My girlfriend and I were just discussing this, can't recall if it's been on here before.  I'm sure the dupe police will let me know.  If so, my girlfriend says "No milk for you".

It seems to me that nearly everyone is in combat arms these days. There's been a few women wounded/killed by roadside IED's/ambushes.

Talk of extortion Reparations For Slavery has withered away as well.

Kind of became irrelevant due to the number of women actually participating in "infantry" combat in Iraq, even though they are not technically in combat arms branches.

The Bush Admin and the GOP in general is too beholding to groups that find the idea of women in the military abhorant to do anything to change it.

But its only a matter of time now before the regs are dropped.  There is just too much real world evidence that the rules are meaningless, and based on unfounded fears...

Quoted: Kind of became irrelevant due to the number of women actually participating in "infantry" combat in Iraq, even though they are not technically in combat arms branches. The Bush Admin and the GOP in general is too beholding to groups that find the idea of women in the military abhorant to do anything to change it. But its only a matter of time now before the regs are dropped.  There is just too much real world evidence that the rules are meaningless, and based on unfounded fears...

A Marine infantry unit would litterly fall apart in minutes if women were added.

Sad but true. All the horn dogs wouldnt do anything but try to jump on ladies. No post could ever be manned, people would be too busy getting it on to pay attention.

I dont like 90% of women in the military, yeah there is always one who is mannish and can get stuff done, but the rest are weak, slow and just get pregnant enough times during thier time in to get out of everything. I have to teach POGs at mout town so see alot of women come out, and most are just incapable of anything!

Watch a mixed sex unit do a run, look who is falling out......... again not all women, but most.....


(waits for someone to attack)

Here is the deal.  I know female soldiers are out there running convoys, being attached to units as support for raids, working TCPs, and any number of jobs that involves being potientially shot at or blown up.  That does not mean that they are by any stretch of the imagination "combat arms".  It means that they are serving in the military while deployed to a war zone.  Until your primary mission is to CLOSE WITH AND DESTROY THE ENEMY THROUGH FIRE AND MANUVER you are not combat arms.  You are a soldier doing your job and accepting all the risks that job entails.   There may not seem to be a difference to someone that has not BTDT, but for those of us that have, there is a huge difference.  

YMMV

Quoted: <Snip> I dont like 90% of women in the military, yeah there is always one who is mannish and can get stuff done, but the rest are weak, slow and just get pregnant enough times during thier time in to get out of everything. I have to teach POGs at mout town so see alot of women come out, and most are just incapable of anything! <Snip>

Same thing my own two eyeballs witnessed back in the 80s.  I dont' think the human species has evolved much since the 80s.

Thankfully our combat robots should be on line sometime in the next 50 years so it will render the issue irrelevant.  Unless of course they come up with weak, whiney "girl" robots that fall out of runs, stay knocked up all the time, ruin morale, threaten all the other robots with "sexual harrassment" when they get angry, and generally use the military as a "robot social welfare program".

if they can do the job, then do it...

Quoted: Here is the deal.  I know female soldiers are out there running convoys, being attached to units as support for raids, working TCPs, and any number of jobs that involves being potientially shot at or blown up.  That does not mean that they are by any stretch of the imagination "combat arms".  It means that they are serving in the military while deployed to a war zone.  Until your primary mission is to CLOSE WITH AND DESTROY THE ENEMY THROUGH FIRE AND MANUVER you are not combat arms.  You are a soldier doing your job and accepting all the risks that job entails.   There may not seem to be a difference to someone that has not BTDT, but for those of us that have, there is a huge difference.   YMMV

Except that closing with and destroying the enemy is what several women have already been decorated for.

Quoted: Quoted: Here is the deal.  I know female soldiers are out there running convoys, being attached to units as support for raids, working TCPs, and any number of jobs that involves being potientially shot at or blown up.  That does not mean that they are by any stretch of the imagination "combat arms".  It means that they are serving in the military while deployed to a war zone.  Until your primary mission is to CLOSE WITH AND DESTROY THE ENEMY THROUGH FIRE AND MANUVER you are not combat arms.  You are a soldier doing your job and accepting all the risks that job entails.   There may not seem to be a difference to someone that has not BTDT, but for those of us that have, there is a huge difference.   YMMV Except that closing with and destroying the enemy is what several women have already been decorated for.

My dog caught a bird one time.  Does that make him a bird dog?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Here is the deal.  I know female soldiers are out there running convoys, being attached to units as support for raids, working TCPs, and any number of jobs that involves being potientially shot at or blown up.  That does not mean that they are by any stretch of the imagination "combat arms".  It means that they are serving in the military while deployed to a war zone.  Until your primary mission is to CLOSE WITH AND DESTROY THE ENEMY THROUGH FIRE AND MANUVER you are not combat arms.  You are a soldier doing your job and accepting all the risks that job entails.   There may not seem to be a difference to someone that has not BTDT, but for those of us that have, there is a huge difference.   YMMV Except that closing with and destroying the enemy is what several women have already been decorated for. My dog caught a bird one time.  Does that make him a bird dog?

Sorry if this bruses your ego but its true, and you cant make it go away.

Quoted: Except that closing with and destroying the enemy is what several women have already been decorated for.

That doesn't change the fact that the vast majority aren't "closing with" and "destroying" anything but the morale of the units afflicted with them and the penises of every male within slurping distance.  

You have to look at the big picture.  Out of tens of thousands of females attached to Army units (I can't speak for other services) I can assure you the number of them that are actually capable of "closing with" or "destroying" anything is very small.

There are probably a small percentage of brawny 12 year olds out there who could perform certain types of ground combat, but is it really worth the expense and bullshit to waste time recruiting them?

Quoted: Quoted: Here is the deal.  I know female soldiers are out there running convoys, being attached to units as support for raids, working TCPs, and any number of jobs that involves being potientially shot at or blown up.  That does not mean that they are by any stretch of the imagination "combat arms".  It means that they are serving in the military while deployed to a war zone.  Until your primary mission is to CLOSE WITH AND DESTROY THE ENEMY THROUGH FIRE AND MANUVER you are not combat arms.  You are a soldier doing your job and accepting all the risks that job entails.   There may not seem to be a difference to someone that has not BTDT, but for those of us that have, there is a huge difference.   YMMV Except that closing with and destroying the enemy is what several women have already been decorated for.

Really?  Got a link to the medal citations?  

