Thread: Women allowed in combat rolls

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

Look, the bottom line is that those if us in the military know men, and we know how the military works.

Are there figures out there about the yeah and nah's? Quote that poll or study, but if you could be so kind as to let people speak for them selves and not suggest that we would agree with you completely. I would assume you would not use the same line of argument concerning homosexuals in service since the numbers on that are not in your favor.

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

Women should not be in a combat MOS. Period. If they are, they can't be held to a different standard for PT than the men, but by and large they also can't keep up with the men, so PT standards will inevitable be lowered across the board.

When it was more common to have female troops attached to infantry and armor divisions the Army still did physical training in fatigues, yes doing the morning 3-4 miles of running in boots included. I don't know the year but I think this was in the 80's when that switch happened to running shoes and sweats. I bring this up because it was done because women have a higher chance then males to suffer from stress fractures or shin splints then men from running in foot gear not designed for the amount of impact received while running, which is what spurred the change. When I was at Fort Carson one of the infantry brigade commanders wanted to revert back to running in boots and it was kicked from post command to the division surgeon for approval who was my first line supervisor at the time (long story how I ended up doing my last six months at Carson directly under the top physician for an infantry division, but the short of it was I taught full time out of his office) I helped him with the research for his formal opinion to said commander. It turns out that their was a side benefit to dropping the fatigues in favor of running shoes and sweats, and it was a drastic cut in not only disability claims but the severity of ankle, knee, hip and lower back debilitating over use injuries army wide, service wide really since some of the studies we went over were done by the department of the navy. Less down time per soldier for recovering from injury, less tax payer strain since there were less claims and those claims were of less severity as a whole. So thanks girls, I got out after 8 years with 6 of those years in combat arms with out any of the issues that would be common for someone of my height who did 15-20 miles per week on average in boots. Point being don't be quick to assume since something changes it would be to some detriment.

Your point about the average woman not keeping up with the average male is true, but the army already has had the mechanism in place to deal with this since the days of horse pulled artillery pieces, if you run a 6 minute mile your in group A, if you run a 7 minute mile your in group B etc. The spread of the female troops will tend to the slower groups, but its not like any of the services are short the bull necked type of dude who can pick up a truck but can't run to save his life, now he just has to run with the girls. The irony of watching a female NCO running backwards "motivating" with colorful language a 250 pound rock into keeping up with the group is worth the view. I'm glad running was not the thing I sucked at.

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

......Not to mention the fact that sexual harassment claims will skyrocket, military divorce rates will worsen (military wives will be up in arms about their men being deployed in the field for months with another woman there- fact)

I'm sorry but if a main reason you want to give is that spouses who are in an insecure marriage will be more insecure then we can just stop reading, you make it out like this is the 50's and the only female at the office is the bosses secretary. This has to be the absolute silliest reason I have ever read or heard concerning this. Now about the sexual harassment. Can it be bad in the military? Yes. Some units with weak leadership make it worse, but the military has gotten better and better every year with policy and education. I dislike the idea that my sisters have to put up with the type but a side benefit of having females around is the lecherous poor character types get drummed out of service nowadays with a hurry. Even with out females in uniform we don't need that type serving us, they show their colors at work and as a consequence aren't out in town making us look like manner less assholes who can't keep theirs hands to themselves. Totally cool with it, don't want.

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

This is a stupid assed idea. News flash - men and women are different. Let's just recognize that and not cut off our nose to spite our face...

This is a case were I think your right but the reasoning and reasons that got you there are either faulty or show a lack of character and more importantly a lack of respect for our female soldiers who are already serving. I personally find it insulting that I, or someone like me, just won't be able to show some character if I have to work with a good looking troop. Can't help it, I'm a boy and she has nice toys, sorry Sir.

I'm going to help you out.

The military works on averages. How far can an average soldier march in one day at a given speed with a full combat load and have the stamina for (N) hour engagement at the end. For infantry this is very important. Now can female soldiers, on average, do the speed and miles? Yes. But on average your average female soldier in average shape (that is to say much better then your average female civilian) will not have the stamina to do that four hour fire fight. Can the top, say, 10%, 20% maybe 30% of female soldiers? Yes. But the military has to work on averages, having the exceptional is nice but the average dictates your combat pacing. So is this lessened speed and/or distance worth the addition of a larger pool for our volunteer military? Maybe, maybe not. I don't think it is with our current potential battle needs. If there was a potential for an invasion of the actual united states? I would say yes. Need wins when the devil drives as a female Lt I used to do patrols under was apt to say.

My opinion on this is a split. I absolutely dislike the idea of denying someone the privilege of serving in a given capacity if they have the ability and talent for it. The unfair thing is a female volunteer might very well be exceptional and be able to fill an infantry slot or an armor slot and do it well, even if the averages don't speak to it. You simply don't know what that young woman is capable of, above the average, until she is tested within that environment. Its simple average bone/muscle density and average biochemistry.

So story time. In my first deployment the artillery battalion I was attached to received a female Lt as a replacement for another officer who was non deploy-able (sleep apnea of all things). It was battalion policy that staff officers would all share in battalion level ops and fill OIC positions in a rotation (OIC=officer in charge). So this Lt was a comms or logistics specialty (I don't remember specifically) and when the duty roster for officers was posted she asked why she wasn't on it, there was some argument but the Bn commander said, ok you want on the list like your peers no problem. She OIC'd a mission or two a week like all the other staff Lt's and captains. So I was in my share of junk that first deployment, and I had the pleasure of doing my battery missions and being pulled into the battalion missions as well since normally the battalion level soldiers don't do patrols, and don't need medics. So they would bum me and my peers who did doubly duty.

From my eight years of service and two deployments, and was asked to pick one officer to lead troops in some serious shit I would pick her hands down, no patronizing, no bullshit. She had a level-headness that was uncanny, she could articulate complex orders under pressure, that is to say while getting shot at, that is incredibly rare among her peers, dudes or not. OK, specifics. We were moving a four vehicle patrol through a city, we took fire from a building to our side, she ordered any vehicle that was disabled to speak up right off, we moved away with out that happening. She ordered a column right at a cross street two blocks away, she asked for injuries, we didn't have any. We kept moving, we hooked around a few more blocks and came behind the building using a side street. Before we turned the corner she told the lead vehicles gunner to look out for a fire escape right off, we turned the corner and the guys who shot at us were walking down the fire escape 100 yards off. They didn't a round off, they were lined up and all dropped. We cleared the rest of the building, but it turns out they felt ok getting back to street level by the fastest means together or if there were others they ran for it while we dismounted. So five bad guys dead in what is basically a dream scenario as shooting someone goes with a crew serve. Was there some luck? Ya of course. But what cannot be dismissed is we had an officer with a fast mind and the presence to get some info on a building as we flew past while getting shot at AND recalled the street layout on the fly AND knew we could come at it at good angle, on the fly battle strategy. When it comes to combat luck is just a BS way of saying good positioning and movement. Every time we took fire while she had the reins we did well, she made immediate decisions that killed bad guys and kept us in a good position to keep casualties light to non existent. Having her not in command of a combat arms unit is a serious waste of bad assness, shameful fucking waste. O and she could ruck too. My first two foot patrols were under her. Didn't slow us down.

Was she psychically average for a female soldier? No. But sex does not lend one to have the kind of mind that makes a good leader. Does it make a difference in bone density etc like I talked about before? Yes. But she had both.

So I think the policy should be this, female troops (senior enlisted and officers specifically) should be able to ask for transfer to combat arms after a grace period of a few years of service. This is long enough for a fair evaluation of qualities to mitigate the unfairness of nature. The rub is officers of caliber are very rare, the "average" is garbage. No offense to those who served as infantry or armor, but you give any shit brained Joe on the street a rifle and some training and they will make a good infantryman. The qualities how ever that make a good officer and senior NCO are not bound in the problems that confront us with the general issues of female soldiers, they are just as likely to have a good mind for this as a male with the same training. If there was only two other female officers like her in the Army it would still be a worthwhile policy.


BTW some good reading on this subject would be Co-ed combat by Browne (he sides with no they should not) or (from memory I dont have this one on the shelf) Sisters of the Gun...blake something I think. The last might be hard to find it was heavy on the science side of it, but was the best compilation of the findings of Israel and Japan on how military units handle female peers. What Illusion was saying about males taking the loss of a sister as opposed to a brother troop much, much worse is well documented across cultural lines, which likely makes it a hard wired reaction for men.

But anyway this shit got long.

Here is an article on an Israeli study of integrating women into combat roles:

Israel Defense | Women will continue being integrated into combat roles

Originally Posted by Affinity

Here is an article on an Israeli study of integrating women into combat roles:

Israel Defense | Women will continue being integrated into combat roles

Thank you, I was about to post this. There are other studies the Israelis did as well earlier, and every time it was proven beyond a doubt that women were overall less capable than the men. I could give a damn about fairness or equality. All I care about is what will make and keep our fighting force more formidable than any enemy we may encounter. And this policy ain't accomplishing that mission. Period. I think women make better fighter pilots for example because that has been proven in studies. But front line combat roles - hell no.

Originally Posted by Ranger10

I don't think anyone here thinks that a female is inferior between the ears. In fact, they seem to be far more level headed and capable of coming up with solutions which don't involve mass casualties.

As I've said before, its not the females are who not good enough, its the males that I think will have a hard time. Now I know what you're thinking, YOU could deal with it. But from what I just read, you have insight enough to remind everyone here you know what you're talking about. Having said that, the average Joe, especially those in combat MOS's are uneducated, lower income, and socially inept.

We all know this. Those who are better than average generally bubble to the top and become Rangers, Force Recon, PJ's, etc. But for the most part, they are, well... lets face it... idiots. These are the people that have been proven to be unable to handle women in combat MOS's in other countries. It's not the officers, its not the educated soldiers like you and me, its not even the performance of the women themselves. The issue is that front line combatants are usually like the ones I described above. That's why its a bad idea.

If I could replace our entire front line combat soldiers, with capable women like the one you described, I would whole sale change them out. Because they are beyond capable. But thats not realistic. So, like you said, we take the lowest common denominator, and build an army around it. You guys in the Army/Marines know exactly the kind of guy i'm talking about. He's not a "bad" guy, he just can't make good decisions, so he goes to a place where all his decisions are made for him.

Yep. But the physical differences matter the most. Here's another bottom line analogy for you. As a man, you are handed an 8 inch combat knife. You are told that you will fight to the death against another person with the same kind of knife, but you will get to choose which sex they are. Do you choose to fight another man, or a woman?

If you say you'd prefer to fight a man to the death with your bare hands over a woman, I would question your integrity, because it should be obvious that you stand a better chance of surviving said fight against a woman. Period.

Let's extend the point - you are placed in a foxhole, and you know you will likely be attacked tonight. Because of the terrain, the attackers may overrun your position during the attack and need to be repelled. Would you rather be in your foxhole with a man or a woman, not knowing anything else about them? Again, if you would choose the woman in that scenario I'll say you are chock full of crap.

Physically, women as a whole are not capable on average of being equal to men. Period. This isn't about "right" or "wrong". It's about combat effectiveness. A combat infantry unit will be less effective with women in it, and that is a fact.

Originally Posted by Ranger10

Of course, I see your point. The point I'm making is that a very elite FEW women would be able to fight right along side. They would be able to kill you with a knife, or sit in that foxhole. But as Pint pointed out, we're talking about averages here. We can fill battalions full of combat capable men, capable to taking orders, and using their average physical might to effect combat.

I bet we could barely fill a single company of the same kind of fighting capable women.

So we build out armies around men. These men are not always capable of making intelligent decisions when it comes to appropriateness, nor are they always able to separate their emotions. That's what makes men weaker. Women, are physically weaker. That's why hundreds of millions of people watch the NBA, but I bet I could count on one hand how many on this forum watch the WNBA.

I'm not saying women are inferior enough, Im just pointing out there is weakness on both sides, and exceptions on both sides. For anyone to ignore this shows they don't grasp the full extent of the issue.

Well said, completely agree. Hey on another note, did anyone notice that Panetta is on his way out of his post? Where does he get off making this change in the 11th hour, when he won't have to live with it? Seems like a jerk move to me.