.

TR

Seven Myths about “Women in Combat
G.S. Newbold
Lieutenant General, USMC (Ret)

• Myth #1 – “It’s about women in combat.” No, it’s not. Women are already in combat and are serving with unsurprising professionalism. The issue should be more clearly entitled, “Women in the infantry. And this is a decidedly different proposition.

• Myth #2 – “Combat has changed.” Wrong, for several reasons. First, any competent student of military history will cite numerous historical examples about how generations over millennia believed that warfare had changed forever, only to find that technology may change platforms, but not its harsh essence. To hope that the future of warfare will be antiseptic, or mirror Hollywood fantasies, is delusional and dangerous. A second point about the “combat has changed” myth is that the enemy gets a vote. For example, war on the Korean Peninsula, as might occur in numerous other places, would be a brutal, costly, no-holds-barred nightmare of mayhem in close combat. The final point on this myth reinforces the Korea example and it bears examination -- Fallujah, Iraq in 2004, where warfare was reduced to a horrific, costly, and exhausting scrap in a destroyed city between two foes who fought to the death. The standard for ground combat unit composition should be whether social experimentation would have amplified our opportunity for success in that crucible, or diminished it. Realistic benchmarks – not convenient ones – have to be our metric. We gamble with our future security when we set standards for warfare based on the best case, instead of the harshest one.

• Myth #3 – “If they pass the physical standards, why not?” Physical standards are important, but not nearly all of the story. The grit and horror of direct ground combat reduces humanity to its most base state, and those who can accommodate it survive; those who can’t are victims who only serve to let down their comrades. Napoleon – “The moral (spirit) is to the physical as three is to one.” Unit cohesion is the essence of combat power, and while it may be convenient to dismiss human nature for political expediency, we have had little to no success in this regard. Brutal facts of sexual harassment in the military, civilian workplace, and academia are evidence enough.

• Myth #4 – “Standards won’t be lowered.” This is the cruelest myth of all. There are already accommodations (note that unit cohesion won’t be a metric), there will be many more, and we will pay a bloody price for it someday. Pity the truthful leader who attempts to hold to standards based on realistic combat factors, and tells truth to power. Most won’t, and the others won’t survive.

• Myth #5 – “Opening the infantry will provide a better pathway to senior rank for the talented women.” Not so. What will happen is that we will take very dedicated and talented females with unlimited potential and change their peer norm when we inject them into the infantry. Those who might meet the infantry physical standard will find that their peers are expected, as leaders, to far exceed it (and most of their subordinates will, as well). So instead of advancing to a level appropriate to their potential, they may well be left out.

• Myth #6 – “It’s a civil rights issue, much like the integration of the Armed Forces and allowing gays to serve openly.” Those who parrot this either hope to scare honest and frank discussion, or confuse national security with utopian ideas. In the process, they demean initiatives that were to provide equally skilled individuals the opportunity to contribute equally. In each of the other issues, accommodation and lowered standards was not the consequence.

• Myth #7 – “It’s just fair.” Allow me two points. First, this is ground warfare we’re discussing, so realism is important. Direct ground combat, such as practiced in the wheat fields of France, the rubble of Stalingrad, or the endless thirty day jungle patrols against a grim foe in Viet Nam, is the harshest meritocracy, with the greatest consequences, there is. And it’s a team sport, where the failings of one can have grave consequences for all. Psychology in warfare is germane – the force that is respected (and, yes, feared) has a distinct advantage. Will women in our infantry enhance a psychological advantage, or hinder it? Second, if it’s about fairness, why do women get a choice of whether to serve in the infantry (when men do not), and why aren’t they required to register for the draft (as men are)?
It may be that we live in a society in which honest discussion of this issue, relying on facts instead of volume, is not possible. If so, our national security will fall victim to hope instead of reality. And myths be damned.

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by orion5

TR- was your source the Second Line of Defense Forum?

I always like to look at the original web source for reader comments, but there don't seem to be any responses yet...

Negative. I got it in an email.

TR

[Chairborne64]

Here is an article that brings out several very good points. I came across this link on Weapon's Man Blog.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articl...html?nopager=1

[Richard]

Well...

And so it goes...

Richard

[Chairborne64]

Okay, that makes sense. I was wondering about that first post it seemed "disconnected."

[Chairborne64]

I see the next two women failed to pass the USMC Infantry Officer Course.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ng-course.html

Interesting how only the UK news is reporting this.

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by Chairborne64

I see the next two women failed to pass the USMC Infantry Officer Course.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ng-course.html

Interesting how only the UK news is reporting this.

It won't be long before they are told to either build a female only course, or be told to lower the standards for them.

They will not accept that the genders are physically different.

TR

[Chairborne64]

Reaper,

I concur. This is not working out like they expected. Here is another take on this:

http://www.examiner.com/article/mari...d-on-first-day

As they state the male drop out rate from this course is about 20% The female rate is 100%.

[longrange1947]

Reaper, they have already discussed gender "norming" in which if a man exerts 80% of his strength to lift 100 pounds and a women exerts 80% at 60 pounds then they are "normed" and thus equal. Of course the reality of a 100 pound ruck will smack someone in the reality face sooner not later.

[Chairborne64]

According to this article the Commadant of the USMC and the other service chiefs have now decided on a 3 year "study" period before they make their recommendation about women in the infantry and Special Operations. Sounds like they are starting to get cold feet now that there is a new SECDEF.

http://freebeacon.com/female-marines...fficer-course/

[Joker]

MM, do not confuse the issue of political ineptness and ignorance with the issue of our sisters in combat, two entirely different points.

[Chairborne64]

The bottom line is that at this rate there will never be a significant number of women that can meet the standards to be in the Infantry without the standards being significantly lowered.

[Dusty]

The liberaces will more than likely lower the standards, which is unfair to the women who have the kind of kickass attitude to want to be an Infantry Officer.

They lose, either way, and it's a shame. I have enormous admiration and respect for the sand in a woman who wants a ground combat leadership position, aberrant though it is.

[MR2]

Originally Posted by Dusty

The liberaces will more than likely lower the standards, which is unfair to the women who have the kind of kickass attitude to want to be an Infantry Officer.

They lose, either way, and it's a shame. I have enormous admiration and respect for the sand in a woman who wants a ground combat leadership position, aberrant though it is.

Liberace's? Wow Dusty, don't pull punches much do ya!

I don't know about admire, but certainly respect!