Battlefield XX: Women in Combat

[Jexiel]

It is time our brave American women stand as the equals of our brave American men. Women must be allowed to serve in combat. Why should men bear the brunt of serving in the battlefield? Who are we to deny willing and capable women the chance to serve alongside men? As a veteran of the USAF, I strongly support and encourage my female comrades to serve our country as they see fit; if this means fighting in the foxholes, so be it.

William Saletan makes a compelling case in favor of ending the ban on females in combat. Please take the time to read the article. Thanks.

http://www.slate.com/id/2234862/

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Girls in the Hood

If women can defend Fort Hood, they can defend America.
By William SaletanPosted Friday, Nov. 6, 2009, at 3:11 PM ET

Fort Hood, Texas, hosts tens of thousands of men who are trained to fight for their country. But none of them stopped Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan as he blew away 13 of their colleagues Thursday afternoon. It was a civilian police officer, Sgt. Kimberly Munley, who confronted and shot him in an exchange of gunfire. For her trouble, Munley took bullets in both legs and an arm. Maybe the president will pin a medal on her.Here's a better way to honor Munley: End the ban on women in combat.

Department of Defense policy states that "women shall be excluded from assignment to units below the brigade level whose primary mission is to engage in direct combat on the ground." According to the policy, "Direct ground combat takes place well forward on the battlefield."
Well forward on the battlefield? In Iraq and Afghanistan, there is no forward. There isn't even a battlefield. We're living in a world of car bombs, snipers, suicide bombers, improvised explosive devices, and civilian airplane attacks. The battlefield is everywhere.

So are women. By the most recent count, courtesy of ABC News two weeks ago, there are 10,000 female personnel in Iraq and 4,000 more in Afghanistan. They're driving trucks, treating wounded, and shooting when attacked. More than 100 have given their lives in Iraq; another 15 have died in Afghanistan.

The no-combat policy pretends that women can't take such risks without harming overall military performance. It bars women from infantry positions, training as armored vehicle drivers, and being assigned as medics to combat units. The latest instruction, issued by the secretary of the Navy six months ago, says that women

may not be assigned to billets as members of: infantry regiments and below; artillery battalions and below; any armored units (tanks, amphibious assault vehicles, and light armored reconnaissance) … or units engaged in long-range reconnaissance operations or Special Operations Forces missions, when such billets are inherently likely to result in being exposed to hostile fire.

Exposed to hostile fire? You mean, like Sgt. Munley? I'd say she acquitted herself pretty well. So did Spc. Ashley Pullen, who earned a Bronze Star in Iraq by running through a line of fire and using her body as a shield to save a wounded soldier. Spc. Monica Brown got a Silver Star for rescuing five injured comrades under heavy fire in Afghanistan. Sgt. Leigh Ann Hester led her team through a line of fire in Iraq to outflank and destroy the insurgents who had ambushed her convoy.
Not every woman is capable of such feats. But not every man is, either. According to a report issued yesterday by several retired military leaders, 75 percent of Americans ages 17 to 24 are unfit for military service because of poor physical condition, criminal history, or failure to complete high school. Wouldn't our combat forces be stronger if they included the fittest men and women, instead of reaching deeper into the pool of unfit men?

The question isn't whether men are physically stronger than women on average. Of course they are. The question is whether to translate that average into a rule against women in combat. The 2009 Navy policy, for example, states that women must be barred from jobs whose "physical requirements would necessarily exclude the vast majority of women service members." Why should some women be excluded based on the performance of others? Would you tolerate such an average-based rule against any racial or religious group?

Despite these absurdities, the ban is still in place, defended by the anti-feminist lobby and its allies in Congress. The Center for Military Readiness, which supports the ban, accuses the Army of evading it and blames the expanding roles of women in the military on "the agendas of civilian feminists." War is no time or place for "social experiments," the center argues. "The needs of the military—and the nation—must come first."

That's the right principle. But its application needs updating. Today, combat is everywhere. Even on a stateside military base, a civilian police officer can find herself under fire. Like other women who have faced such threats in Iraq and Afghanistan, Kimberly Munley put the needs of her military and her nation first.

The exclusion of women from combat is a failed social experiment. It's time to end it.

[Exarch]

Willaim saletan is a pussy who should hand his balls in at the counter; any man that expects a woman to be endangered is no man at all.

[Justice and Mercy]

Willaim saletan is a pussy who should hand his balls in at the counter; any man that expects a woman to be endangered is no man at all.

Any many who affords women the choice of whether or not they'd like to be endangered is called a "freedom loving individual".

It's okay, wouldn't expect you to understand.

