Women in Combat Ban Lifted... Thoughts?

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

Was it her intent to prove this? I think it was just to make some codger look out of touch and foolish. And she did.

If you're saying that the purpose of that quotation was purely rhetorical, I'd agree.

[uftaipan]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

Maybe instead of whining about my viewpoint you can actually, you know, attempt to refute it?

Fine, I’ll bite. Even as I write this, I know that all you want is attention, and – Military-Industrial Complex, forgive me – I’m willfully giving it to you.

Even under the worst-case scenario, putting women in direct ground combat roles will not have the effect you’re looking for. Let’s say, the Pentagon insists (meaning Congress told them to insist) on the handicapping of physical standards for women in order to allow them to compete with men, as they have done in other MOSs. Let’s further surmise that they have quotas to ensure that at least, say, a minimum 10% of ground combat roles are reserved for women (or go unfilled). Even further, let’s say that, as has happened in other MOSs, women are given multiple chances to succeed at training under circumstances that men would have been given the boot. Finally, let’s say that whenever a woman in the infantry does something adequately, it is publicized widely as something surreally heroic (never seen that before ); and that whenever a woman fails as all people can fail, resulting in something as bad as the death of fellow personnel, it is carefully suppressed (never seen that before either ).

That’s probably the worst scenario (on the given issue) that I can realistically imagine.

Even if that happens, the most adverse impact it would have is in small units at the tactical level of war. It would not, in one professional’s opinion, affect the ability of the United States to project strength at the strategic level of war, which is, of course, your stated concern.

If you know as much as you claim to about the capabilities and limitations of the all-powerful Military-Industrial Complex, then you already understood that. Therefore, I can only conclude that your remark about this being a great idea to limit the combat capabilities of our fascist military was just another snarky attempt to bring the discussion away from its intent to something you would rather be talking about.

An alternative method for getting people to talk about what you want to talk about is – wait for it! – starting your own thread.

We all done now?

[LittleBlueLW]

This thread is awesome.

Libs arguing for women to die.

And we wonder why liberal ways destroy the family unit.

The whole liberal mindset is warped.

You will reap what you sow.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by uftaipan

Even if that happens, the most adverse impact it would have is in small units at the tactical level of war. It would not, in one professional’s opinion, affect the ability of the United States to project strength at the strategic level of war, which is, of course, your stated concern.

This is obviously false, as women in more combat roles would result in reduced combat effectiveness, if we are to believe the naysayers, and likely higher casualty counts. Higher casualty counts mean increased pressure on the politicians, which in turn increases pressure on the Pentagon to change strategy or wrap up operations. It's quite clear that this would compromise the ability of the United States to project strength, contrary to your erroneous claim.

If you know as much as you claim to about the capabilities and limitations of the all-powerful Military-Industrial Complex, then you already understood that. Therefore, I can only conclude that your remark about this being a great idea to limit the combat capabilities of our fascist military was just another snarky attempt to bring the discussion away from its intent to something you would rather be talking about.

These are the words of a paranoid man.

An alternative method for getting people to talk about what you want to talk about is – wait for it! – starting your own thread.

We all done now?

I'm talking about women in combat roles, which is the subject of the thread. Just because I'm approaching the subject from a different angle - the desirability of reduced combat effectiveness - doesn't mean I need to start a whole new thread on the exact same subject.

If you don't like my comments, just ignore them. I don't see how your whining about them is productive in any way.

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by LittleBlueLW

This thread is awesome.

Libs arguing for women to die.

And we wonder why liberal ways destroy the family unit.

The whole liberal mindset is warped.

You will reap what you sow.

Yes. and conservatives arguing that only men should die because they are so tuned into the family unit.

[gatorev12]

Originally Posted by rivergator

Yes. and conservatives arguing that only men should die because they are so tuned into the family unit.

River---is it fair or safe for qualifications to be dropped to allow women into combat units?

[Spurffelbow833]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

Re: the fear of female combat troops being captured and raped, aren't they being raped by their fellow American soldiers at a goodly rate ?

[Juggernautz]

If dogs can risk their lives in combat why not women?

[gatorev12]

A pretty insightful read that addresses these topics--and where the pressure is coming from to get this implemented:

On Thursday, however, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said, "Today Gen. Dempsey and I are pleased to announce that we are eliminating the ground combat exclusion rule for women and moving forward with a plan to eliminate all gender-based barriers to service." This, in effect, voids the 1994 rule that mostly excludes women from units below the brigade level when the primary mission is direct ground combat.

Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, proclaimed that, "The time has come to rescind the direct combat exclusion rule for women and eliminate all unnecessary gender-based barriers to service,"

Why is this necessary? How did such a “time” arrive upon us? According to the Wall Street Journal, “last February, Mr. Panetta ordered US military service chiefs to find ways to expand the role of women.” In other words, the military chiefs did not go to the Secretary of Defense and say, “we need to place women in combat units in order to fulfill our military mission.”

Had they said this, it could have been for two possible reasons. One is that there are not enough men willing to serve in combat. Or two, women are demonstrably better in combat than men. The first is clearly not the case, as the military is cutting back on personnel. The Armed Forces have more men in combat units than, according to President Obama, they need. Two, there are no studies demonstrating women’s superiority or even equivalence to men in combat. In other words, this came from the top – the political top. It is ideological pressure that created this requirement, not military necessity.

http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/why_men_fight

[HudsonGator]

I served in the infantry. 99.99% of women simply cannot do what men are expected to do in infantry and armored units.

So you radically alter an institution for .01% of the population?

[Gatormb]

Originally Posted by Juggernautz

If dogs can risk their lives in combat why not women?

Haven't read the whole thread but I'm assuming those in favor would have no problem with their daughters and grand daughters being drafted should we have one again. If women want to be treated equally in the military so be it.

[HudsonGator]

Make women live up to the same PT standards as men and you'll reduce the number of women in the military to 1 or 2 % overnight.

It is intellectually dishonest to say on the one hand that women should be treated the same and given the same opprotunities as men, yet at the same time hold them to lower physical standards.

[lacuna]

Originally Posted by Juggernautz

If dogs can risk their lives in combat why not women?

Seriously? Equating women with dogs is the offensive product of a misogynist mind.