Except that closing with and destroying the enemy is what several women have already been decorated for.

Yes, and like I said-

Until your primary mission is to........

What I am saying is that there is a HUGE difference between anyone (to me this has nothing to do with wether you are a dude or a chick) that closes with and destroys the enemy as thier primary duty verses someone that does it once or twice while in the completion of thier mission.  There are times when you are running a convoy that you just have to stop, reach out, grab the bad guys by the throat and shot them in the face.  Usually everything has gone to hell at that point, but it still happens on occasion.  The PRIMARY mission though when running convoys is to saftly move desinated people and equipment from point A to point B, and go back to your FOB.  I am using convoy operations as an example, but what it boils down to, for me at least, is that there is a huge difference in units and personelthat train non-stop to mix it up with the bad guys, and the units and personel that have a mission that does not primarly consist of "closing with and destroying the enemy."

Like I said, YMMV.

Quoted: Quoted: Except that closing with and destroying the enemy is what several women have already been decorated for. That doesn't change the fact that the vast majority aren't "closing with" and "destroying" anything but the morale of the units afflicted with them and the penises of every male within slurping distance.   You have to look at the big picture.  Out of tens of thousands of females attached to Army units (I can't speak for other services) I can assure you the number of them that are actually capable of "closing with" or "destroying" anything is very small. There are probably a small percentage of brawny 12 year olds out there who could perform certain types of ground combat, but is it really worth the expense and bullshit to waste time recruiting them?

I can only speak for my job/branch of service.  We have about 3 females per 100 men, and they all have bitch ass office jobs, they all stay knocked up (why not, you can work 4 hour days for 6 months, expempt from PT, no PT test, etc).  I have known a few (can probably count them on one hand) over the last decade that were worth a shit on the flightline.  Women aren't physically up to the same job, they can't haul the heavy parts, lift them over their heads, etc.  Most of them that actually spend any time on the line just whine to the guys around them and they carry all the parts, toolboxes, test equipment, etc. for them.  Fawking morale killers at home and while deployed, if they are hot everybody is trying so hard to bone them they can't do their job.  I'm just glad we deploy with finance, services, etc who have a lot of whores women so our guys can get a nut and not be distracted at work.  

Quoted: Thankfully our combat robots should be on line sometime in the next 50 years so it will render the issue irrelevant.  Unless of course they come up with weak, whiney "girl" robots that fall out of runs, stay knocked up all the time, ruin morale, threaten all the other robots with "sexual harrassment" when they get angry, and generally use the military as a "robot social welfare program".

But having only having capable robots is sexist! haha

Quoted: I am using convoy operations as an example, but what it boils down to, for me at least, is that there is a huge difference in units and personelthat train non-stop to mix it up with the bad guys, and the units and personel that have a mission that does not primarly consist of "closing with and destroying the enemy." Like I said, YMMV.

You are correct and the "M" does not "V".  There is certainly a difference between incidental contact with the enemy during convoy ops and units whose primary job is contact with the enemy.

Anyone who thinks that the average Army female could make it as an 11B (or the Marine equivalent) is detached from reality.  Just WISHING something were true doesn't make it TRUE.  Even if you rounded up a bunch of mannish, former East German swim team women and stuck them in grunt units there's still a lot more to it than just physical strength.

Generally, people who are so gung ho for "chicks in combat" have never been in the military.  I don't think I have EVER ran into male vets who said, "You know, bygod back in Fallujah/Thunder Run/Ia Drang Valley/Iwo Jima  we could sure have used a bunch more skirts in our squad!  We'd have really cleaned house then!"

If a nation is in a "Stalingrad" situation where anyone old enough to pull a trigger is thrown into combat, then it's irrelevant.  But for a professional, standing volunteer Army?  

Soldier Earns Silver Star for Her Role in Defeating Ambush

By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, June 17, 2005; Page A21

Sgt. Leigh Ann Hester fought her way through an enemy ambush south of Baghdad, killing three insurgents with her M-4 rifle to save fellow soldiers' lives -- and yesterday became the first woman since World War II to win the Silver Star medal for valor in combat.

The 23-year-old retail store manager from Bowling Green, Ky., won the award for skillfully leading her team of military police soldiers in a counterattack after about 50 insurgents ambushed a supply convoy they were guarding near Salman Pak on March 20.



Sgt. Leigh Ann Hester is the first female soldier since World War II to receive the Silver Star medal for valor in combat. (By Spec. Jeremy D. Crisp -- Defense Department Via Associated Press)

Free E-mail Newsletters
Today's Headlines & Columnists
See a Sample  |  Sign Up Now
Breaking News Alerts
See a Sample  |  Sign Up Now

The medal, rare for any soldier, underscores the growing role in combat of U.S. female troops in Iraq's guerrilla war, where tens of thousands of American women have served, 36 have been killed and 285 wounded, according to Pentagon figures.

After insurgents hit the convoy with a barrage of fire from machine guns, AK-47 assault rifles and rocket-propelled grenades, Hester "maneuvered her team through the kill zone into a flanking position where she assaulted a trench line with grenades and M203 rounds," according to the Army citation accompanying the Silver Star.

"She then cleared two trenches with her squad leader where she engaged and eliminated three AIF [anti-Iraqi forces] with her M4 rifle. Her actions saved the lives of numerous convoy members," the citation stated.

Hester, a varsity softball and basketball player in high school, joined the Army in 2001 and was assigned to the Kentucky National Guard's 617th Military Police Company, based in Richmond, Ky.

A female driver with the unit, Spec. Ashley J. Pullen of Danville, Ky., also won the Bronze Star for her bravery. Pullen laid down fire to suppress insurgents and then "exposed herself to heavy AIF fires in order to provide medical assistance to her critically injured comrades," saving several lives, her citation said.

Six other soldiers with Hester's unit won awards for defeating the ambush, leaving 27 insurgents dead, six wounded and one captured. They include Hester's squad leader, Staff. Sgt. Timothy F. Nein, who also won the Silver Star.