[S.L.I.G]

Any many who affords women the choice of whether or not they'd like to be endangered is called a "freedom loving individual".

It's okay, wouldn't expect you to understand.

No. You realize that there are certain...expectations for any job, and consequences for them. The result of which is often denying someone employment. In the case of the Military, the Government has denied them employment. That is not infringing on their freedom or liberties, it is being effective.

And don't try that condesending Libertarian crap on me, cause' I'm a Libertarian and its just a bunch of .

[Justice and Mercy]

No.

Yes.

I'm not talking about the military in particular. He spoke in general terms, I replied in general terms.

Government employment has nothing to do with liberty.

You realize that there are certain...expectations for any job, and consequences for them.

Okay. I see no reason to make one of those requirements "male".

[patrick1191]

No. Its just dumb to have to go through that much effort to get weaker soldiers. Yes a women would be a weaker soldier than a man, Physically and mentally.

[humvee2800]

So because something sounds right it should be allowed? I think people serving their country should be allowed to drink at the age of 18. How come we can fight and die for our country but not enjoy a drink in it? Stupid, right? It's not going to change.

As is, they don't meet the same requirement. Women have separate standards because they are women, not because they aren't serving in combat roles. There is no differing physical fitness test in the Army or Marine corps for combat arms and non-combat arms. There is one PFT for everyone. The only difference is women have different standards. In the Marines we don't do pushups, we do pull-ups, unless you're a female then you do a flex arm hang.

In order to get a perfect PFT score a male must do 20 pull ups, 100 crunches in two minutes, and run three miles in 18 minutes. For a girl they must do a flexed arm hang for 70 seconds. Keep in mind, the starting position is with their chin up over the bar but they are allowed to lower their chin below the bar as long as they maintain some bend in their damn arms. 3 miles in 21:00 minutes and 100 crunches in two minutes.

The standards are skewed. Especially considering a female can get a 28 minute three mile run time and still finish with a good PFT score, within the upper third of the scoring, but if a male runs a 28 minute three mile time he fails the PFT.

They pushed this on fire fighters years ago in the United States. Women weren't cutting the mustard, so they lowered the standards because it's RIGHT for them to serve.

Anyways, to serve in the infantry doesn't really require any standards to get in. You go to infantry school, you get hazed for two months, learn basic squad and fireteam tactics, have to pass 3 tests with an 80% or hire, complete a 5km, 10km, 15km, and 20km hike without falling out of the formation (typically a 5km pace per hour) and that's it. It's not that hard, then they get to the fleet and they're home free to wreck and destroy unit cohesion and perform poorly forever. Even if they fail the PFT during that time no one is going to kick them out of the infantry or any other combat role. I don't know what your perception of the requirements are, but they're not all that stringent.

First of all you are twisting around what I said, Its not about social experiments, or rights to drink in the army, which is a ridiculous comparison to begin with, its about a citizens right male or female to serve their country if they physically meet the same requirements. A dick should not not be a requirementfor the army, as for what I recall, its usually not lethal ammo.

My point is make the standards the same, I did not say it was a right to serve I said IF a female can meet the same requirements as a male, which it is quite possible and they can be quite capable of doing, then there is no reason to not let them in.

The FACT of the matter is not that females are weaker, on average, but they still have the potential to meet the requirements. Besides the army has been lowering the standards specifically to get recruitment up.

My question for you is this

Do you believe it is "impossible " for a woman to meet the male requirements for the army

If she can, why can she not be allowed in ?

[mongrel]

As far as I am concerned, if you can pay taxes, you can serve your country.

[Shaun]

Guys, there's a valid reason females are not allowed to serve on the front line with men: females are physically much weaker than males, and much more likely to get injured and take much longer to recover from such injuries. Anyone who has any experience training people will be able to vouch for this.

[Orko]

No, bad idea. Women belong in the kitchen/sarcasm

[Jexiel]

Willaim saletan is a pussy who should hand his balls in at the counter; any man that expects a woman to be endangered is no man at all.

So, we should not allow women to serve as police officers, EMTs, firefighters, corrections officers, aircraft pilots, President of the U.S. among others. After all, these positions bring high degrees of danger, no?

Guys, there's a valid reason females are not allowed to serve on the front line with men: females are physically much weaker than males, and much more likely to get injured and take much longer to recover from such injuries. Anyone who has any experience training people will be able to vouch for this.

Yes, women have less physical strength than men. Women also happen to be smaller and more flexible than men (a plus when you gotta hit the deck). The real problem is psychological; more than likely, men fighting alongside women will move to protect these women thus jeopardizing the mission. Time to get over that macho way of thinking.

[Exarch]

So, we should not allow women to serve as police officers, EMTs, firefighters, corrections officers, aircraft pilots, President of the U.S. among others. After all, these positions bring high degrees of danger, no?
.

apples and oranges, friend
in combat, one is guaranteed wounding, maiming, scarring, either physically or mentally.

while the potential is there for cops, EMTs, firefighters, pilots etc etc it aint as high as combat troops in the middle of a war.
secondly, those occupations are still male dominated and
thirdly, given how male male bonding dynamic creates close unit cohesion vital to combat, you cant say the same for male female relationships. now there's no need to be PC about it, it's just nature. men want to bang women. even gay men wanted to bang women at some stage in their former confused lives.
but like i said, it's a different dynamic.

[I Heart Romans]

apples and oranges, friend
in combat, one is guaranteed wounding, maiming, scarring, either physically or mentally.

while the potential is there for cops, EMTs, firefighters, pilots etc etc it aint as high as combat troops in the middle of a war.
secondly, those occupations are still male dominated and
thirdly, given how male male bonding dynamic creates close unit cohesion vital to combat, you cant say the same for male female relationships. now there's no need to be PC about it, it's just nature. men want to bang women. even gay men wanted to bang women at some stage in their former confused lives.
but like i said, it's a different dynamic.

If a woman can do everything there female equivalent can do, which they will be able to having to already of passed the tests - and considering 70% of military posts are open in the British Army to females - there is no issue of physical capability, and the notion that a male soldier can not bound with a female soldier is patronizing. Logical yes, but considering the troops would of been through training together, I doubt very much it will make any difference.

[Doctor]

So, we should not allow women to serve as police officers, EMTs, firefighters, corrections officers, aircraft pilots, President of the U.S. among others. After all, these positions bring high degrees of danger, no?

As long as they take the exact same test as the men have to take , I have no problem e.g A Fireman's test: Carrying out a weight of 100 pounds instead of getting it downgraded to 60 pounds because she isn't strong enough to carry the 100 pounds. When it comes to my life or death in a fire I will take the man who can actually carry me and not the women who has to drag me from a fire.

[Kjertesvein]

Guys, there's a valid reason females are not allowed to serve on the front line with men: females are physically much weaker than males, and much more likely to get injured and take much longer to recover from such injuries. Anyone who has any experience training people will be able to vouch for this.

Some words of light directed at your soul: The word you are looking for is voluntary. Think about it, there might be strong (lesbian) Xena out there for you, who are you to decline Xena her right to defend the Empire?
All I'm saying is that if they want to, and pass the training, then they should be given the choice. This is allready inplace in my country, and very few womans actually join.

[alhoon]

Guys, there's a valid reason females are not allowed to serve on the front line with men: females are physically much weaker than males, and much more likely to get injured and take much longer to recover from such injuries. Anyone who has any experience training people will be able to vouch for this.

Actually, women are physically much weaker than men. Still, while modern armor and weapons are heavy... you don't have to swing a greatsword around while in chainmail. There isn't so much need for physical prowess.
But they can soak up much more pain and no, they heal faster.

Pros:
- They can endure more pain and heal faster.
- They are shorter = smaller targets
- Many islamic enemies will disregard them as less dangerous.
- They are generally smarter and more emotionally stable. Sorry guys. I'm a man but it's true.

Cons:
- Women can carry less equipment.
- Women are better at handling children than men are. Sorry gals.
- Women captured by enemies...
- I'm old fashioned and I'm not the only one. I dislike the idea of women thrown in the heat of battle with bullets flying around and grenades exploding.

I'm always talking about SINGLE GENDER units.

NOTE:
I have met a woman that was in the Isreali army. She could kick her husband's ass. One day they got in a fighting and although she wasn't violent, she grabbed him and lifted him off the ground! They were our neighbors in our former country house.

[eggthief]

Pros:
- They can endure more pain and heal faster.
- They are shorter = smaller targets
- Many islamic enemies will disregard them as less dangerous.
- They are generally smarter and more emotionally stable. Sorry guys. I'm a man but it's true.

Are you even serious?

Your cons:

-Heal faster? Hell no, if I for example hit my mom softly for fun she will easily get a bruise (whereas a guy wouldn't) and it takes about a month for that bruise to leave. Same with other girls who get injured really quick and still feel the effects weeks later.
-Yes, that little bit of size difference really matters against automatic rifle fire.
-And the population has quite a lot of respect for an army that uses women as well
-Did you even read the articles that were posted? They are less emotional stable and about intelligence, women aren't smarter in general. The distribution of intelligence between women and men are different yes, men tend to jump more to the extreme, being either a low or high intelligence and women are more likely to stay in the average. There are more intelligent men and more dumb men than women, but the average is the same nonetheless.

