Women in Combat

It was, perhaps, inevitable that women would be allowed in to combat roles – though as we’ve gone along this line of liberal nonsense, there still is the fact that women will only be in combat roles if they volunteer for them.  This is a secret acknowledgement that most women don’t want to and cannot perform the role of combat soldier.  Men in the military, of course, go where they are sent.

Any military force, if it is guided by anything akin to wisdom, seeks to be the most powerful it can be.  There is a reason for physical fitness requirements in soldiers – because while technology can do a lot, when it gets down to bullets flying and all is confusion, blood and fear, you need soldiers who have the physical strength to endure the strain.  It isn’t easy and even the strongest physical specimens can break down under the burden, even if not actually harmed by combat.  Right now, our army has done very well on this – you can see it in the soldiers:  they are often massive bruisers, far larger than, for instance, yours truly.  Even in my younger days, I probably couldn’t have measured up to the physical requirements of today’s troops.  Today’s soldiers are, in my view, better trained and more able than any soldiers we’ve ever placed in the field – and this is stated in knowledge that my Dad joined the Marines in 1944 while my uncle, when asked, stated he “earned” his VA benefits at a little ridge named “Heartbreak” in Korea.  And I like the fact that today’s soldiers outclass not only myself, but my Dad and my uncle…and, heck, even my grandfather and all his brothers (all of whom served in World War One and all of whom were wounded in action, some of them quite seriously).  My worry about this ruling is not so much that women will be in combat, but that the requirements for being a combat soldier in the United States Armed forces will be lowered so that women can participate.

In a population as large as ours, there will be some percentage of women who can actually meet the current physical requirements for being a combat soldier.  I can’t say what the percentage would be, but it would be fairly small – and out of that percentage of women who can do it, you would only get those who also wanted to do it, which would be the merest fraction of the total percentage who possibly could (in spite of intensive recruitment efforts among women, their percentage of the military has been stuck at 15% for ages; most women just don’t see the military as the place to be).  But what if there are women who want it – let’s face it, being in a combat role in the military is the path to advancement – but who can’t measure up?  Will standards be lowered so that they may participate?  We’ve already seen physical requirements lowered for police and firefighters in the United States so that women can participate – will that now become the rule for the military, as well?

If women are to serve in a combat role it must only be if the can meet the actual physical requirements currently in place.  Period.  If we do anything else – any mealy-mouthed, lying liberal excuses to lower standards – then we will be deliberately creating a weaker military just so we can make leftist feminists happy.  And that weaker military will pay in blood for being weaker when it could have been stronger.  I do not want Americans to wind up dead simply because we put in to combat roles people who can’t take the strain.

 

Advertisements

16 thoughts on “Women in Combat

  1. Gunboat Republican (@GunboatRepub) January 26, 2013 / 3:41 pm

    Agreed about not lowering the standards. Many military forces have benefited by allowing female soldiers. None of them have benefited by allowing soldiers who couldn’t pass muster.

  2. Amazona January 26, 2013 / 3:49 pm

    As a woman who has operated in areas dominated by men—farming, ranching, and operation of heavy equipment (though not on a professional basis) I still agree that standards cannot be lowered, even though they will automatically exclude most women from certain jobs. I have had a house burn down around me, with ceilings falling in and smoke making it impossible to see, and if I were in that situation on the upper floor of a building and dependent on a fireman to rescue me, the last thing I would want to see coming up the ladder would be a 125-pound woman who got the job because they made her carry less weight over shorter distances to qualify.

    I have no problem with erosion of old cultural standards which, now, will certainly hamper operations in the field. As long as men automatically feel protective of women AS WOMEN and not just as fellow servicemen, gender will be a problem. But I think that can be overcome. When a woman can, and does, meet the same standards as the men she will be serving with, I think it won’t be a huge jump for them to stop seeing her as needing the man/woman protection thing that is now such a part of our culture. But it’s a change that will have to occur to keep women in combat from becoming liabilities.