Kentucky Guard MPs Thwart Ambush, Kill 27 Insurgents - Iraq
03/24/2005

 
Story by SPC Jeremy D. Crisp
23 March 2005
CAMP VICTORY, Iraq
Edited by ILW





A Soldier displays the enormous weapons cache discovered after the firefight. The MPs discovered 22 AK-47 light machine guns, 13 RPKs, 6 RPGs, 16 RPG rockets, 123 full AK-47 ammunition magazines, 52 empty AK-47 magazines, one full AK-47 (75) round ammunition drum, an estimated 200 loose AK-47 ammunition rounds, 2,500 (7.62mm) belted ammunition rounds, and 40 hand grenades. (U.S. Army Photo)
It was supposed to be just another day, another routine mission outside Baghdad for Soldiers from the Kentucky Army National Guard's 617th Military Police Company. What happened in the early morning of 20 March was anything but routine.

The Richmond, Kentucky-based 617th sent out their fourth platoon's second squad to shadow a convoy of transportation vehicles along a supply route southeast of Baghdad. Their mission was to provide support for the vehicles in the event of an attack.

Twenty-six supply vehicles, many of which were 18-wheelers, were heading south on the heavily traveled route. They were driving one behind the other like ducks in a row, with a security convoy of three military police vehicles interlaced between—one up front, one in the middle, one in the rear. Trailing the convoy and not far out of sight was second squad in three additional heavily-armored Humvees.

Each Humvee contained a trio of Soldiers, each laden with weapons and gear, except for the trail vehicle, which also carried a medic. Gunners stood ready in the turrets with .50 caliber machine guns and Mark-19 grenade launchers.




SPC Cooper, the .50 calibur gunner, sustained only minor injuries after the 45 minute long battle. The rear passenger window sustained numerous direct hits, yet no enemy small ammunition rounds penetrated the armored Humvee.(U.S. Army Photo)
"We observed the convoy we were trailing starting to make erratic movements," said SSG Timothy F. Nein, leader, second squad. "We saw a lot of dust being kicked up by the convoy vehicles, as if they were being engaged by an IED [improvised explosive device] or an ambush, so we knew something was wrong. My gunner said he could hear shots being fired, so we picked up the pace." The squad had proceeded directly into an ambush site.

"We moved to contact," Nein said. "We got the vehicles on the contact side, in between the convoy and the insurgents. As we got up on that side of the road, we realized through previous reconnaissance of the area that there was a road that paralleled the field going south."

The squad then proceeded down the main road and took a right onto the side road to flank the insurgents. "At that time," Nein said, "We noticed seven vehicles the insurgents had staged and ready [for an attack]. Doors open, trunks open; ready for a quick escape. Once we turned down that road, the insurgents didn't have a choice but to stay and fight. We had just cut off their escape route."

As soon as the squad rolled into the fray, the insurgents adjusted fire. "As we came on the scene, the insurgents' fire all shifted," said Nein. "They realized who they needed to fire on. They quickly shifted all fire from the transportation convoy to us. As soon as we cut back to get in between the convoy and the insurgents, the windshield of my driver [SGT Dustin T. Morris] took two direct hits. The bullets failed to defeat the armored glass."




SSG Nein and SGT Morris, the escort drivers, tested their mettle and their training on 20 March. According to their captain, “They did exactly what they were supposed to do when supporting a convoy in that situation.” (U.S. Army Photo)
Atop the same truck was .50 caliber gunner SPC Casey M. Cooper. He said when they turned down the side road massive gunfire was coming their way. Rounds from small arms came towards them and impacted the rear door and its window, which yet again failed to penetrate the Humvee's armor. What happened next shocked and stunned Cooper.

"I just saw something coming at me, and fast. It just so happened to be an RPG [rocket propelled grenade]," he said.

The round impacted right above the rear passenger door, right below where Cooper was positioned in the turret.

"It knocked me out completely unconscious," he said.

Only sustaining minor shrapnel wounds around the right eye and hand, Cooper would be fine, but one Soldier in the group thought he was dead. That Soldier then went up and shook Cooper, at which point he popped awake and started firing again.

In the vehicle following right behind Nein, Cooper and Morris was 23 year-old SGT Leigh Ann Hester, team leader and vehicle commander from Bowling Green, Kentucky. SGT Hester recalled the incident. "Nein's vehicle took a direct hit with an RPG as soon as we made that turn," said Hester. "I heard it hit, saw the smoke, but we kept pushing on.




SGT Morris displays the Humvee windshield that remained intact even after receiving two direct rounds from enemy fire. (U.S. Army Photo)
"I saw SSG Nein jump out of the truck. As soon as I saw him jump out, I was right there," Hester said. From there, Hester, Nein and company pressed their flanking advantage and engaged the enemy full force.

"On the right hand side was a berm. They were still shooting at us from there and from down in a trench line," said Hester. "So we returned fire. I think I shot off three M203 [grenade launcher] rounds, and I don't know how many M4 [assault rifle] rounds I shot. I know I hit one of the RPK [Russian-made light machine gun] gunners," she said.

Nein and Hester were side by side, and both were being engaged with small arms fire. "Both SGT Hester's and my vehicles were being engaged by an insurgent with an RPK somewhere out in the orchard field," Nein said. "I could also see an insurgent with an RPG trying to get around and fire on us. We weren't engaging him at the time, but I think he thought we were going to. He was peering out from behind a tree, so we eliminated him."

Hester, Nein and their comrades continued to press the advantage, completely disrupting any plans the insurgents had at a successful attack. After the approximately 45-minute firefight, only three Soldiers from the 617th were wounded. Conversely, 27 insurgents were dead. Six others were wounded; one was captured. None escaped.

The MPs from second squad also confiscated 22 AK-47 light machine guns, 13 RPKs, 6 RPGs, 16 RPG rockets, 123 full AK-47 ammunition magazines, 52 empty AK-47 magazines, one full AK-47 (75) round ammunition drum, an estimated 200 loose AK-47 ammunition rounds, 2,500 (7.62mm) belted ammunition rounds, and 40 hand grenades.

CPT Todd M. Lindner, 617th company commander, said he went over the scenario in his head a hundred times to see what he might have done differently or done better. He said there was no better way then what his Soldiers did.

"They did exactly what they were supposed to do when supporting a convoy in that situation," said Lindner. "What their mission was in shadowing that convoy was to provide support in the event of an attack. What they were supposed to do was place themselves in between the attacking force and the convoy. This would allow the convoy to escape the kill zone while they returned suppressive fire and ultimately defeated the enemy. That was exactly what they did."

Yes, as everyone has said, there are examples of women who can do stuff. The thing is for those women, there are 1000s more in the military, that are weak/lazy/pregnant.