[alhoon]

Are you even serious?

Your cons:

-Heal faster? Hell no, if I for example hit my mom softly for fun she will easily get a bruise (whereas a guy wouldn't) and it takes about a month for that bruise to leave. Same with other girls who get injured really quick and still feel the effects weeks later.
-Yes, that little bit of size difference really matters against automatic rifle fire.
-And the population has quite a lot of respect for an army that uses women as well
-Did you even read the articles that were posted? They are less emotional stable and about intelligence, women aren't smarter in general. The distribution of intelligence between women and men are different yes, men tend to jump more to the extreme, being either a low or high intelligence and women are more likely to stay in the average. There are more intelligent men and more dumb men than women, but the average is the same nonetheless.

- A woman can give birth. A man would collapse from the pain far sooner. A woman heals a broken limb faster than a man, and they live longer.
- Yes it does. Especially in auto-fire where you don't aim properly because the gun kicks. Smaller means easier to hide too BTW. Also if you present 80% of surface to a shooter instead of 100% your chances to get hit are lower. Go play a dart game. First use a target 1 square foot and then a target 0,8 square feet. Throw 20 darts at both targets from 15 feet. Then we will see how many they will hit.
Or just go play paintball with a guy that's 5' 3" tall and a guy that's 6' 4" tall and see who gets shot easier.
- Can't argue with that. Indeed.
- No, I haven't read the articles that were posted. I read articles about women/men emotional stability for years and also compared them to personal experience and what my cousin, who has a degree in clinical psychology, said.
But yes, Men tend more towards extremes than women. How many Einsteins you think would join the army?

[eggthief]

- A woman can give birth. A man would collapse from the pain far sooner. A woman heals a broken limb faster than a man, and they live longer.
- Yes it does. Especially in auto-fire where you don't aim properly because the gun kicks. Smaller means easier to hide too BTW. Also if you present 80% of surface to a shooter instead of 100% your chances to get hit are lower. Go play a dart game. First use a target 1 square foot and then a target 0,8 square feet. Throw 20 darts at both targets from 15 feet. Then we will see how many they will hit.
Or just go play paintball with a guy that's 5' 3" tall and a guy that's 6' 4" tall and see who gets shot easier.
- Can't argue with that. Indeed.
- No, I haven't read the articles that were posted. I read articles about women/men emotional stability for years and also compared them to personal experience and what my cousin, who has a degree in clinical psychology, said.
But yes, Men tend more towards extremes than women. How many Einsteins you think would join the army?

-I suggest you look at Jin's argument, it was quite more elaborate than mine
-Well the tallness of men comes with more muscles and the ability to march longer distances, it's worth the slight increase in chances of being hit.
-Ok then that's settled
-Well besides the higher ranks like generals, nonetheless the major amount of people in the army generally haven't completed a very high degree, the academic requirements aren't that high in general in the army.

[Captain Jin]

- A woman can give birth. A man would collapse from the pain far sooner. A woman heals a broken limb faster than a man, and they live longer.
- Yes it does. Especially in auto-fire where you don't aim properly because the gun kicks. Smaller means easier to hide too BTW. Also if you present 80% of surface to a shooter instead of 100% your chances to get hit are lower. Go play a dart game. First use a target 1 square foot and then a target 0,8 square feet. Throw 20 darts at both targets from 15 feet. Then we will see how many they will hit.
Or just go play paintball with a guy that's 5' 3" tall and a guy that's 6' 4" tall and see who gets shot easier?

Again, that bit on birth is a myth and doesn't prove that women handle pain better.

As fire automatic fire. Proper use means firing short, controlled, 5-6 round bursts. To give you an idea how short they are just say "Die Mother er Die". That should be the length of your burst. Additionally, most machine gunners are taught to fire aiming for the knees up to the lower part of the chest. So again, height isn't going to make that huge of a difference. Case in point, you can be a tall lanky bastard and still become a sniper.

But yes, Men tend more towards extremes than women. How many Einsteins you think would join the army?

You'll find that many branches in the US military are putting a much higher premium on secondary education like college, and many service members are pursuing degrees in their spare time. Our of six Marines in my detachment currently, we are all enrolled in college classes. Additionally, there are academies and distance learning programs within each branch that cater to education, such as the USMC's Marine Corps Institute, where we are required to complete certain courses in order to advance in rank.