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
Dart-02
SLC, UT

@procuradorfiscal

So true. Too many spout their dogma with no real understanding of the real issues at hand or how their policies will wreck combat effectiveness.

killpack
Sandy, UT

@UtahBlueDevil

'Kilpack - you do realize though there is a lot more to a combat corps than infantry, right?'

Rest assured, I am very aware of the other specialties besides infantry, POGs as Dart-02 calls them. I never thought this discussion was about POGs, which do in fact see combat. Yes, I know that. We all do. But I am pretty certain this discussion is about infantry, and the few other specialties designated as combat arms, which have heretofore been closed to females. So, why are we all of a sudden changing the subject? Because, I thought this whole conversation was about combat arms specialties, not ALL specialties, which do in fact see combat. Words have meaning. 'Combat arms,' in military lingo, is very specific. It does not include pilots, cooks, motor T, etc., etc., who often see combat, receive combat action decorations, and so on and so on.

mark
Salt Lake City, 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."

Sorry but we are. Our modern military is not at all similar to what those armies were. The modern military does not operate the same way, they do not fight the same way. Sorry you fail to understand that.

The woman in the military are in combat, and have been in combat. Now it is official. Our military will remain the most powerful war machine the world has ever seen. Get over it. Women serving in the military, I say to you, good for you. And thank you.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

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.

11:52 a.m. Feb. 6, 2013

=============

How would you know?
What branch did you serve in?
What combat have you been in, procuradorfiscal?

killpack
Sandy, UT

@mark

'The woman in the military are in combat, and have been in combat. Now it is official.'

Just be sure not to confuse combat with combat arms. Women have been and are are currently in combat. They often do so with great distinction. They have NOT been in combat arms occupation specialties. There is a huge difference. Words have meaning. If civilian leaders in Washington want to change the wording on policy to feel better about themselves, they need to make darn sure that they know what the words mean. Are we nominally changing the policy, just as a formality, for political correctness' sake, or are we really going to place women in infantry, arty and tank units. I keep hearing all of this noise about 'oh, but women are already in combat.' What do you mean by that? Do you mean they are already in infantry units? Because if so, you are dead wrong. And that is the discussion we should be having.

mark
Salt Lake City, UT

Well then Killpack, maybe then we should know what we are talking about before we get all out of sorts, eh?

"Defense officials say as many as 14,000 positions could be opened up, though the restrictions on women serving in infantry combat units will remain in place.

"The rule change reflects the ongoing reality that in a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, women were already dying in combat with the blurring of the traditional definition of front lines. Nearly 300,000 women have served in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and 144 of them have died in those conflicts.

Women will still be barred from serving in infantry combat units, defense officials say, but the changes will formally open up new positions at the combat battalion level that, until now, have been off limits."-ABC News.

Feel better now, Killpack?

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

killpack
Sandy, UT

==========

You are splitting hairs killpack.

You can be blown up by a road-side IED and not a Navy Seal.

Tell me - where is the "Front-line" anymore?
There isn't one in guerilla or door to door urban warfare.

The times have changed, the situation has changed.

The smaller smarter soldier survives, the bigger dumber ones do not.

Besides--
No one is changing the rules for selection,
If you can do it, you're in - if you can't, you wash out.

They are just removing any preconvieved barriers based ONLY on gender - that's ALL that has changed.

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: "How would you know? What branch did you serve in? What combat have you been in . . . ?"

Thanks for making my point.

Dart-02
SLC, UT

@killpack

I had no intention of changing the subject or suggesting only those in combat arms have seen combat, but what many people don't seem to realize is that fighting from behind gun of turret mounted on a vehicle is a far cry from humping it out over the mountains of Afghanistan with all of your equipment, climbing in and out of ditches and going into a fight that you just walked 8 hours to get to.

@ everyone else: The fighting done by the infantry is still a rough and dirty job that comes down to hand to hand combat at times - so yes we still need gung ho John Wayne types. People keep commenting that war has changed, but some things never change. On top of that no one knows what our next war may entail. Maybe it will be nothing but drone strikes or maybe it will be a conventional war in Korea (unlikely, but never the less possible). It is irresponsible to reduce our combat effectivenss to satisfy politicians and feminazis.

