[:D]

Yup.

All excellent points you made. I just found this one humorous.

Anotherpundit, answer this question:

Would allowing women to serve in various combat roles within the US military make our military more able to defeat an enemy?


If the answer is no (it is), then what we're talking about is a huge allocation of time, assets and logistics being put towards something that doesn't improve our warfighting abilities.
Such an allocation would come from elsewhere within the military budget, and would therefore degrade our ability to fight.

What an inane comparison that COMPLETELY ignores the realities of the Viet Nam war. You SHAME yourself with this post.

America surrendered before the Viet Cong won. Our pols made our soldiers tie BOTH hands behind their backs. We weren't ALLOWED to chase the Commies into Laos. Our soldiers guarded ammo dumps UNARMED. I could go on and on.

Also, I already explained wby Hitler didn't defeat Moscow - becasue Americas ALL MALE army gave him a second front to fight. before that HITLER WAS WINNING AGAINST MOSCOW.

I'm NOT the most knowledgeable guy on history (i'm working to remedy that) but you seem COMPLETELY ignorant on the subject.

Yikes.

If women are better at some roles than men are, then yes, it would. Training women for ground infantry roles, yes, on the whole, isn't necessary. But if we can get better fighter pilots, say, by opening up the pool to women -- I say go for it. Hell, if having a marginally better pilot saves even one B-1 bomber, it'll have paid for the whole cost of the program many times over.

You didn't answer the question.
You began talking about "if".
And no, there is no role in the military where "women", in general, are better than men.
None.

You ever serve in a combat unit?

Please focus.

We're talking about women in field grunt hand to hand combat. (Hand to hand combat is the most ELEMENTARY form of combat. ANYONE no capable in this area SHOULD NOT be in the infantry.)

Not fighter pilots, not computer techs, not support roles. Hand to hand combat. 100% of the time X chromos kick then Y chromos arse.

  No, you dense-minded, shortsighted fool, that's [b] exactly my point.[/b] You said there was "no, nada, zip, zero" chance of winning. Obviously there was -- because we came in, intervened in Russia, and saved their bacon. Obviously, the North Vietnamese had [b]some[/b] chance of winning, because they eventually [b]won[/b].

So, hence, arming women, and holding the enemy off those few extra days and weeks and months, made *enough* difference that they *did* win. Look into how many women fought in the battle of Stalingrad -- you know, the one that turned the tide of the second world war, that held Hitler off long enough for our military to intervene.

 This is much like the argument about how privately held firearms will never hold off a modern military. Of course they won't -- revolutions *always* need outside aid to succeed. But without firearms in the first place, that outside aid never has a chance to matter. Similarly, other desperate measures -- like arming even the women -- while seldom decisive in and of themselves, often make ENOUGH difference that other factors (political, social, economic) can make enough difference to sway the course of the war.

Actually garandman, even in support roles, the expenditure to upgrade facilities for women on ships, and in barracks, just isn't worth it.
There's no return on such an investment, other that PC PR.

There is absolutely no benefit in having women in ANY combat unit.
None.
Zero.
Nada.

That's NOT a military stategy - that is desperation.

A military strategy built on desperation is the first step to sure defeat.

If we get invaded and the moms on the homefront want to take up arms to possibly stem the tide, hey, I wouldn't blame them.

But to incorporate that into your military strategy is INSANE.

Fallacy, Anotherpundit.

You're attempting to make it seem as though the inclusion of women in combat is what gave the soviets the victory.
That's just not true.

Again, the addition of women to a combat unit doesn't make it better at warfighting.
Therefore it degrades the unit's warfighting ability.
Period.

That has ALWAYS been my opinion as well. Sometimes I choose not to share it as some people just can't handle that truth.

Its REAL simple - those who know combat service best don't find it practicable to integrate women into the military.

Whay more analysis do we REALLY need beyond that???

  Actually, I'm not. I never have been -- scroll up and read, I've said from the beginning that I was against women being involved in infantry combat, and then I've been saying that I'm not necessarily opposed to them being involved in other combat roles, such as, say, running the computer that fires ballistic missiles from a destroyer, or working on an aircraft carrier. . . and, yes, I consider those "combat" roles (people shoot at ships sometimes, y'know. )

 Then you all decided to freak out about women being completely unsuited to everything, since they aren't suited to one thing (infantry combat,) and that's one thing I even agree with you on. Stop being kneejerk reactionaries and try reading.

