Quantcast

Comments about ‘Who has courage to point out problems with women in combat?’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Feb. 5 2013 12:00 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Chris B
Salt Lake City, UT

Exactly. Unfortunately, desire is not the only thing that gets the job done on the front lines. Its ability. And yes, much of that ability is physical ability.

Troops depend on the ability(mostly physical) of their fellow troops for protection.

The liberals would like us to be believe that every person alive truly is equal.

What if the NBA Miami Heat kicked off half their team and brought in 5 women from the WNBA. Lebron James should have no problem with that right? Because after all, the liberals tell us we are all equal.

If that were the case, we'd see many women dominating in the NFL and the NBA.

But we dont. Because they arent.

Don't force a WNBA player on the Miami Heat and make Lebron James suffer the consequences.

Its a simple analogy, but the actual scenario is much more serious.

It's a matter of life and death, and if we've decided that a certain level is required to protect troops, why would we lower that bar suddenly just to make the liberals happy, when we've already said this is the level required?

stuff
Provo, UT

Take into account the affect of women returning from war and suffering from PTSD, impacting their productive return and integration to their personal lives, family and society. The consequence is an increase in children suffering from lack of an effective mother. Any mother or mother-to-be who is suffering from such trauma will have a negative effect on family and society. This should not be.

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

ChrsB

"What if the NBA Miami Heat kicked off half their team and brought in 5 women from the WNBA. Lebron James should have no problem with that right? Because after all, the liberals tell us we are all equal."

===========

You can't even stay on topic.

Just like with women in combat -
Those "women" would still have to try out to make the team first.

No one is forced,
No one is given exceptions to the rules.

I'd wager, that if a woman from the WNBA was scoring 44 points, 16 assists, selling out every game, and was taking her team to the NBA play-offs -- the owners and the fans could careless about gender, age, race, or religion.

The point is, women should be at least allowed the "chance" to try out.

Besides - I served in the militray, in combat, with women.
If they could do everything we could do, why not let them?

watchman
Salt Lake City, UT

I am so grateful to see Kathleen Parker's opinion on this subject. It is so ridiculous to consider putting women in combat.

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: ". . . 'women' would still have to try out to make the team first. No one is forced[.] No one is given exceptions to the rules.

That's the point you apparently missed.

Women's tryouts are not the same as men's. As GEN Dempsey noted, it would become a political issue, with standards that have served us well for generations being suddenly suspect, and the final decision on relaxing them placed in the hands of political appointees, not tactical leaders.

This brave new women-in-combat world will be short-lived. It won't be successful and will get people killed. It will be quickly abandoned the next time the shooting starts.

Soldiers -- male and female -- are not as stupid as politician hope. Upon deployment to Bosnia, as a result of a Hillary Clinton initiative, we were placed in GP-Medium tents without regard to sex. This integration lasted about 30 seconds, as women demanded our shelter halves and poncho liners to construct a wall between their end and ours.

Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

This letter cites indoctrination...

and then cites zero sources!

Opinion, is opinion, is more empty and faceless opinion.

You can't claim other people do it, and then give zero facts yourself and claim you are 'different.'

Any argument made about the harms of women in combat could be used with men. PTSD, injury, disability, etc.

But we still sent over 4,000 brave American men and women into Iraq.

As such, any arguments against women in combat due to injury, PTSD or death, is really about sending ANYONE in to combat.

When more people serve our countries military, maybe others will not be so eager to send others out, to die.

Watch Dog
Provo, UT

I appreciate this author for saying some things that need said. That being said, I do not have a problem with a women, off site, running a drone in Afghanistan, or any where else in the world. Some of these jobs are perfectly okay with me if a woman does them.

But, putting on that vest, the 45 pound pack, and joining her "brothers" who run, literally run, up a hill for 2 or 3 of miles without crapping out and slowing down the rest of the unit? I don't think so!

Should we actually expect the physical build of a woman on the front lines to limit the team? No, we should not. If we allow this to happen, the end result will be an overall weakening of our armed forces in general.

I can hear it now: 'The physical ability of our soldiers should be modified (read toned down) from what they are now - so that women can pass them.'

EVERY enemy in the world that we have, would be welcoming such a naive (and inevitable) change in the ability of our soldiers. Every one!

wrz
Ogden, UT

Women in combat is fine with me... which means they must also register for the draft, just like guys now have to do. Anything less is grossly unfair.