    • dbschmidt January 26, 2013 / 8:12 pm

      Ama,

      I am with you in a lot of respects. Women do better than men (overall) in taking G Forces, and reaction times. Great requirements for jet fighter pilots. Some issues with 3D comprehension.

      My only issue, like you, is I want the best person for the job. I don’t care whether they are white, brown, black or green / male, female, transgender or gay–when my life is on the line–I want the best possible to be the responder or in the foxhole next to me.

      In my nine years in the Marine Corps (all in 03xx except for 1806 and a couple of other sidetracks) we were all just different shades of green and sexual orientation was a non-issue because we never spoke about it. There were a couple of folks with their latest “claim to fame” that were quickly silenced in the barracks and one of my best friends after all this is a friend I served with that is now openly gay. A non-issue. My issue is I need someone that can kill, kill, kill (Group W bench) while transgressing 20-plus rough terrain miles a day with 125 lbs of equipment. I don’t care about the rest.

  3. Cluster January 26, 2013 / 4:31 pm

    As long as men automatically feel protective of women AS WOMEN and not just as fellow servicemen, gender will be a problem.

    Knowing that there are many women that are no doubt stronger and more qualified than some men, the instinctual nature of the man/woman relationship does concern me a little. Men are just instinctively protective of women and that could cause a problem in the heat of the battle.

  4. dbschmidt January 26, 2013 / 5:45 pm

    I have no problem with women in combat roles as long as they are there and can do the job; however, we need to look back to the start of the 2nd Gulf war in Iraq to look at the number of women that got pregnant (well above average) as an out and this is not front line duty.

    It is not if I wouldn’t protect a women in an infantry squad just like any other squad member but will she be there when the time comes? Just adding another person to an already cohesive unit is difficult–even more so under combat conditions or just prior to.

  5. Amazona January 26, 2013 / 7:32 pm

    This comment by the major pain, posted January 26, 2013 at 3:59 pm, in the Second Amendment thread, is so important that I am going to post this on every thread, because I don’t want it to be overlooked:

    The Constitution was not written to protect the people; it was written to preserve the Union and the rights of, initially, white men who owned property.”

    Looking past the racism that permeates all of the major pain’s outlook (there is another reference to “white Americans” in the same post) and the fact that I thought all posts from the forkers were to be deleted because of the rampant bigotry that marks them, we need to look at this precise statement:

    THE CONSTITUTION WAS NOT WRITTEN TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE, IT WAS WRITTEN TO PRESERVE THE UNION—that is, the government.

    What could be a clearer statement of the core belief of the rabidly radical Left? Get past the fact that to believe this means a complete inability to understand fact, language or history—–it is a summary of the credo of the Left.

    That is, that nothing is more important than the government, nothing is less important than the individual.

    Now, those of us who have read the Constitution, those of us who have studied it and read not only the document but the supporting, contemporaneous writings of those who created it, those of us who understand the goals of the Founders and the events that led up to the writing of the document, all know that the Constitution is NOT about protecting the Union, but about protecting the people FROM the Union.

    The rabidly radical Left simply ignores fact, history and language because they are so deeply committed to the concept that government is always more important than people.

    • Retired Spook January 26, 2013 / 7:56 pm

      When I read Major’s comment in the 2nd Amendment thread, I just cringed. Clearly he/she hasn’t read the Constitution or any original writings of the Founders.

    • Cluster January 26, 2013 / 8:07 pm

      I have read those comments before from he/she/it and it’s obvious that there is zero understanding of the intent of the framers or how the constitution came to be. Sadly though, I think that misunderstanding is fairly wide spread.