 No, fallacy on your part. In the soviet's case, the addition of women did make it better at warfighting -- because the only alternative was the addition of no one. It wasn't a case of "do we take a man, or a woman," it was a case of "do we take women, or do we not have anybody." And, in that case, it's clearly better to have a woman than to have nobody at all.

THEN YOU SAY....



So which is it - are you against women fighting in infantry combat, or are you citing the battle of Stalingrad as women have a viable role in infantry combat???

[rolleyes]

In this country, for our military, I'm against incorporating women in close infantry combat, for the reasons cited above -- it's not cost-effective, and we have a good military already. It's not necessary.

 That said, saying it's *never* a good idea, regardless of circumstances, is just fucking stupid, and there's ample historical evidence to show that. I'm citing the battle of Stalingrad as evidence against your assertion that women [b]never[/b] have a role in combat. Obviously, there are circumstances and conditions where they do. You'd have to be woefully ignorat, an idiot, or both to think otherwise, because there are clear historical examples that prove it's sometimes worthwhile to arm women for infantry combat.

Then are you actually suggesting that the Soviets would have lost the war, were it not for the inclusion of women in combat?
That's sure what it sounds like you're saying.

Besides, it's a silly point anyway, even if it were so.

There is no way under any circumstances that we could be in a situation similar to that of the soviets.
For us to prepare for one, would be like spending most of the military budget on the potential threat posed by Godzilla.

I'm not saying that they definitely would have or wouldn't have -- I'm just saying that the inclusion of women made a significant difference in the fighting. Enough difference to be responsible for the course of the battle? that would be pretty hard for anyone to say either way. It's virtually certain that they did help to some significant degree, however. Did the women, by themselves, sway the course of the war? Not likely. But every little bit helps.

Basically, I'm just saying that in desperate times, desperate measures can be good ideas, and have been so in the past.


 ------------

I agree that it's a separate argument, and somewhat silly in regards to the modern U.S. military. But when I hear someone make blanket propositions like saying arming women is *never* a good idea,and there are such clear historical examples against that blanket statement, I have to address it.

[b]"I'm not saying that they definitely would have or wouldn't have..." [/b]

And that's your problem.

Here's a blanket statement:

There is no way, IN THIS WORLD (not an imaginary one, or a PAST one) would the US military's including women in combat units make the US military better at warfighting.
It would weaken the US military.
Facts.

I can't account for what you hear, but I can require you to show me where in this thread I said that.

Shoot, son, I've armed my wife. And I stated that in case of invasion, we should allow every Susie Homemaker to pick up a gun as well.

Whatever you are hearing AIN'T what I am saying. Tell the voices in your head to stop [}:D]

What I am AGAINST is incorporating women into our combat infantry. Its impracticable, not cost effective,a dn teh first step on teh road to the decimation of Americas fighting force.

Do, by "imaginary," you mean all potential future scenarios? Because if you're arguing that the military should only take into account present-moment threats (look! no one's launching a nuke right this second! guess we don't need missile defense!), then that seems a little shortsighted.

You have accomplished ONE thing pundit - you've put me and MajorMurphy on the same side of an issue.

[:D]

Indeed.

Perhaps I misunderstood you, garandman, but I was operating from this quote above:



 To me, that reads as saying 'it's never a good idea to put women in combat, period." And I was citing Stalingrad as an example of a time when it was a good idea to put women in combat.

Stalin thought it a fine idea to put women soldiers in Stalingrad.
The people in Stalingrad thought it was a fine idea to put women soldiers in Stalingrad.

Hitler thought the idea stunk.

There is no scenario where our military would be SO defeated by an invading army, that we would need to use women in combat roles.

The amount of training time, and assets for such training is FINITE.
To waste this finite time and valuable assets training for the impossible, or even these most far-fetched of scenarios that your've mentioned[b] is the only thing I can imagine that could degrade our military to such a point that would allow any of these imaginary "invasion" scenarios could come true.[/b]

Please don't run for office.[;)]

Let's define "put women in combat."

SCENARIO 1

You are being overrun. The enemy has invaded your homeland. The male soldiers have been routed, and the only thing standing between the enemy and Washington D.C. (symbolising total defeat) is Susie Homemaker, with a gun.

Yes, it is a GREAT idea to put women in combat (at this particular moment, under these conditions.)