Mike in Cedar City
Cedar City, Utah

What amuses me is that years ago when the LDS Church opposed the ERA, two of the arguments against the amendment by their sycophants was that if passed women would end up in combat and their would be unisex toilets. We have had unisex toilets for quite a while now, and now we have women eligible for combat assignments. Go figure!

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

If we have a problem putting women in combat roles maybe we should think a bit more before putting anyone in a combat role. The gender gap doesn't make anything less stupid.

mcdugall
Layton, UT

This article is nothing more than an opinion piece supported by zero quantitative and questionable qualitative data. The military has done more research about the inclusions of women on the front lines, which many currently do see active combat, and has decided that there will no or only a marginal impact by allowing women to serve, otherwise they would not have made the rule change. Let's all stop being armchair quarterbacks and let the professionals do their work.

Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

How about this?

Don't like women serving our country?

Fine.

Get off your seat and do it yourself.

Californian#1@94131
San Francisco, CA

- “Who has courage to point out problems with women in combat?’ –

Only those who don’t mind being politically incorrect.

My one question about having female combat personnel is: would it enhance or hamper the objective of the armed forces? If there will be no adverse impacts of any kind, on individual units, field operations, morale, or any other aspect of the military’s mission, then let’s go ahead and put women in combat if they meet the overall qualifications.

But let’s keep in mind what that mission is. The Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force do not exist to provide career opportunities for anyone, either male or female. They exist to win wars and protect the United States.

pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

First of all Ms. Parker is showing a vast ignorance of war today. Cooks, are exposed to combat. In todays wars you don't go looking for the enemy most of the time, the enemy comes to you..in your tent, on the road, on humanitarin missions. Every soldier is in combat now. Secondly, where's the talk of our beloved friend Israel. They not only have women in combat but much of what Ms. Parker complains about, some common standards, some different standards, are in fact a part of the Israeli military and it works great.

There's much for us to figure out..but women in the military..women in combat..done, and done well.

UtahBlueDevil
Durham, NC

Good grief Mark B. You do realize modern warfare has moved beyond John Wayne charging the hill in many ways. Yes, there are ground battles.. Just ask the Iraqi's how well trench warfare worked out for them last time. There are many aspects of combat. Some are very local, and very high intensity. Some are controlled from a control center in the middle of Nevada.

Just like to get into the Seals - not everyone can get in. Not every man can get in. Who ever applies for that service, needs to pass the requirements. But this is far different than flying a chopper into combat zones. This is way different than commanding a patriot missile battery. This is far different than firing a howitzer. Not all these require your to be a WWF look alike.

So lets get off the extremes. A woman can operate a surface to air battery. A women can operate armor. Put your mail ego away and realize that technology has entered the battlefield, and it doesn't need hulk hogan or a john wayne wannabe to operate it.

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT
How about this?

Don't like women serving our country?

Fine.

Get off your seat and do it yourself.

10:14 p.m. Feb. 5, 2013

==========

Agreed!

As one veteran to another --

Why is it, the loudest against any minority group (blacks, gays, women, muslims, etc) - have NEVER served in the Military?

It think it's more an issue of ignant bigotry, than an actual issue of combat rediness.

killpack
Sandy, UT

Here's the bottom line. If you can't perform 300 on the Marine Corps PFT, or pretty close to it, you have NO BUSINESS in a Marine Corps infantry unit.

UtahBlueDevil
Durham, NC

Kilpack - you do realize though there is a lot more to a combat corps than infantry, right? We are way past the old John Wayne coming over the hill with guns ablaze. Let’s choose who fills what roles based on skills and capability, and not Y or X chromosomes.

We may end up with the same results, but at least it is based on something real, and less on something that restricts opportuntiy based on something arbitrary.

Dart-02
SLC, UT

UtahBlueDevil

killpack is absolutely correct. And the push for women to be in combat arms also includes a push for them to be in the infantry. Most other combat arms positions also require a lot of upperbody strength such as loading artillery or loading the main gun of an Abrams tank. Check out first hand accounts of Marine infantry in Afghanistan that took FET teams with them and you will find that most found the FET teams slowed them down and hampered the mission. If you don't know what a FET team is, then you have no qualification to make an educated decision on this topic.

The opinions of those who serve and have served in combat arms were never taken into consideration when making this decision to allow women in combat arms. POG colonels and generals go along to get along and obtain the next star.

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: "We are way past the old John Wayne coming over the hill with guns ablaze."

Sorry, but we're not.

And, anyone who fails to understand that, has no real business commenting.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments