Women In the Infantry

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Zap
All I can say is that training will probably be criticized as too dangerous. causing concussions. Again, with the movie about concussions In football. I'm surprised liberals have not complained that military training is too violent and it should be changed to only learning about being peacekeepers/social workers

That training saved my life countless times, so I for one am very glad I went through it. As example I once was in pursuit of a suspect that had just stabbed a man in the stomach and he ran into an abandoned house that was used as a crack den. The inside of the house was piled high with garbage and debris and I spent more time looking down trying to find sure footing than I should have.

This allowed the suspect to surprise me and he hit me with a wooden post that used to be part of a bed. It was about the size of a 4x4 piece of wood and chipped a vertebrae and cracked my shoulder blade. My training allowed me to instantly grab out and seize the bed post before he could pull back and hit me again. Had I paused from shock for even an instance I doubt I'd still be here.

Stuff like this happened all the time and you won't survive long in police work if you recoil from being hit. While the training might sound brutal and too intense, believe me it saves lives.

Jim

[rhondabrwn]

ORIGINAL: Zap

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: Zap



All I can say is that training will probably be criticized as too dangerous. causing concussions. Again, with the movie about concussions In football. I'm surprised liberals have not complained that military training is too violent and it should be changed to only learning about being peacekeepers/social workers

I'm a liberal, owner of several milsurp rifles, and think training isn't violent enough.

Curious as to how many in your camp would share your opinion? Can't be many

Hey my friend, you don't know what a "Liberal" is... really. I'm not at all against wars, for example, I'm against stupid, unnecessary wars. I read about atrocities in some African nation, for example, and I'd just love to send in the military to kick butt, but I've gotten wise enough to know that sometimes people have to take care of their own problems, we can't try to go in and force our politics and culture on someone else. We can't remake the World in our image, much as we might like to do so.

Pacifist liberals are really a small fringe group. Believe me, if Liberals and Conservatives sat down together and talked together we would find lots of common ground. It's a real shame when people start allowing themselves to be manipulated into dividing up into virtual armed camps, throwing terms like "wingnut" and "libtard and so forth. We're all Americans.

Note the attacks on Bernie when the vast majority of Americans support his entire platform, if they just listened and got beyond "he's a SOCIALIST" agitating. [:D]

I don't mean this to turn things political, it's just an appeal for UNDERSTANDING! [:)][:)][:)][:)]

[Titanwarrior89]

No, No don't use that "P" word.[&o][:-][:D]

[Zap]

ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn

ORIGINAL: Zap

ORIGINAL: Aurelian




I'm a liberal, owner of several milsurp rifles, and think training isn't violent enough.

Curious as to how many in your camp would share your opinion? Can't be many

Hey my friend, you don't know what a "Liberal" is... really. I'm not at all against wars, for example, I'm against stupid, unnecessary wars. I read about atrocities in some African nation, for example, and I'd just love to send in the military to kick butt, but I've gotten wise enough to know that sometimes people have to take care of their own problems, we can't try to go in and force our politics and culture on someone else. We can't remake the World in our image, much as we might like to do so.

Pacifist liberals are really a small fringe group. Believe me, if Liberals and Conservatives sat down together and talked together we would find lots of common ground. It's a real shame when people start allowing themselves to be manipulated into dividing up into virtual armed camps, throwing terms like "wingnut" and "libtard and so forth. We're all Americans.

Note the attacks on Bernie when the vast majority of Americans support his entire platform, if they just listened and got beyond "he's a SOCIALIST" agitating. [:D]

I don't mean this to turn things political, it's just an appeal for UNDERSTANDING! [:)][:)][:)][:)]

Rondabrwn, present policy its not "Peace through American Strength". Training has been based on that. Where it is now, I don't know?

[MrRoadrunner]

Hey folks? Can we please keep this to women in the infantry and/or combat role?

As Ronda said, there is more common ground than you think if you avoid the exaggerated stereotypes of "liberal" and "conservative". And, since we have a mixed audience of all countries "liberal" and "conservative" mean something different in other countries than it does in the USA.

What we do have in all countries is "common sense". That is often trampled by both sides to make a point?

How about we get back to the fact that women are given a lower standard to achieve combat status? Common sense would tell you that if they do not meet the infantry fighter standard they should not be an infantry fighter? Women who do pass are capable. Those women (and men) who do not pass are not capable.
If you do not see it that way then common sense seems to be not so common?

And, a quota with a bell shaped curve will only cost the lives of our young people? Both those who have passed the standard and those who have not, but who are given the privilege of being infantry fighters.
If you want to preserve lives and defeat the enemy you must keep all infantry fighters to a high (common) standard.

RR

[Jagdtiger14]

Note the attacks on Bernie when the vast majority of Americans support his entire platform

Sorry RR, but I just had to respond in a very slight way to this. Rhondabrwn: I admire Bernie for one thing, and that is that unlike so many in politics, he puts out there who he really is...so I admire you also for not being a party hack automaton.

On the wiki site they highlight 22 of his issues. Surprisingly I agree with 3 of them (thought it would be zero). Marijuana legalization, Wall Street Reform (did he vote against the 2008 bailout?), and government surveillance (did he stand with Rand Paul on the Senate floor on this?).

Sorry. Ok, back to women in the infantry: I would like to see if those who think lower standards are ok would be willing to put their own life on the line with someone who passed with lower standards?

[MrRoadrunner]

I wonder what Bernie would say about women having lower standards to be infantry fighters?

I found I only agreed with one of his "ideas" on the wiki site. [8|]

RR

[JWW]

Gee, I go away a couple of days and this discussion is about something else entirely now. I don't think I will bother scrolling. Let me just take this opportunity to wish everyone the best for 2016.

Well, one brief comment for Rhonda. The strength of both Sanders and Trump reflects tremendous discontent and disgust with the entire political establishment in America, Democratic and Republican. Together the two probably account for more than half the voters in America right now. In the end, though, an establishment candidate will probably win. The media, the corporate interests (left and right), the very rich (left and right), and the establishment itself will insure that. The establishment will win by dividing us again. Just my opinion. As for me, though I may sound very conservative based on my posts on women in infantry positions, I am really all over the map. I support single payer health insurance, for example. But that is another topic.

[Zap]

Funny, I thought the irrefutable evidence of nature and science that prove sexes have different characteristics was accepted by all (one being men are physically stronger) and therefore better adapted for combat. But the obvious, doesn't necessarily open the door to a common sense conclusion by all. I mean people are proposing women be accepted as equals without equal requirements. Is that not the movement being promoted here equality of the sexes without the same rules? What is the thinking, then if not?

[rhondabrwn]

Let me take this where "no man has gone before"...

I will admit that monthly periods are a complication for female combat soldiers. Not that PMS is a big deal, but headaches, cramps, hot flashes etc, while not debilitating (we live with it) but it might be a factor for someone not being on top of their game if Mother Nature kicks in while on a mission. Would medics carry a box of tampons with their supplies? Guess they could. Would women be responsible for dealing and that's the end of the issue?

There are birth control pills that can suppress menstrual cycles, but a lot of women are concerned about the long term effects... what if your fertility is somehow impaired by taking these? Could the military mandate female combat soldiers to take these pills?

I still think women should be given the chance for combat positions if they want to and can qualify, but I'm willing to throw some of the extra concerns out there.

I will predict one of the following outcomes:

1. The experiment fails, because the odds are stacked against them and the patriarchal military won't let them succeed... failure declared.

2. The experiment fails but it won't be deemed politically acceptable to admit it, so it will be declared a "success" but few women will qualify or will be sheltered in some special ways... success declared.

3. The experiment succeeds, but will be treated like option #2... success declared.

4. The experiment succeeds in breaking new ground for how female soldiers can be effectively utilized in various combat capacities (stealth, sniping, accuracy, agility and speed), everyone is won over, a new standard is established for integrating women into the combat arms... massive success declared.

Somehow, I'm not holding my breath on option 4, but really feel that's the best outcome that could be achieved that would satisfy everyone (mostly).

[eiron]

Women being placed in infantry units has much more to do with officer promotion than either manpower shortages or combat efficiency. Simply put, our military is already incredibly top-heavy with high ranking officers, each of whom needs every advantage in the struggle for promotion (since our military uses the "up or out" rule, not getting an ideal posting is the first step on the road to leaving). The best advantage to hold in the ground forces, of course, is command of an infantry unit during wartime. Obviously, at this time, only male officers can hold this advantage, so only male officers can hope to climb to the very heights of the military hierarchy. We can expect to see female officers taking advantage of this rule change in droves while female enlisted continue to perform their current roles.

What should really worry us is that our military and political leaders are totally unable to entice the "best and the brightest" into our nation's officer corp--the number of officers who have graduated from top 25 universities is at an all time low. Imagining that our military will become more effective when we have average women in place of these missing men is ideological myopia.

[Jagdtiger14]

Or how about #5: The experiment is in continuous mode for at least another 13 months regardless of any event, then depending on the outcome of new political civilian leadership (CiC) the experiment either a) continues on indefinitely or b) is ended quietly due to the obvious reason that it endangers lives.

The only way to truly test the experiment is in combat situations (Afghanistan?). Is this experiment worth one soldiers life? The outcome is so obvious to many. Any soldier(s) killed for this experiment should be held out as martyrs against sociology and PCism.

