Open Minded Mormon and Pagan,Thank you for your thoughts. I am an
LDS female that is currently pursuing a military career and I have felt very
conflicted on this issue. Seeing as I have built such a strong foundation of
identifying with the female role as a nurturer and as someone that has an
incredible desire not to see others suffer, I have been really struggling with
question of what I am truly capable of as a female. However, I’d like to
serve to the same capacity as my male counterparts and would simply appreciate
the opportunity to attempt to do so in hopes that I might be able to contribute.
That being said, I have yet to find a female soldier that would agree with
lowering the standard for combat arms. Women want to contribute, not to hinder
the effort. I have many mentors and close friends that truly are my brothers in
arms, and I can't just sit here while they put their lives on the line. I
believe that I deserve the right to attempt to reach whatever standard is
necessary to fight alongside the people I most care about. Thank you.
"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
‘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.
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.
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, 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 NewsDo we feel better now, Killpack?
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.
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
@killpackI 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.
Re: "How would you know? What branch did you serve in? What combat have you
been in . . . ?"Thanks for making my point.
killpackSandy, 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.
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?
@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.
procuradorfiscalTooele, UTRe: "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?
"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.
@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.
@procuradorfiscalSo true. Too many spout their dogma with no real
understanding of the real issues at hand or how their policies will wreck combat
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.
UtahBlueDevilkillpack 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.
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.
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
PaganSalt Lake City, UTHow 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.
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.
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.
- “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.
How about this?Don't like women serving our country?Fine.Get off your seat and do it yourself.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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!
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
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.
I am so grateful to see Kathleen Parker's opinion on this subject. It is
so ridiculous to consider putting women in combat.
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?
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
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?