Quoted: Kentucky Guard MPs Thwart Ambush, Kill 27 Insurgents - Iraq 03/24/2005   *Blah-blah, "Uber Woman", Blah-blah*

Let's say we had a missile program that functioned like military women.  O.k., for tens of thousands of missiles fired at the enemy an occasional "Uber Missile" would actually HIT the enemy.

Wow!  A handfull out of tens of thousands!  Why hell, that's a successful, cost-effective missile program, isn't it?!

"no milk for you"

Is she lactating?  Kinky stuff man.  They have websites for that you know.

Quoted: Yes, as everyone has said, there are examples of women who can do stuff. The thing is for those women, there are 1000s more in the military, that are weak/lazy/pregnant.

No, there are not.  

Quoted: Yes, as everyone has said, there are examples of women who can do stuff. The thing is for those women, there are 1000s more in the military, that are weak/lazy/pregnant.

No, there are not.  

Quoted: Quoted: Yes, as everyone has said, there are examples of women who can do stuff. The thing is for those women, there are 1000s more in the military, that are weak/lazy/pregnant. No, there are not.

Um.  Ok, if you say so.

'War Dames' on the march

[Phillip Carter, Saturday October 23, 2004 at 7:08pm EST]


U.S. Army plans to expand the opportunities for women in its forward logistical forces, based on female performance in Iraq and Afghanistan

Rowan Scarborough reported in Friday's Washington Times (one of the better sources for military-related news because of its sources in the Rumsfeld Pentagon and Bush White House) that the Army has plans to realign the role of women in its land combat forces. Specifically, it appears that the Army wants to move women into support positions within the logistical units which will support its redesigned brigade-sized "units of action". According to Mr. Scarborough:

The Army is negotiating with civilian leaders about eliminating a women-in-combat ban so it can place mixed-sex support companies within warfighting units, starting with a division going to Iraq in January. Despite the legal prohibition, Army plans already have included such collocation of women-men units in blueprints for a lighter force of 10 active divisions, according to Defense Department sources. An Army spokesman yesterday, in response to questions from The Washington Times, said the Army is now in discussions with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's staff to see whether the 10-year-old ban in this one area should be lifted. The ban prohibits the Army from putting women in units that "collocate" with ground combatants. "When that policy was made up, there was a different threat," said Lt. Col. Chris Rodney, an Army spokesman at the Pentagon. "We imagined a more linear combat environment. Now, with the nature of asymmetrical threats, we have to relook at that policy." Col. Rodney cited the fighting in Iraq as typifying the new threat whereby all soldiers, support or combat, face attack by rockets, mortars, roadside bombs and ambushes. "Everybody faces a similar threat," he said. "There is no front-line threat right now."

Analysis & Commentary: Of course, there are those who are opposed to the integration of women into these units — and indeed, to the presence of women in ground forces altogether. Elaine Donnelly, head of the virtual Center for Military Readiness, thinks this move will put women dangerously close to the front lines where they don't belong.

Some Pentagon officials, who asked not to be named, said the proposed Forward Support Companies are at the least "skirting" the existing ban if not violating it. They suspect the new units are a way to inch women closer to land combat despite Congress' prohibition against it. Elaine Donnelly, who leads the pro-military Center for Military Readiness, says Congress needs to be informed of the Army's plans. "There is a law requiring notice to Congress that has not happened, and there are regulations that forbid the Army from taking infantry units and collocating gender-integrated units with them," said Mrs. Donnelly, who opposes women in combat. "If they are doing this, putting women in land combat units would be a violation of law and policy."

As I wrote in "War Dames", published in Dec. 2002, these arguments against women in front-line units don't really square with reality today. The reality today is that there are no rear area units. Whether you're in a headquarters company, a support company, an MP company or an infantry company, you are going to see combat in Iraq. Whether you see it at the tip of the spear, on dismounted patrol as an MP or grunt, or you see it as a member of a convoy heading down the MSR to Baghdad, you will see combat. That is the nature of this threat environment — it is non-contiguous, non-linear, and unconventional.

There is a serious disconnect between Army doctrine, which posits that combat units will fight forward and support units will operate in a low-threat environment, and the reality of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This disparity has actually existed for some time — probably since the end of the Cold War, with deployments to hotspots like Bosnia and Somalia where there weren't any front lines either. Unfortunately, Army doctrine has yet to catch up to the reality of the fact that there are no front lines.

This affects a lot of things within the Army, because the building block document of Army units is based on these doctrinal assumptions. The Modified Table of Organization and Equipment ("MTOE") incorporates these assumptions into the structure of units, by allocating personnel and equipment to the standard Transportation Company or Forward Support Company. Today's MTOEs look as if the Army is about to fight the Russian hordes on the plains of West Germany — it hasn't changed yet to reflect the unconventional, non-contiguous, non-linear battlefield. That's why transportation and support companies have unarmored vehicles; that's why logistics companies have few crew-served weapons or night-vision goggles; that's why everyone in those units has been jumping through their 4th point of contact to get things like up-armored HMMWVs. None of those combat-essential pieces of equipment were on their Cold War-era MTOEs before... but now they need them in a big way.

Back to women in combat. During the 1990s, as I describe in "War Dames", the Army slowly pushed women into a variety of support units, such as MPs, chemical warfare units, combat engineer units, artillery units, forward support units, and the list goes on. By and large, women did very well in these units, despite the dire predictions of those like Ms. Donnelly who thought it would be the end of the world for unit cohesion. Sure, there were challenges — but there are always challenges where personnel management in the Army is concerned. By the time the U.S. crossed the berm into Iraq in 2003, women played key roles throughout the Army, as Apache helicopter pilots, forward support company commanders, intelligence officers, mechanics, medics, and communications specialists.

Put these two trends together, and voila! You have women in combat like never before. From all indications, women have served with distinction, despite anecdotal problems in some units with fraternization and sexual assault. I can't tell you how many stories I've read — either in the press or in e-mail from friends — about patrols and other missions where names like "Elizabeth" or "Jennifer" will appear along soldier names like "Dave" and "Mike". The integration of women has progressed to the point where you barely notice it anymore.