As for #4 above, I really do not have an issue with specialized roles (snipers for example)...but that's not what the disagreement is about here I think.

[JWW]

Another very detailed analysis of the US experiment with women in elite ground combat roles.

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/article ... 2-2016.asp

Rhonda, with respect I predict #2 of your options. The problem is the politics.

[Jagdtiger14]

#2 would also depend on who the new Commander in Chief is. There are at least two running that do not care about being PC (in fact reject and fight back on PCism), so they would admit that it failed and declare it a failure. No sheltering required...see #5.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: JW
http://www.strategypage.com/dls/article ... 2-2016.asp

Great link thanks. I think the following quote from the article is more prescient than the author realizes:

if implemented, would cause many of the most experienced operators to leave and dissuade many potential recruits from joining. Keeping experienced personnel and finding suitable new recruits has always been a major problem for SOCOM and this will make it worse.

On the police force male officers tended to avoid going on calls with female officers unless specifically dispatched as cover. It was common knowledge they couldn't handle themselves and you would end up lifting the load by yourself. So a sort of unspoken culture developed on the force where female officers avoided going to calls that they thought could possibly result in violence and male officers took the most violent sounding calls even if it was on a female officers beat. It was never directed or discussed in off hours drinking sessions, the culture just developed on its own out of necessity.

In the military a culture like this can't develop as mission tasks are designed around the expected capabilities of the entire unit, so leaving the females behind on base would almost certainly result in a failed mission. I also suspect politically minded officers will order them to take the females into combat no matter what and hold their hands if necessary.

I can think of no one who wants to die for a PC agenda that is important to some politician, so I suspect huge numbers of experienced SOCOM operators will fail to reenlist if they are forced to carry the load for female operators who can't handle themselves in combat environments. And the ones whose tours aren't up for years yet will more than likely demand transfers. This will be devastating to our anti-terrorism capabilities over the long term.

Jim

[Zap]

I'm glad people with hands on experience are sharing because that's what really matters reality and not (wishing, hoping,utopian)thinking.

[Jagdtiger14]

I have a close friend in the Army in Afghanistan (wargaming buddy). He has some sad stories to tell about RoE and politically minded officers. If I had a son graduating from military college today, I would advise him to wait and see who the next President is. If not to our liking, get into the business world and wait four years...and so on every four years.

[Poopyhead]

During the first Gulf War, one of the ground units to initially move into actual Iraq was a Military Police platoon on a route recon. It was led by a female lieutenant. I met her at her graduation from the advanced course. We've had women MP's for decades. They qualify with the M4, SAW, Mk 19, etc. to the same standard that an infantryman does. They can shoot, move and communicate just like infantrymen. The Isrealis have women in their armed forces on basic infantry patrol, mostly in all female units. Not because the women can't hack it, but because guys just turn stupid in combat if a woman gets hit. Tell Ronda Rousey or Hope Solo that they don't have what it takes to compete physically with a man. When the Marines get into trouble and call for air support, the pilot of the FA 18 may be a woman. Women are already holding their own in combat. They've already been shot and blown up and taken prisoner and molested. They have done everything except be infantrymen.

[PipFromSlitherine]

As stated, let's avoid the political talk or the discussion will need to go elsewhere...

Cheers

Pip

[gradenko2k]

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

I have a close friend in the Army in Afghanistan (wargaming buddy). He has some sad stories to tell about RoE and politically minded officers. If I had a son graduating from military college today, I would advise him to wait and see who the next President is. If not to our liking, get into the business world and wait four years...and so on every four years.

Is that not the virtual equivalent of "voting with your wallet"? Given that America maintains a volunteer army, would not the sheer lack of volunteers as a response to this (or any other) issue be a means of forcing re-examination?

ORIGINAL: Poopyhead

During the first Gulf War, one of the ground units to initially move into actual Iraq was a Military Police platoon on a route recon. It was led by a female lieutenant. I met her at her graduation from the advanced course. We've had women MP's for decades. They qualify with the M4, SAW, Mk 19, etc. to the same standard that an infantryman does. They can shoot, move and communicate just like infantrymen. The Isrealis have women in their armed forces on basic infantry patrol, mostly in all female units. Not because the women can't hack it, but because guys just turn stupid in combat if a woman gets hit. Tell Ronda Rousey or Hope Solo that they don't have what it takes to compete physically with a man. When the Marines get into trouble and call for air support, the pilot of the FA 18 may be a woman. Women are already holding their own in combat. They've already been shot and blown up and taken prisoner and molested. They have done everything except be infantrymen.

If I may, the incoming counter-argument will boil down to:

1. Not every woman is going to be Ronda Rousey or Hope Solo

2. Being a combat infantryman requires some extra special qualification such that "we already have women in every other branch and role" simply doesn't count because reasons