SCENARIO 2

You are Donald Rumsfeld. Presently, you are in a time of peace, but that is actually irrelevant. You have to develop a strategy to build, strengthen and maintain Americas military readiness for the next 20 years.

NO, it is NEVER a good idea to put women in combat.

My contention is that teh Soviet and Viet Cong  put their women in combat under a SCENARIO 1 reasoning. And due to MANY circumstances, mostly OTHER than the fact that they had their women fighting (US politics in teh case of Viet Nam, and US MALE military forces creating a second front for Hitler  in the case of the Battle of Stalingrad not to mention terrible weather AND poor strategy by der Fuerer) the Viet Cong and the soviets lucked out and won.

Lastly, I really don't beleive a woman brings ANYTHING to the table BETTER than a male does with regard to fighting and winning a war thru offensive strategy. That said, female nurses in Viet Nam and WW2 were a HUGE asset to our fighting forces.

So, would I out women into combat out of DESPERATION? yes, probably. But as a peacetime policy? No, NEVER.

Ok, here's a question for you then:

Which would you rather have beside you in a foxhole, a volunteered female infantryman who's brave and willing to fight, or a drafted male infantryman who wants nothing more than to get out of there as quickly as possible?

--------------
Garandman, as a practical consideration, as far as infantry combat goes, I agree. It's not a great idea for the modern day U.S. military to pursue close-combat training for female infantry.


 That said, the whole idea of having an "unorganized militia," and a large part of the idea behind the 2nd Amendment, is your "scenario one" -- which, while extremely unlikely, is still something we prepare for, with things like Selective Service, etc.

 I mean, hell, I'm pretty damn opposed to the draft -- to my mind, it's a measure just as desperate as women in the military, and one that leads to equally shoddy soldiering (note: I'm all for *everyone* volunteering. Whole family is military. I just think the draft is a bad idea that makes bad soldiers.) But if the country's being invaded, then it's the duty of *every single citizen* to stand up and defend -- regardless of what that citizen has between their legs.

I'd rather have the drafted male.

I say this because I realize that the fighting of wars, and defense of our contry is more that just about the fighting ability of an individual.
I say this because I realize that for that woman to be sitting there next to me in that fighting hole, our military would have had to have made so many poorly thought out decisions, that we would then be doomed to defeat.

[b]QUESTION FOR YOU...[/b]

If there was a rifle that was vastly superior to the M4/M16, but took a different sized cartridge, would you want to give this weapon to a few of the men in your infantry company?
If you did, would the inclusion of a "few" of these vastly superior rifles improve your readiness, or degrade you readiness?

Your "practical consideration" kinda negates your hypothetical "question," but I'll answer anyway.

The draftee male. (oh, come on - you KNEW that was coming [:D])

1. I can motivate him to do things the female will NEVER be capable of doing. I can NEVER motivate the female to do things she is not capable of doing.

2. While I would hold to the "leave no one behind" doctrine regardless of gender, being the [strike]chauvinistic [/strike] chivalrous male that I am, my overattentiveness to her affairs would cause greater danger for both of us.

Well, I'll quit there, cuz you prolly get my drift.

I can appreciate patriotism in a female wishing to fight for her country, but there is a reason I used an Estwing framing hammer and not a Lousiville slugger for driving nails  when I was building my garage - its better suited to the job. Oh, I coulda used the Louisville Slugger, but WHY???

Damn you guys are digressing and picken' nits!  Get back on focus!

Women don't belong in combat units!  The corollary to that is (Here it comes!); women don't belong on Navy combat ships or in USMC ground units either, even in support roles!  I specifically left out aviators (This will draw fire!) because there a bunch of poofy dudes anyway.  Girls in the cockpit?  I don't know airplanes so I'm not fit to judge.  If they make better killers…then I guess I for it.  Better leave that one to an aviator.

Pundit...you didn't answer (Or at least I didn't detect an answer...and if you did, my humble apologies.) as to whether you served or not.  With all due respect, and I mean that, if you did not serve then you are NOT QUALIFIED to make a truly cogent argument on this subject.  That goes for every person I have ever argued this issue with over the last several years...mostly womenz.  If you haven't been there and done that, you ain't ready to stand up and state with authority that your argument is correct.  You can think…postulate…wish…ponder…but you don’t KNOW.  Think about that for just a minute!  You guys that have never served in a grunt unit or aboard a combat ship and want to see the girls serving alongside their male counterparts, don't have one clue about the realities of what you are advocating!  What you heard from the Clinton administration is total BS.  What you heard from DACOWITS is total BS.  Ask a unit CO, XO or the chiefs or staff NCOs if having girls in their battalion or on their ship is the right thing to do.  I have.  The truth is scary.

