Congressional panel: It’s time to let women serve in combat
 

Congressional panel: It’s time to let women serve in combat

Share5<SCRIPT type=text/javascript src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share"></SCRIPT>
posted at 10:08 pm on December 10, 2010 by Allahpundit
<SMALL>printer-friendly </SMALL>


If you thought the endless arm-wrestling over DADT was fun, wait until feminists have this on their plate. The Navy already opened up submarines to women sailors earlier this year, but Army and Marine infantry have yet to follow suit.

Here’s your chance to sound off, vets. An idea whose time has come, or no go?

The Defense Department should eliminate restrictions on women serving in combat units and end all “gender restrictive policies,” according to a blue-ribbon panel created by Congress…

Many of the longstanding reasons for keeping women out of combat units do not hold up under scrutiny, the commission’s research found.

A five-page analysis prepared for the commission concluded that women do not lack the physical ability to perform combat roles; gender integration will not negatively affect unit cohesion; and women are not more likely than men to develop mental health problems.

However, keeping women out of combat units and combat-related job fields can reduce their career opportunities, particularly in the officer corps and in the Army and Marine Corps, according to the commission’s research.

The “risk rule” barring women from dangerous tasks was rescinded by the DOD ages ago, but to this day direct combat remains male-only. The obvious benefit to lifting the ban: More recruits available to fight, which should mean shorter tours of duty for combat troops generally. The obvious (non-physiological) concerns: “Fraternizing” at outposts when things get dull, worries about rape if women troops are taken prisoner, cultural concerns about how occupied populations might respond to female soldiers, and this one from Wikipedia’s nifty summary of objections to women on the front lines:

In On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society, Lt. Col. Dave Grossman briefly mentions that female soldiers in the Israel Defense Forces have been officially prohibited from serving in close combat military operations since 1948 (in 2001, subsequent to publication, women began serving in IDF combat units on an experimental basis). The reason for removing female soldiers from the front lines is no reflection on the performance of female soldiers, but that of the male infantrymen after witnessing a woman wounded. The IDF saw a complete loss of control over soldiers who apparently experienced an uncontrollable, protective, instinctual aggression…

Melody Kemp mentions that the Australian soldiers have voiced similar concern saying these soldiers “are reluctant to take women on reconnaissance or special operations, as they fear that in the case of combat or discovery, their priority will be to save the women and not to complete the mission. Thus while men might be able to be programmed to kill, it’s is not as easy to program men to neglect women.”

I was going to suggest that myself as a concern before reading it at Wiki. Feminists will bristle at it because it denies women an opportunity for essentially paternalistic reasons, but if we’re talking about a truly instinctive behavior, then there’s not much to be done. The question, then: Is it insurmountably instinctive? The whole point of military training is to steel the mind so that it doesn’t succumb to instinct under stress. If troops can be trained to stand their ground under lethal fire and (in other nations’ militaries, at least) to serve side by side with gay soldiers, why can’t they be trained to treat women combat troops the same as men? We’re pushing at the limits of mental discipline here, potentially. Is this a bridge too far?

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/12/1...rve-in-combat/

Incrementalism will possibly resolve this, before and despite whether it should be, in favor of those who have been picking the scab over the decades - they've had a lot of success being "oppressed minorities".

Thousands of women are in combat situations already, and doing just fine.

Foxhole/bunker combat arms, however? I'd probably be against that unless the unit was all-female. But then, what the hell do I know... have gotten accustomed to being ignored by Congress.

Without any questioning of their valor or skills, there are way too many probabilities that their presence under that unique kind of duress could easily result in some "civil rights" privacy claim and "harassment" nonsense that I do not believe the DoD wants to expose itself to. Unlike submarines and fighter pilots there are NO separate but equal facilities out there!

I sure as hell would not allow it if it were my choice to make. All-female units, then quite possibly yes. Of course, they would never permit that because it would be regarded as being treated "unequal", mission be damned.

What are the Pregnancy Rates & Needed Time Off for such Women Enlistees of either Navy or Air Force compared to Army or Marines,...whether in combat outfits or just combat supportive units? Any big differences should prove quite interesting.

While at it during an assault on some tough position in future,...will order given of: "Ladies First" by some rejected commander (male or female) be considered too-damn-sexually harrassing?

Just curious? ;);)

Neil

I got a better idea, it's time Congressmen's children served in combat.

1cav...,
 

BEAUTIFUL suggestion!!!