Ultimately, I think people like Ms. Donnelly and the anti-women-in-combat crowd have a right to their opinions. But I find their opinions to be unsupported by the evidence as I've read it from Iraq and Afghanistan. Moreover, the criticisms of women in combat today remain based on the doctrinal assumptions of yesterday. These criticisms are totally anachronistic and divorced from contemporary reality. It would be literally impossible to pull women out of harm's way, because of the way the battlefield has changed. Every unit goes into harm's way now, not just the infantrymen or the tankers or the Green Berets. If you wanted to reinstate the "risk rule" that Secretary of Defense Les Aspin killed in 1994, you'd have to pull women out of the entire Army — or at least ensure they never deploy anywhere. I think that'd be a dramatic step backwards, and I hope it never happens.

Post-Script: The WT also mentions the fact that Ms. Donnelly helped torpodo an MTOE change in 2001 to the Army's "Stryker Brigades" that would have allowed women to serve in those units' reconnaissance squadrons as intelligence officers and support personnel, among other jobs. When Ms. Donnelly began to criticize the extensive use of women in combat in Iraq, especially in the wake of PFC Jessica Lynch's capture, the White House had a smackdown ready for her. Politically, this fight is a non-issue — both the White House and Dems recognize the value of American women to the military, and the importance of utilizing them to their fullest potential.
Related Posts (on one page):

I seem to recall a survey that revealed nearly 90 percent of servicewomen () would rather not enter the Combat Arms branch.  Not to mention that most Combat Arms Soldiers simply do not want them there.

The fact of the matter is that the Military is not a social experiment.  It is not the place where social concepts can be "tested" and then applied to other facets of society.  The Military is a killing machine, pure and simple.

The Israelis tried the women in combat idea and walked away with their tails between their legs (as did the Brittish, I believe).  There are just too many problems associated with the whole concept (i.e., the Israelis found that the male Soldiers had a tendency to protect the female soldiers more so than was normal, they also realized that the screams of a wounded woman would be devastating to morale, etc...).

A woman should only be sent to the battlefields after all able men are dead or incapacitated.

Justin

Quoted: I seem to recall a survey that revealed nearly 90 percent of servicewomen () would rather not enter the Combat Arms branch.  Not to mention that most Combat Arms Soldiers simply do not want them there. The fact of the matter is that the Military is not a social experiment.  It is not the place where social concepts can be "tested" and then applied to other facets of society.  The Military is a killing machine, pure and simple. The Israelis tried the women in combat idea and walked away with their tails between their legs (as did the Brittish, I believe).  There are just too many problems associated with the whole concept (i.e., the Israelis found that the male Soldiers had a tendency to protect the female soldiers more so than was normal, they also realized that the screams of a wounded woman would be devastating to morale, etc...). A woman should only be sent to the battlefields after all able men are dead or incapacitated. Justin

Fiction.

Quoted: Quoted: Not to mention that most Combat Arms Soldiers simply do not want them there. Fiction.

How is THAT fiction, I dont know one combat arms person who wants them there. As Chairborne said, the flightline doesnt even want them there!

Issue Date: August 09, 2004 Band of sisters Army ‘Lionesses’ hit streets with Marines on combat ops By Gordon Lubold Times staff writer RAMADI, Iraq — When Marines on the hunt for insurgents here kick in the door, Spc. Shannon Morgan isn’t far behind. She’s part of “Team Lioness,” a small group of women proving itself in one of Iraq’s hottest combat zones. Women are serving throughout the war zone, but the soldiers in this band of sisters are unique. They’re joining male Marines and soldiers on offensive ops, taking part in raids, security patrols and vehicle checkpoints. The women are not walking point or leading infantry squads in the assault, but their secondary role is no less important to the success or failure of a mission here. They accompany the infantrymen to conduct body searches of Iraqi women, allowing U.S. forces to hunt for insurgents while not offending the citizens they seek to win over. These women are helping to win the peace in this still restive city, but the significance of what they’re doing goes beyond the war zone. By joining men on the offense, they are blurring the traditional lines that have kept women in combat-support roles and out of harm’s way. But in the counter-insurgency fight now being waged in Iraq, a war with no front lines and no traditional “rear,” just about anywhere outside the wire qualifies as “harm’s way.” And the women here are in the thick of it. Take Morgan. She’s considered the best squad automatic weapon gunner in her battalion. She can kill the bad guy — and has — and has accompanied a unit during a 21-mile foot patrol in full combat gear on a day when temperatures pushed above 100 degrees. When the bullets fly, she runs — toward the fight. Morgan is not literally kicking in the door on raids. She leaves that for the Marines or soldiers in the “stack teams.” But figuratively speaking, Morgan says she’s opening the door a bit wider, helping to redefine this man’s Army. “I think it’s a breakthrough for females in combat,” said Morgan, a vehicle mechanic from Mena, Ark. “Putting women out there on the front lines with Marine [fire] teams is letting people know that women can hold their own.” A woman’s touch Team Lioness, a group of about 20 women with Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 1st Engineer Battalion, was born of necessity less than a year ago, when commanders saw a troubling situation during their raids and other missions. The men they sent charging into the city, often into private homes, made Iraqi women uneasy. Searching the women proved difficult, as Muslim culture dictates that men are not to touch women they don’t know. Some women refused to be searched, a stance the enemy exploited. Insurgents took to hiding weapons and other illicit materials under women’s dresses, knowing they probably wouldn’t be found there. So Army commanders added female soldiers to the mix and watched as the tension of the Iraqi women eased. The Iraqi women became so comfortable with the female soldiers — often clutching their arms or handing them their babies during house searches — that the Lionesses were able to collect intelligence from them that the men wouldn’t have been able to get. It’s the soldiers’ hair that does the trick, said Sgt. Brandi Burns, a 30-year-old construction equipment operator from Roswell, N.M. “They see all that masculinity, they see these people coming in their lives, then they see that itty-bitty bun and that eases them,” she said. Most of the women with the 1st Engineer Battalion company are construction vehicle drivers or mechanics who are certified on the .50-caliber machine gun. Seeing an opportunity to join the fight, they jumped at the chance to go on raids. Many have seen more action than their male counterparts. “Our Army guys would love to put a wig on and go out and do this stuff,” said Staff Sgt. Ranie Ruthig from Wentworth, S.D. “And we like to rub it in.” Marines learned the value of bringing a Lioness to the fight when 2nd Battalion, 4th Marines, arrived here in March. In the months since, 2/4 has become one of the team’s biggest customers. The leathernecks were decidedly skeptical when the Lionesses first appeared, because women aren’t supposed to be assigned to combat-arms units below the division level. They took them in anyway. “The Marines just throw you out there and expect you to do it,” Ruthig said. Mixed reactions Although assignments to certain Army and Marine combat-arms units have been closed to women, more combat-related jobs such as explosive ordnance disposal technician and combat engineer were made available throughout the 1990s. That doesn’t necessarily mean many women are filling those jobs yet, however, according to a recent study by the Rand Corp., a California-based think tank. The reasons women are underrepresented in many combat-related jobs could be due to a number of factors, such as personal choice, systemic problems or the fact that not much time has elapsed since the jobs were opened to women. Those with less experience than their male colleagues in such combat-related jobs may still be in the training pipeline, according to the study. It’s too soon to tell the effect of Team Lioness and other efforts to involve women in combat operations, but the practice will likely improve the image of female service members, said retired Navy Capt. Lory Manning, director of the Women in the Military Project for the Washington-based Women’s Research and Education Institute. “When this has settled down, I think the male Marines will have learned a lot about women’s abilities,” Manning said. “It will open up a lot of doors for women Marines. In history that’s how it’s worked … out of necessity.” Leathernecks who have worked directly with the women of Team Lioness say they perform a valuable service the Marines can’t do without. The motto here is “first do no harm,” so having female soldiers available to help during missions involving Iraqi women is a good idea. “When they’re there, it helps us out a lot,” said Cpl. Jared McKenzie, an assaultman with Weapons Company, 2/4, from Bon Aqua, Tenn. “It gets us out of searching the women, so it won’t get us in trouble.” But predictably, other Marines aren’t big on women in combat, saying the female soldiers on the Lioness missions they’ve seen are sloppy and make them feel uncomfortable. Another Marine said he doesn’t think the American public is ready to send women into combat. “It’s hard enough sending their sons off to war and watching them get killed,” said Lance Cpl. Phillip Scoggins, 24, who was sent to 2/4 as a combat replacement. “I don’t think they’re ready to see a woman get killed.” Ready or not, 23 American service women have died in war zones since Sept. 11, 2001, the most American women to die in a war since World War II. There is no obvious outcry against the deaths of women compared to their male comrades. Soldiers are more used to working with women, partly because there are more women than Marines in the Army and partly because they work more closely with men. Overall, about 73,000 of the Army’s 485,000 soldiers, or 15 percent, are women; about 10,600 of the nearly 178,000 active-duty Marines are women, roughly 6 percent. The greater percentage in the Army is due to the service’s higher number of job specialties, Manning said. Soldiers are also more used to seeing women in their barracks, where they sleep, change clothes and watch television together. The nearly 20 women in 1st Engineer Battalion’s headquarters company live with the men in their platoons, a nod to unit cohesion that’s important if women are going to play a worthwhile role, commanders here said. Even soldiers not familiar with the role Team Lioness is playing have open minds, since any woman stationed in Iraq is vulnerable, serving in capacities beyond her usual stateside roles. “I think as far as putting them at risk, they’re at risk anyway,” said Army 2nd Lt. Alex Graziano, a 25-year-old native of Athol, Mass., who is with a transportation unit working near Baghdad. Some women end up in combat by accident. But others seek out jobs that will put them in harm’s way. Women serve in military police units, and in Iraq, Army MPs have been doing many of the same jobs Marine infantry perform. They patrol some of Iraq’s meanest streets. If there were any doubt about how they would perform in combat, four female MPs blew them away the night of Oct. 16, 2003, in Karbala. In an intense firefight that killed three other MPs, it was women manning machine guns in the turrets of armored Humvees along with the men in the unit who allowed the soldiers to fight their way free of the ambush. A fifth woman, a medic, braved enemy fire during the attack, running from wounded soldier to wounded soldier. For their bravery, those five women were awarded Bronze Stars or Army Commendation Medals, all with combat “V” devices. Two got Purple Hearts. Army historians believe that is the most valor awards ever given to women for a single action. Putting women in the fight is a good opportunity for them and it helps get the mission done, said Lt. Col. Dave Brinkley, commander of 1st Engineer Battalion and one of the architects of the lioness program. When he is planning a mission, he looks at his unit and sees soldiers, not men and women, Brinkley said. “If they’re not suited for it, they’re pulled off,” Brinkley said. ‘I am going with you’ Although the raids are sometimes low-key missions, things can heat up quickly. During a mission that quickly grew into an intense gun battle with insurgents, a company commander told some Team Lioness members to get into a Humvee and sit tight. Reluctantly, they did. After his unit left, a squad of Marines appeared, and the women got out to continue the patrol as the fight raged. “We’ll take care of you,” Ruthig recalls the Marines telling her. Morgan went on another mission with Marines from 2/4, a house-to-house search leathernecks call a “bug hunt.” As the unit walked through downtown Ramadi, they could hear speeches from mosque loudspeakers urging the people to rise up against their American occupiers, and the Iraqis began shooting. “We moved from section to section, and every section we moved to was a bigger battle than the last one,” Morgan said. As rocket-propelled grenades and small-arms fire flew overhead, a commander asked Morgan if she wanted to stay back. “Hell no; I am going with you,” she recalled saying. On another patrol, she shot and killed at least one insurgent, an act that she declined to talk about in detail. Blaming Private Lynch Few women here identify with the story of Pfc. Jessica Lynch, the soldier who was captured in southern Iraq during the invasion last year and later was rescued by special operations forces near Nasiriyah. Lynch is not their kind of warrior, the women say, and some here believe the hype around her story may have tarnished the way Americans view women in combat. “She fell asleep on a convoy, didn’t shoot her weapon and then got a million-dollar movie deal,” griped one Lioness who believes there were other soldiers more deserving of the attention. Still, not every Lioness is as gung-ho as Morgan. Their manner and their views on the missions run the gamut. Some women are softer and more feminine, others harder and more aggressive. Some pluck their eyebrows, others go bow hunting. Some want to get into the fight, some don’t. Spc. Michele Perry, 26, from Hampton, Va., loves going on Lioness missions, but conceded that she would rather duck and cover if the raids turn into a firefight. And Ruthig, who said she’ll fight to go on a raid, still doesn’t believe women belong in the infantry. Women have a greater role to play, she said, but she won’t go so far as to push for women in traditional combat roles. “[Men] still have the picture of us as softer, weaker and more vulnerable,” Ruthig said. “But I’ll do my job.” Regardless of how hard core they are, it’s always a question of proving themselves, the women said. Ruthig had to show her fellow mechanics that she could turn a wrench as well as the next guy, but it took some pushing and hard work before she earned their respect. The mother of a 5-year-old girl, Ruthig likes to have fun with her soldiers and jumps at the chance to make fun of them when she can. But when it’s time to get serious, she expects the soldiers who work for her to be on board. “I get called a bitch a lot because I am one,” she said. The lioness program is likely to continue even after this battalion leaves, and both Army and Marine officials said they expect to brief commanders of replacement units about the value of adding women to the mix. Army Lt. Col. Mike Cabrey, 40, commander of 1st Battalion, 5th Field Artillery, based here, said he is impressed with the women he’s sent out with his men, and he said he hopes others will also be open- minded. “I don’t think this is a door-opening experiment, what we’ve done here,” Cabrey said. “It can’t be used as the only case study for women in combat, but it is an interesting chapter.” Morgan doesn’t see it that way. She doesn’t believe that one sex is different from the other. To the doubters, Morgan says this: “Suit up, come run with us one day, and see what we can do.” Gordon Lubold is covering I Marine Expeditionary Force operations in Iraq. Staff writers Laura Bailey and Robert Hodierne contributed to this report from Washington, D.C. Back to top