UtahBlueDevil
Durham, NC

Dart -02, 40 years ago these same people trued to convince others that blacks could not or should not serve because they were not up to the task. I take those kinds of opinions for what they are worth. Or are you going to tell me that blacks also hold up operations too?

You use the example of Afghanistan. Your comments only touch on one aspect of what FETs did in the front lines. They played a huge role in rural Afghanistan, where men are banned from talking with 50% of the population. Having FETs in squadron made it possible to get a lot more intelligence and support of locals - something made much harder by all male squads. There is far more to be in a combat troop in Afghanistan than how many rounds you can load per minutes, as actual "combat" comprised a very small portion of a patrols daily duties - and being able to communicate with locals often was the nest way to stay alive.

So yes, I know what a FET is - and what roles they played.

Next

UtahBlueDevil
Durham, NC

procuradorfiscal - I work with these guys weekly at the Durham VA helping them put their lives back together - you know the ones who actually fought on front lines whose lives were torn apart in real combat - - what do you do?

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

You have no idea of what my level of knowledge or experience is. I am more than willing to put my credentials up against yours.... any day.... any time. I don't think you are in a position to decide who should be in the business of commenting - particularly since I am pretty sure you have no first hand experience yourself.

mark
Salt Lake City, UT

Killpack, should we find out what we are talking about before we get worked up?

"Defense officials say as many as 14,000 positions could be opened up, though the restrictions on women serving in infantry combat units will remain in place.

The rule change reflects the ongoing reality that in a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, women were already dying in combat with the blurring of the traditional definition of front lines. Nearly 300,000 women have served in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and 144 of them have died in those conflicts.

Women will still be barred from serving in infantry combat units, defense officials say, but the changes will formally open up new positions at the combat battalion level that, until now, have been off limits.

The new jobs opening up for female service members will be combat support positions, including communications, intelligence and logistical positions, defense officials add. Typically, these jobs have been made available at the combat brigade level, but not at the lower battalion level, which was deemed too close to combat situation."- Restrictions Easing On Women in Combat, ABC News

Do we feel better now, Killpack?

mark
Salt Lake City, UT

Dart 02, not to press the point, but our military in no way fights like they did in the "John Wayne" days. I assume we are talking about WWII or Vietnam. The infantry of the modern military does not fight like they did in those wars. The support and communication alone that the modern infantry has removes it from anything the soldiers were doing in WWII or Vietnam.

What you are saying would be like saying WWII was fought like WWI, or the infantry in WWII was used like the infantry in WWI. It just ain't so.

But if we are just saying that it is a rough and dirty job? Yeah, I'll agree. War is heck. Right?

But the thing is, you are totally wrong if you think this decision will reduce the military's combat effectiveness at all. It won't. Because we DON'T fight wars like we use to.

killpack
Sandy, UT

Dart-02, I wasn't suggesting that you were trying to change the subject, I was just borrowing your POG term. You see, everyone else wants to change the subject by bringing the POG corps into this discussion, but it doesn't really belong. We all know the great need POGs serve, male and female. Any grunt can appreciate when his MRE comes to him in a timely manner and in one piece. And every grunt needs ammo to shoot. And every grunt realizes that every non-grunt puts his or her life in danger when they bring him chow, water, ammo, etc., etc. Nobody questions that. So my question, not to you, but to everyone else, is why does everyone else keep bringing up non-combat arms occupation specialties. This discussion is about whether or not female personnel should serve in combat arms units. This discussion is not about whether or not women should see combat. Women do see combat. We get that. Should they be placed in infantry units? mark assures me that no, they won't be. Okay, that is what I wanted to hear.

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

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

==========

Better yet --

"‘Who has courage to serve in lieu of women in combat?’"

I did.

TheProudDuck
Newport Beach, CA

"If we do decide that a particular standard is so high that a woman couldn't make it, the burden is now on the service to come back and explain to the secretary, why is it that high? Does it really have to be that high?"

And if this process operates as literally everything else operates (bone up on "disparate impact" in the context of employment law), you can be sure that physical standards *will* be lowered, to allow more women into the combat arms.

Because liberals' vision of how the world ought to be, must always triumph over how the world is. And if that means Marines don't have to do as many pull-ups anymore, well, that's a small price to pay to maintain our pretense that "equal" means "the same."

to comment

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