atl134 is spot-on. Women have been barred from frontline conventional infantry
combat, which is traditionally considered different from anything like aircraft
or missile silos. One can argue semantics, but that doesn't change the
fact that infantry combat is the last glass ceiling for women in uniform.As to those saying that the military has to lower the physical
standards, the expectations remain the same for anyone on patrol in the Hindu
Kush chasing Taliban. Women will be no exception.
Pagan:Facts please? How do you know how much goes to the military
when we haven't had a budget plan for four years? Thousands of jobs
provided by the military is better then unemployment checks. So Pagan wants to
cut jobs?Might do? N Korea just stated what they are going to
do.--Europe would have save many lives had they acted earlier with Hitler. Does anyone think North Korea would threaten Russia with nukes?
They'll threaten us with no fear. ---.
I cringe at the thought of women being drafted.
@VST"Your dismissive response clearly shows that you really do not
understand the concept of how a nuclear war is fought, or even defended and
prevented."Oh I understand it, I just know that I'd much
rather be there than anywhere even remotely connected to the actual battlefield
whether in a combat or support role because I wouldn't want to get shot.
Women have served in combat in Iraq & Afghanistan for the past 10 years.
They have fought in recent conflicts such as Desert Storm and Panama. .
They have proven their ability so let them serve. Anyone willing to carry
a rifle and protect this nation should be allowed to do so. .As for
the whole captured women being used to hold back the nation's military
objectives is malarkey. Women entering combat arms role will understand the
risks involved. Women were captured during the Iraq War and we sure did not put
a stop to the war because of it. Jessica Lynch and Shoshana Johnson
are two examples.
@Pagan You say people are fabricating reasons women should not serve in
combat... based on nothing. There's an eye-opening article in the LAWeekly
from Jan 23, 2008 called "Women Firefighters: The Gender Boondoggle"
that gives a roadmap of where the military will go as they implement this
policy. Lowered physical requirements, disregarding females failures of Phys
requirement tests, requiring more people to do a job than necessary because if
one of them is a woman it requires more people, losing people to do other
critical tasks because the women can't pull their own weight--those are the
highlights, that'll do wonders for fighting effectiveness. Not to mention
weeks of not showering and doing hygiene tasks in front of each other in close
quarters. The military, great place for a big gender experiment!
So now men have to fight and they'll have to carry extra weight from the
packs of women who are not able to carry the amount of weight that they are
supposed to. And a video of a woman POW shown back home, that's going to
make military objectives impossible, they will have big targets on their backs.
If you have to fabricate reasons why women should not serve in combat, what
makes you different from... the Taliban?
Blacks serve in our military, nothing changed.Gays serve in our
military, nothing changed.Why do people speculate instead of have
factual reasons why women should not serve our military?Fear.Well done sisters.It's about time.
Cats,No one is making women fight on the front lines. Some women
want to. Some women want that equality. With all due respect, when you write
this line, "Do we really want to do this to women?", we are not doing
anything to women. "We" are only letting them make that choice!
"Are American female POW's going to face "demeaning physical
abuse" at the hands of the enemy?"@Oatmeal.... we had women
POW in Iraq. And, yes, they did get inflicted with some harsh treatment.
Just like the prisoners at Abu Graib did. War is an extremely ugly
business...in the end though t it is these women's right to choose... it is
their right to serve, and their right to sacrifice and take risks, its there
lives, let them choose.But that is not the real issue. I do
pro-bono work at the VA. One of the people I work with is a lady by the name
of Susan Smith who is runs a group helping women in the service. The biggest
threat our own women soldiers have is abuse from within their own ranks. The
numbers run as high as 1/3rd of women who have served have be the victim of some
form of sexual assault. It is a huge issue. The people we need to worry about
aren't those wearing the other uniforms, but those who share the same
Will young women eventually have to register with the selective service like the
young men? If we don't discriminate regarding combat duty, under what
rationale do we restrict selective service and the draft to men alone?Are American female POW's going to face "demeaning physical
abuse" at the hands of the enemy?
This is another move motivated by political correctness rather than what is best
for the defense of our country. As a normal red blooded American male I enjoyed
having women around when I was in the Army during peacetime in a combat support
role. But going co-ed in actual combat would be a hindrance! Women are not as
physically capable as evidenced by lower standards for women on the PT test,
they require separate facilities and their is always the problem of sexual
interaction. I am not saying that there are not capable women or
that if necessary women couldn't do the job. But if given a choice male
only unit would be preferable.
@VST"It definitely is a combat role when that Launch Center has to
absorb the shock and damage of that first nuclear strike, and then respond
accordingly."In the traditional sense of the term... it's
not a combat role.
Dear Utah Blue Devil, it is not a hypothesis. That is a matter of history.
The Israelis pulled women back from combat because they found that the Arabs
were so afraid of the humiliation of being taken prisoner by a woman that they
fought harder. This is just a fact. Women serve in the Israeli military, but
they don't serve on the front lines. If this has since changed, then I
stand corrected. But,it is an historical fact. The Israelis are very smart
people and they do what is most effective for their survival. Women are great
in the military but NOT in combat.
In Iraq there were no "front lines." I served with women in Baghdad and
Fallujah that did the same jobs as any of the men. This included night time
residence searches, convoy security, patrolling for IED's, etc. When you
leave the wire at the BIAP you are on the "front line." Representative
Tammy Duckworth who currently serves in congress lost both of her legs in Iraq.
Women in combat has been the unofficial policy and the official reality for the
last 11 years.
VST,You're getting caught up in semantics. There are plenty of
examples of women currently serving in ACTUAL combat roles in Iraq and
Afghanistan, but you example doesn't count.A bunch of people
sitting in an ICBM bunker aren't what most people would consider a
"combat role", no matter what the "official" designation may
"They found out it didn't work out too well. They found that their
enemies fought even harder when they knew they were fighting women. They found
it was more efficacious to pull the women back.:What an absurd
notion. I am trying to kill you. You find out that it is a women trying to
kill you, so then you really start fighting back. Doesn't anyone find this
hypotheses ridicules? If someone is trying to take my life, i don't gauge
my response to that threat if they are women, asian, Christian, Islamic, hetro
or gay. What.... "hay, someone is shooting at me.... waite.... she's a
woman..... now I am really going to fight back then." Good
grief.Try reading up on it.... per 2012 AP article"The Caracal battalion's response to the militant attack on Friday
– which left three gunmen dead, including one whom Israeli officials said
was killed by a female soldier – marked a major test for the unit that
typically handles tame operations. One Israeli soldier also was killed."The Caracal battalion is a co-ed Israeli combat unit.
It's about time. Now we should reinstate the draft. Currently, only a
small segment of society shares the burdens of war. Only when those burdens are
more widely held, will we pause before committing our servicemen/women to war.
We need to stop allowing politicians, who have never served in the military, who
defer their service because of college, religious callings, etc, and who
don't have any family members serving, commit us to endless conflict.
The Isrealis tried it. They found out it didn't work out too well. They
found that their enemies fought even harder when they knew they were fighting
women. They found it was more efficacious to pull the women back. In addition, when women become prisoners of war, it is quite different than
men. Rank is not respected and women are immediately raped. These are just a
couple of reasons why I don't think this is a good thing. It's bad enough that men have to become killers in order to defend our
country. Do we really want to do this to women?