In my 28 year career, I served on one carrier, six destroyers and one spec warfare unit...where as a young man I toted a rifle (and a bunch of other unpleasant crap too) for five years.  I was there, in the heat, cold, rain, dust, and bugs.  I served with a great band of brothers...I consider that time spent in the grunt unit the hardest years of my life and the most rewarding too.  I still remember virtually every one of those men with whom I shared a fighting hole or a mess.  I served in the ranks and as a surface warfare officer.  I believe I AM qualified to argue this subject.  I have seen first hand what a corrosive effect women in the ship's company can have on morale, unit cohesiveness and unit readiness.  Anything you hear from the other side is nothing more than PC bullshit!

I'll close with one more rant:  I am also disturbed that so many traditional ceremonies have fallen by the wayside since women joined the mess.  I am speaking about crossing the line (equator) ceremonies and the CPO initiations becoming rated "G".  Sadly, the dinings ‘in’ have become little more than dress up tea parties.  Again...those who have been there know EXACTLY what I'm talking about.  I would be the first to admit, all of those ceremonial shindigs mentioned are silly fraternity games, designed to unstuff shirts and make total fools out of everybody...and that is exactly what I'm talking about when I rant about unit cohesiveness declining and the BROTHERHOOD (note I did not say sisterhood?) beginning to fracture.  The silly frat house games are deeply rooted in tradition and are designed to create the bonds between the brothers who may one day depend upon each other to lay down their lives in their defense.  Boyish games in the mess do lead to brotherly love in the fighting hole.  Think I'm goofy on this?  If you haven't been there, done that, you don't get it.  I'll bet the Major does.

Wish I had seen this sleeping dog early...here's my poke:
I really don't care about your condemnations of this, this is just the way it is.
1)When I was a young man, if there had been women in the unit I would have had the hots for at least one of them at one time, probably a few at a time. Now, if you as a horny young gent also had the hots for one I was fond of, I can easily see things getting out of hand and me throwing a hand grenade in your foxhole. Oops! Sorry! But I wouldn't put up with anyone screwing with "my women".
2) If I had captured a semi-comely enemy troop, I'd have banged the daylights out of her. If I thought she could be a threat to my well-being, she would have been shot "escaping" when I was finished. An enemy man would have just got passed on to the prison camp.

You can spare me the judgements, I'm just telling you there are alot of other men who'd do the same. I've read some 1st person accounts of what goes on and they make sense.
Now, are those kind of situations *good* for moral?

Amen. Same thing for the surface ships. Either have them onboard on birth control, or not at all. I don't even want to get into it about how many females get pregnant on purpose just to get out of sea duty. It's a crying shame; they join the Navy and not expect to be put on a ship.

-----------------------------------------------
As to the degredation of our military just take a look at Ex. clinton's eight-year crusade to destroy.
(A guy posted on this board not long ago the reduced (during the clinton years) numbers of personnel, tanks, planes ships, etc., and that information was truly frightening.)

Finally, I believe there are small, loosely connected, well financed groups at work to move us left but with the ultimate "ONE World Government" as their true goal.  I believe these groups contain lots of influential people some of whom are in government and many who are in the media and entertainment.

I don't believe any kind of formal conspiracy exists but the outcome could be the same as if one did exist.

Former Senator Pat Swindoll (R GA) said the demostrations he saw was "that women could not carry a wounded man soldier to safety, endangering them both."

Thus a Woman can be in combat if she had equal stregth to a man. Then she would be a "shim" and I am sure those ppl are not allowed in the military!!!!!![uzi]

Somebody posted above, to paraphrase," would you rather share a foxhole with a motivated female or a male draftee..."

As a former Marine I'd rather share that fighting hole with the draftee.  You share it with that female and every time your unit has gotta pick up and move yer gonna be carryin' that bitch's pack AND rifle.  Don't believe it?

Go to Pendleton or Lejeune and watch a support unit fall out for a forced march.  Best example would be a Field MP Company where they've got the full array of grunt toys AND a few female troops.  About a mile into the hump the females will have ditched all their gear except the weapon.  Their male squad mates will be carrying it for them.  About a 1/4 mile further and the weapon will be slung over the squad leaders shoulder (in addition to his own) at the mile and a half point the female will be staggering, spinning and puking and the platoon sergeant will order her onto the support vehicle.  And thats with a motivated WM (Woman Marine) who is head and shouldes above the women in the other services.