See the Army and Marines, in the real world, in Iraq are pushing the legal envelope as far as they dare.

The only reason they weren't having the women take turns at door kicking is that if one of them got killed doing that the officers who were behind this plan would have to explain WHY.  Remember it is ILLEGAL for women to serve as infantry.  THIS is as close as the JAG office will vet under existing law and anything more would potentially leave the local commanders who approved this subject to court martial.

The MPs are also another exception.  Since Congress specifically authorized women to serve in that branch, apparently NOT understanding the MPs extensive rear area security mission.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Not to mention that most Combat Arms Soldiers simply do not want them there. Fiction. How is THAT fiction, I dont know one combat arms person who wants them there. As Chairborne said, the flightline doesnt even want them there!

I have already posted statments from currently serving military who do want them there.

Stop trying to wrap your opinion up in your prior service.  Your no better than Murtha when you do that.

ArmdLbrl-
You seem to be very passionate about female soldiers serving in line Infantry units as grunts in a combat zone.  Enough so that you have apperently written a book and are such a subject matter expert that you can simple say that peoples opinions on the issue are "fiction" with no explination and assume that we will bow to your superior knowledge of the subject.  I would love to know how you went about your research for your book, and how you came to hold these opinons.  

If you have spent a year in a hot sand area of the world, kicking in doors and shooting bad guys in the face as a grunt, then I would love to hear more about your opinion and why you hold it so dearly.  

If you do not have first hand experiance dealing with these issues under the stresses of combat, then maybe you should stop and listen to the people that have had those experiances first hand, rather then reading about them in a sociaology book.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Not to mention that most Combat Arms Soldiers simply do not want them there. Fiction. How is THAT fiction, I dont know one combat arms person who wants them there. As Chairborne said, the flightline doesnt even want them there!

My experience is that for every couple dozen you find one that is worth their weight, but for most part they cause unnecessary friction.  

Some of my observations with working for the first time in a mixed unit was 1) we had to court-martial quite a few people for a sex ring 2) We had quite a few using their feminine talent (not actually having sex but flirting) to get out of things 3) We had a few of the leaders screwing around, however within their grade so we couldn't prosecute 4) the women seemed much more moody about things 5) I noticed most men given undue attention to the women, my self included.  I purposely have to fight a tendency to focus more on them during training sessions.

When I was in an all male unit, we had women come to use in a supporting role and the lack of upper body strength hurt when it came time to move rounds, 100 lbs projos are outside of the lifting capability of most women.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Not to mention that most Combat Arms Soldiers simply do not want them there. Fiction. How is THAT fiction, I dont know one combat arms person who wants them there. As Chairborne said, the flightline doesnt even want them there! I have already posted statments from currently serving military who do want them there. Stop trying to wrap your opinion up in your prior service.  Your no better than Murtha when you do that.

My prior service? I am currently serving as an instructor at Marine Corps base camp Lejeune at MOUT town. I instruct both infantry and POG units in Urban warfare, while I do this I encounter many females, I am not impressed with thier performance.

Right before I started that job I was in Iraq, doing among other things, watching females get pregnant and get sent back home.

Thanks for comparing me to Murtha


ETA, when females come through mout town it really messes up our teaching, as about half the instructors just fight over who will teach the squad with the hot girl. Then after getting that squad, they flirt with her instead of teaching.

Tough shit guys.

There is NO documentary evidence to support your assertions.

There is pleanty of documentary evidence NOW to support increasing womens role in the military.

Your continuing this argument is simply absurd.  Inventing conspiracy theories to account for the failure to find evidence to support your positions is a start down the road to the insanity that is DU land.

Tough shit guys. There is NO documentary evidence to support your assertions. There is pleanty of documentary evidence NOW to support increasing womens role in the military. Your continuing this argument is simply absurd. Inventing conspiracy theories to account for the failure to find evidence to support your positions is a start down the road to the insanity that is DU land.

So I take it that you have never served as a grunt in combat then?  If you want documentation I can go 20 feet away to the pad that a company of Infantrymen live at and ask them.  Or I can go about 50 feet away to the pad that the female soldiers live at and ask them what thier opinion is.  

It is 9:15 PM here in Iraq, so I am sure I will run into a few soldiers smoking and joking before they hit the rack.  

Let me know.

For some reason though, I get the impression that you are not interested in the first hand opinion from anyone unless it supports your preconcived notions.  

Good luck on life with that sort of attitude.

YMMV

Quoted: Tough shit guys. There is NO documentary evidence to support your assertions. There is pleanty of documentary evidence NOW to support increasing womens role in the military.

"Increasing women's roles in the military"..."documentary[sic] evidence"...

You're full of shit.  You have people who have been there and done that, including me, who are telling you the way it is from firsthand experience and you want "documentary [sic] evidence".

Shut up.

Quoted: Tough shit guys. There is NO documentary evidence to support your assertions. There is pleanty of documentary evidence NOW to support increasing womens role in the military. Your continuing this argument is simply absurd.  Inventing conspiracy theories to account for the failure to find evidence to support your positions is a start down the road to the insanity that is DU land.