      A little off topic, but Bill Maher had a very rare moment of clarity:

      MAHER: Okay, so basically what Mitt Romney was saying was, you know, “These spongers, these grifters, these people, I wouldn’t piss on them if their ass was on fire because they don’t pay in.” But it’s not really 47 percent. But I, here’s my question: It’s not zero percent either, takers. I mean, there are a lot of dirt bags in this country, and I think it’s somewhere in between 47 and zero. I think we should split the difference and say we have 23.5 percent dirt bags in America. I do. Like the Octomom. California pays, we pay to, you know, feed and cloth and spay and neuter her children. And she’s not giving back to society.
      Moments later, he continued:

      And here, listen to this about disability. People who take disability, who are on disability, in 1968 it was 51 to1, people on disability to people who worked. In 2001, not that long ago, it was 23 to 1. Now it’s 13 to 1, 13 people to one who are on disability. Now, of course, you know, some of that is real. We are an overworked, overstressed, polluted, ripped off and lied to people. So, I mean, obviously there are some people who really do have disabilities. But 13 to 1?
      You know, it just seems like there’s less people pulling the wagon and more people in the wagon, and at some point the wagon is going to break.

      • Retired Spook January 26, 2013 / 8:18 pm

        So, I mean, obviously there are some people who really do have disabilities. But 13 to 1?

        Disability is the new extended unemployment benefit. I saw somewhere a while back, can’t remember where, that when the initial 99 weeks of unemployment ran out, the number of unemployed who suddenly developed a work-related disability skyrocketed.

        You know, it just seems like there’s less people pulling the wagon and more people in the wagon, and at some point the wagon is going to break.

        Well, yeah. I think every one of the Conservatives on this blog has said that multiple times. What took ya so long, Bill?

      • dbschmidt January 26, 2013 / 10:09 pm

        Spook,

        When I watched the unemployment roles shrinking by almost exactly the amount of people that the SSI (disability) roles increased I had to start wondering if there was a giant rock or bolder loose among us of the lower 48 states that cruised from unemployment office to unemployment office crushing the good people of the US into disabilities that made work impossible for them.

        I mean, I find it impossible to come to any other conclusion.

  6. Amazona January 26, 2013 / 7:48 pm

    I think there are women who have the physical and mental strength to function well in ground combat. I also think there are few of them, and the Political Correctness that rules our nation makes it very hard to weed out those who do not. It would take rigorous evaluation to establish who want to be combat soldiers for the right reasons and those who have faulty ideas about what this would demand of them.

    We have seen women perform admirably in many areas of the military, being deployed with the same standards as those applied to the men, taking over command positions, excelling in aviation including flying fighter jets and bombers, etc. But the rigors of ground combat are quite different, and demand a different level of physical and mental toughness that I think many women ignore or fail to understand.

    I have also been dismayed by the sexual shenanigans of women at sea, and deeply disappointed in the lack of character and discipline seen in far too many of them.

  7. Retired Spook January 26, 2013 / 7:50 pm

    My worry about this ruling is not so much that women will be in combat, but that the requirements for being a combat soldier in the United States Armed forces will be lowered so that women can participate.

    And no matter how many assurances we get from both the military’s civilian and military leadership, you know that, when only a couple women a year qualify, the standards are going to be relaxed. Not gonna end well.

    • M. Noonan January 26, 2013 / 11:36 pm

      Spook,

      It is pretty much a certainty that they will lower the standards and then lie about doing it – and as long as liberals run the Administration, no officer who has any desire for promotion will so much as make a peep about it. But even if our side gets in starting in 2017, the number of officers promoted by Obama based on their willingness to allow readiness to slide in favor of serving political goals will be quite large. Quite honestly, if we do win in 2016, I’d prefer to take a clean sweep of all officers promoted to colonel and above while Obama was President…just to be sure we get rid of all the liberal dead wood.

      • neocon01 January 27, 2013 / 9:52 am

        when out on a patrol will these women drop trou and do their business a few feet away from their male counter parts?

        If you have to fix bayonets and go hand to hand with trained tough enemies how will they fare?

        My niece is 5’9″ 145 lb was an army MP, she came on leave and we got talking about a womans ability to do the job. Out of nowhere she grabbed me and attempted a take down, I had her crying and tapping out in about 30 seconds and no punches were thrown, If there had been she would have required medical attention.
        Nuff Said!!

    • neocon01 January 30, 2013 / 3:14 pm

      reek-0

      BFD

Comments are closed.