Don't believe it?  I've seen it.

Yak yak yak

Public opinion
may have changed but
the physiological
differences between
men and women
have not.

It isn't just that they can't carry a man to safety.

I recently watched the documentary on TV about the New Corps and recruit training for both men and women.  The training syllabus looked fairly difficult for both sexes.  Problem was the standards of success applied to the girls appeared to be less than those the men had to meet or exceed.

One thing jumped right off the damn TV screen...and this remains at the core of all of my previous rants on this subject.  It looked to me as if the girls really lacked the running speed, load bearing capacity and endurance to meet the same standards as the men.

The silliest thing I saw was when the recruits were in the "Crucible" and they were presented with a wounded comrade by the DI/umpire.
Any of you guys (and gals...I hope!) remember the Three Stooges...or the Keystone Kops?
In my day...(Never thought I'd be saying THAT!), one, or maybe two men were expected to hump a wounded buddy to the rear.  I rolled with laughter as I watched these girls try to figure out how to get this one, relatively small female recruit out of harm's way.

Fireman's carry?  Over the shoulder bag-of-dry-cement carry?  Nah...none of them could lift the wounded trooper over their shoulder...even with help from the others.  Feet-arms-two-person lift and carry (no stretcher, as it would be in a fighting hole)?  Nah...don't think so.  The girls were tired and they just didn't have the upper body/arm strength to do that either.  Dragging them wasn't an option...too tiring.

Finally, four of the ladies each grabbed a limb and carried our 'wounded' recruit to the rear.  Think about that for just a moment.  A [co-ed] unit is heavily engaged in a firefight and taking wounded.  The wounded must be transported or they will die.  If they are to be transported, it must be either several of my female troopers or fewer of my (Dare I say MORE EFFECTIVE?) male troopers.  Either way, unit fighting efficiency will take a big hit and more troopers will get killed.

My son's wife now serves in the 101st AB in a support unit.  She will likely be gone in a matter of days to Indian Country (Something she NEVER figured on when she enlisted!).  I know this for a FACT:  That woman couldn't pick a good fight with an average sized wet-behind-the-ears, downy-cheeked teenage boy...much less a pumped up, pissed off enemy soldier.

Women in ground combat?  Stupidest damn thing I ever heard...even from a dumbass female DACOWITS military officer.

[soapbox]

Whoa there pardner!  You better not be letting the truth get out like that about women using birth control and pregnancy to control their sea duty and deployment chances!  Today's military is about equal career opportunities and "fairness".

I am just shocked, horrified and dismayed  [shock]  to learn that our female sailors would pull such a stunt!  Don't they know that when they leave the ship for a cushy shore billet to await the 'blessed event' it leaves a void on the ship?  Don't they understand that the ship and her crew depend upon each and EVERY crew'member' to pull their weight, stand their assigned watches, repair their gear, sweep up those dust bunnies, and if called upon fight for their ship, their fellow crewmembers and their country?  Oh...I forgot...these days, we think of Number 1 first.  (Gee...is that what this [puke]Army of One is all about?)[>:/]

im a student of history. I realize i can not give a better answer than a vet, but here are my 2 cents:

When you are driving your wife/girlfriend and you almost get into a crash but you stay cool and avoid it while she is in the passenger seat screaming OH SHIT and grabbing the seat. catch my drift?
no women should not be in combat.
thanks
.02

The point is the military is not, or should I say should not, be an equal opportunity employer.  Of course I believe it needs to be equal opportunity in some respects (eg. race), but the line needs to be drawn at some point.  Members of the military, especially combat units must be held to very high physical standards to maintain combat effectiveness.  I think for reasons of simplifying things it is prudent to exclude women from combat.  True, a small minority may meet the standards, but there are other factors that apply.  If a woman gets captured in combat, it is a reality that she will be raped.  This causes a number of dilemnas.  For one, following the rape, she will be very emotionally vulnerable and more likely to divulge information.  Secondly, the morale of her unit and other women will be severely degraded which ultimately degrades the combat effectiveness of the unit.  Finally, there would be such a huge uproar on the homefront when the public finds out that their daughters are being raped by the enemy.  We don't need any of this.  Best to not test this.