The only other thing that even comes close to such a rare display of EQUALITY between our Lords (Ladies also) & Masters of: "We The (Schnook$, Sucker$, Peasants or whatever)", would be if all Congressional Children (parents also) got same Medical Coverage as rest of us. Same retirements as those TOTALLY PAYING FOR THEIRS (re: The U.S. Taxapayer),...ALSO

Amazingly!!!,...the average American Taxpayer aren't even slightly perturbed being THE SOLE PAYERS for The Very Best Medical Coverage ON EARTH for all Ruling Elite (Local/State/Federal) Political Rulers & their families,...WHILST most don't have near the same medical coverage for selves & children, nor such grandeose retirements.

Many of such FORCED (actually dictated) paying for: "Cadillac Plans" for America's Ruling Elite & Families (plus bailing out UAW & such) can't even afford near such wonderful coverages for selves, family & children. Some such FORCED being Generous Taxpayers can't even afford ANY Medical for selves & children.

Some Taxpayer make too much to receive MEDICAID & not enough to buy any such: "Cadillac Coverage".

Damn! Old P.T. Barnum was right. "There's a sucker born every minute" has been longtime proved over & over in America, & most certainly was proved this last 2008 Election. Improve &: "CHANGE" the very best nation on earth to: "Third World Status"??? GET REAL!!!

Americans must just love being perpetually BS'd & Screwed-Over by "Their" Ruling Elite BETTERS?

Wonder if typically cowered by authority, robotic and/or Politically-Correct types were just as timidly accepting of & as obedient to a quite obvious lordly rule,...way-back-when in old Feudal Times?

Neil

Ah I think the panel is a little late on this!
See my post Iraqi Freedom.
Stacy L. Pearsall, Combat Photographer

eriksale,
 

What: "Panel" are a little late on what: "Post"?

Neil

I was replying to this thread about "congressional panel" To let women serve in combat. I was just stating they are a little late as my friend Stacy already has her Bronze Star and purple heart from being in "combat" several years ago.

I guess congress just want's to make it official?

I posted part of her story in "Iraqi Freedom" thread under "Stacy L. Pearsall, Combat Photographer"

In several situations Stacy had to drop her camera and pick up her gun!

Dave

Dave,...
 

Thanks for again telling about: "Stacy L. Pearsall, Combat Photographer". Missed that one.

"Panel" bit was just my normal B-Bustin worthlessness of Congressional Panels in general.
It's my nature. Can't help being normally Bipartisan Disgusted with such Pompous Warlords.

Amateurs at war simultaneously micro-managing both military & societal-engineering.........
is more than just Audaciously Arrogant & Lordly. It's downright Progressively Obscene.

Neil

So many women are already finding themselves in combat conditions, and as far as I know ALL are trained in basic to some degree in combat arms.

But, women in small combat platoons or squads, in the field indefinitely... that, to me, is a 100% different animal, regardless. Picture it... 5 or 10 grunts and 1 female. I have no doubt that 99.9% of the time those guys will control themselves, but there is a lot more to it than just whether or not the young lady is capable of accurate fire and eating MRE for six weeks.

Yes, it does have to do with her gender. Women have spent the past century demanding special consideration because of their gender requirements while at the same time demanding to be treated without discrimination, and now somebody proposes to create a situation which, frankly, many males still find absolutely unacceptable - as one guy put it recently, "I still find the thought of seeing a woman's guts blown out offensive."

Those units will accommodate if required to do so, however... I'm thinking this deal is maybe more like females not playing in the NFL.

Blue....,
 

Beside that finding: "The thought of seeing a woman's guts blown out offensive", your
analogy of women playing in NFL was very good also.

Both certainly do make sane, sensible & normal and/or basically apolitical types think. Nothing you & like-minded say to race & gender pandering zealots will ever make a-damn-bit of difference.

Getting America's military policy makers to change their minds,...is even more difficult doing.

Neil

Recon...
 

I believe that gender-based instincts governing this sort of thing are not nearly yet to the place where it is worth the risk of formalizing it as is being considered (again, and again, and again, and...) - nobody wants to see anyone maimed by a heartless sadistic enemy, or for any other reason.

So, to intentionally place females in that location, as their MOS, is extremely difficult to tolerate in the abstract.

All-female infantry combat or special operations units, that might work.

Women in strictly combat units? Not only NO, but Hell No.

Upper body strength is lacking for the most part and that is very important in combat. Think hand to hand fighting. I think the fact they had to modify the PT test for women shows the problem. That is not to say there are not women who could do anything needed in combat but they are in the minority. In a national emergency like WW II I can't imagine drafting girls to the infantry. Because the ones capable are very much in the minority, it could never be more than a "right" for the few capable.