I dont need to see documentary evidence, I have seen first hand evidence.


Just for fun:




Btw, there is a firefight going on about 100ft down the road, and those guys really should be helping...... Honesty, I should be too instead of taking pictures

Carefull Rusted Ace, you know that posting pictures that you took in a combat zone to illistrate your point to a fool is the exact same thing that Murtha does.

Quoted: Quoted: Kind of became irrelevant due to the number of women actually participating in "infantry" combat in Iraq, even though they are not technically in combat arms branches. The Bush Admin and the GOP in general is too beholding to groups that find the idea of women in the military abhorant to do anything to change it. But its only a matter of time now before the regs are dropped.  There is just too much real world evidence that the rules are meaningless, and based on unfounded fears... A Marine infantry unit would litterly fall apart in minutes if women were added. Sad but true. All the horn dogs wouldnt do anything but try to jump on ladies. No post could ever be manned, people would be too busy getting it on to pay attention. I dont like 90% of women in the military, yeah there is always one who is mannish and can get stuff done, but the rest are weak, slow and just get pregnant enough times during thier time in to get out of everything. I have to teach POGs at mout town so see alot of women come out, and most are just incapable of anything! Watch a mixed sex unit do a run, look who is falling out......... again not all women, but most..... (waits for someone to attack)

All very, very true.
You just cannot mix young men and women and expect the sparks not to fly.
The other problem, that you touched on, are the physical standards, or lack thereof.
I spent some time in ROTC, and we trained mixed gender.
The girls contantly broke down in tears after being yelled at by instructors, and they frequently fell out of runs.
Their physical standards were also far, far below ours.
How can you say "women can do the job just as well" when they aren't even expected to do one measly pull up?

Quoted: Quoted: Kind of became irrelevant due to the number of women actually participating in "infantry" combat in Iraq, even though they are not technically in combat arms branches. The Bush Admin and the GOP in general is too beholding to groups that find the idea of women in the military abhorant to do anything to change it. But its only a matter of time now before the regs are dropped.  There is just too much real world evidence that the rules are meaningless, and based on unfounded fears... A Marine infantry unit would litterly fall apart in minutes if women were added. Sad but true. All the horn dogs wouldnt do anything but try to jump on ladies. No post could ever be manned, people would be too busy getting it on to pay attention. I dont like 90% of women in the military, yeah there is always one who is mannish and can get stuff done, but the rest are weak, slow and just get pregnant enough times during thier time in to get out of everything. I have to teach POGs at mout town so see alot of women come out, and most are just incapable of anything! Watch a mixed sex unit do a run, look who is falling out......... again not all women, but most..... (waits for someone to attack)

Not gonna attack...but I will say I got the job done without being mannish or putting out.
Some of us do exist, Ace.
Too bad you were too busy to see us.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Kind of became irrelevant due to the number of women actually participating in "infantry" combat in Iraq, even though they are not technically in combat arms branches. The Bush Admin and the GOP in general is too beholding to groups that find the idea of women in the military abhorant to do anything to change it. But its only a matter of time now before the regs are dropped.  There is just too much real world evidence that the rules are meaningless, and based on unfounded fears... A Marine infantry unit would litterly fall apart in minutes if women were added. Sad but true. All the horn dogs wouldnt do anything but try to jump on ladies. No post could ever be manned, people would be too busy getting it on to pay attention. I dont like 90% of women in the military, yeah there is always one who is mannish and can get stuff done, but the rest are weak, slow and just get pregnant enough times during thier time in to get out of everything. I have to teach POGs at mout town so see alot of women come out, and most are just incapable of anything! Watch a mixed sex unit do a run, look who is falling out......... again not all women, but most..... (waits for someone to attack) Not gonna attack...but I will say I got the job done without being mannish or putting out. Some of us do exist, Ace. Too bad you were too busy to see us.

I take back the mannish comment, I was just scared from seeing a girl that could beat me up at the base gym.

I do agree that some do exist, and I actually think most problems with women in the military would be solved if they simply kicked out people who couldnt meet physical standards (male and female) and added on time in service for time taken out for pregnancy.


eta
I guess what gets me is that there are shitbags of both sexes, but alot of women shitbags have more tools in thier armory for getting out of things, sexual harrasment, pregnancy, flirting etc etc. maybe I am just jelous.

double tap. ooops

Quoted:



I take back the mannish comment,

Thanks

I was just scared from seeing a girl that could beat me up at the base gym.



I do agree that some do exist, and I actually think all problems with women in the military would be solved if they simply kicked out people who couldnt meet physical standards (male and female)

Damn Straight!

and added on time in service for time taken out for pregnancy.

I had both my kids when I got out. Because that was the way I wanted to play it. BUT, that said, the civilian sector allows maternity leave, why shouldn't the military? And when you realize that the females are usually getting knocked up by serviceMEN....


eta
I guess what gets me is that there are shitbags of both sexes, but alot of women shitbags have more tools in thier armory for getting out of things, sexual harrasment, pregnancy, flirting etc etc. maybe I am just jelous.

Don't be. Women in the military have hurdles you men don't. Yeah, there are losers who'll use their femininity to get what they want: if you think YOU hate them, try being a female who has to overcome that stigma

Quoted: Quoted: Tough shit guys. There is NO documentary evidence to support your assertions. There is pleanty of documentary evidence NOW to support increasing womens role in the military. Your continuing this argument is simply absurd.  Inventing conspiracy theories to account for the failure to find evidence to support your positions is a start down the road to the insanity that is DU land. I dont need to see documentary evidence, I have seen first hand evidence. Just for fun: img96.imageshack.us/img96/3959/opspear1565yz.jpg Btw, there is a firefight going on about 100ft down the road, and those guys really should be helping...... Honesty, I should be too instead of taking pictures

And this picture means WHAT to the discussion?

It seems quite clear that lots of people who were in combat just like you have no problem with women in combat.

So your experience then is a wash at convincing me, or any other third party.

You all need to take a look in the mirror and realize you are behaving on this issue just like the people you usually despise.

You fixate on a woman you met one time who was bad and you exaggerate- just like the anti war lobby does with attempts to spin the number of war casualties (by ignoring historical context), or the Bradys do on homicide victims (by ignoring stedily declining crime rates, and fixating on individual victims).

Just like them statistics do not support you, and yet the more often this is pointed out the louder you squeal.