Friends,...
 

It all basically-boils-down to necessity.

As things stand now,...America simply DOES NOT NEED women in a combat role capacity. Women now in Lethal Combat situations are there due chance, political pandering & societal engineering.

Whereas if MANY Russian Women didn't volunteer & serve admirably in air force, infantry, armored & sniper units during WWII,...it's very doubtful that Russia could have even survived.

One out of every Five, 20% and/or 20 MILLION Russians never lived to see the end of war.

Damn-near same-o, same-o exists (plus has LONGTIME EXISTED) for tiny little Israel. Outnumbered by Fanatical Muslim Hostiles by at least 10-20 to One, Israeli Women better keep on bravely volunteering to fight their much nicer, cuter & prettier little butts off.

Betcha to a man,...most Israelies appreciate such hutzpah from their ladies. If weren't for such gutsy girls or fighters,...it's very doubtful that tiny Israel would have even lasted about 63 years? Such are Needed,

Neil

Israeli...
 

Having no personal knowledge of how Israeli women are deployed in uniform, it would be very interesting to know if they are ever assigned to infantry combat units as riflemen, other than in an emergency.

Blue...,
 

Don't actually know about Israeli Women deployments, either.
Just saw an awful lot of such parading-around with UZIs, on TV over the years.

None as great lookin as: "Ziva" of NCIS show. But,...obviously lethal & deadly enough.

Still, I believe you-hit-it-right-on with that word: "Emergency".

When outnumbered 10-20 to one by Hostile Muslims intent Destroying & Annihilating you & country ANY WAY POSSIBLE,...everyday in general would seem like a an: "Emergency" to me. Too bad America's Rulers don't take such just as seriously.

Never mind that historic French Foreign Legion movie truism: "March or Die".
The sad realistic truth for ALL Israeli Men, Women & Children is: FIGHT or DIE!!!

After all, Arab/Muslim Terrorists taught/trained from birth to make no destinction whatsoever when typically mass-murdering Men, Women or Children Infidels, shouldn't be shrugged-off.

Plus, Arab/Muslim ammo, explosives & missiles make no gender destinction either. Never did.
"That's a fact Jack",...or Jill (both American & Israeli).

Neil

Yup...
 

And, except for too many Muslims, women and children first is pretty well ingrained in the heart of most males... even our sons.

Please don't make that sound like it's a bad thing.

Joy

"It's time to debunk the myth, once and for all, that Israel's experience with allowing women in combat was successful and, therefore, should be duplicated by the Pentagon. It wasn't successful. It was a disaster by Israel's own admission.

"History shows that the presence of women has had a devastating impact on the effectiveness of men in battle," wrote John Luddy in July 27, 1994, for the Heritage Foundation backgrounder.

"For example, it is a common misperception that Israel allows women in combat units. In fact, women have been barred from combat in Israel since 1950, when a review of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War showed how harmful their presence could be. The study revealed that men tried to protect and assist women rather than continue their attack. As a result, they not only put their own lives in greater danger, but also jeopardized the survival of the entire unit. The study further revealed that unit morale was damaged when men saw women killed and maimed on the battlefield," Luddy said.

Writes Edward Norton, a reservist in the Israel Defense Forces: "Women have always played an important role in the Israeli military, but they rarely see combat; if they do, it is usually by accident. No one in Israel, including feminists, has any objection to this situation. The fact that the Persian Gulf War has produced calls to allow women on the front lines proves only how atypical that war was and how little Americans really understand combat."

"Few serious armies use women in combat roles. Israel, which drafts most of its young women and uses them in all kinds of military work, has learned from experience to take them out of combat zones. Tests show that few women have the upper-body strength required for combat tasks. Keeping combat forces all male would not be discriminatory, as were earlier racial segregation schemes in the military, because men and women are different both physically and psychologically," said the Feb. 5, 1990, National Review.

Furthermore, Israeli historian Martin Van Creveld has written extensively about the failure of the IDF to successfully integrate and use women in combat.

Finally, even Israeli citizens don't relish the thought of allowing their women into combat roles. In 1998, a survey conducted by the Jerusalem Post newspaper found that 56 percent of Israelis don't want women in combat.

dj
 

Surely not... and Congress or N.O.W. trying to make it go away is not going to be effective either. :d:

1cav...
 

Thanks for that on IDF.

It gets brought up all the time, and I never know what to say back.

Tell 'em the Israelis aren't stupid. They are in it to win, no matter what.

My vote is no
 

Too old to change my mind. Old school raised and too protective of women and kids.