Should U.S. women serve directly in combat roles?

[perry]

I actually believe that this thread has exposed the confusion over what the proposal is:

Should woman be allowed in combat: Yes

Should all positions in the armed forces be open to woman: No

Woman pilots are already in combat.

There are many "combat" positions that do not require upper body strength (especially with the focus on electronic warfare).

Would I expect woman to fill out an infantry battalion: No. These positions require a lot of upper body strength.

I note that there are a few women who have the upper body strength to meet the physical standards for infantry and other positions. I believe that there are positions where these people could serve if they wanted to use their physical capabilities without being in the infantry.

Perry
USN 5 years

 

[kenny]

Rape of men is possible.
Straight men, gay too, really really really don't want to be sodomized by their captors.
Sure they do not get pregnant but they may think of it as taking away their manhood and dignity.

Though the repercussions are different, rape by captors is a horrible crime to both women and men.
Can someone really make the call that a man being raped is less serious than a woman being raped?
Same thing for torture.

For that reason I'm not sure the potential for rape of POWs should be an argument for puting men at risk for it but not women.
If someone asked me, "Kenny how would you feel about your POW daughter being raped?"
I hope I'd answer, "The same as I'd feel about my POW son being raped. I'd be sick over it."

I do not have a son or daughter so I can't say if I would honestly feel that way, I just think and hope I would.
I'd love to hear from parents who have grown kids of both genders on this.

 

[ksinger]

Rape of men is possible.
Straight men, gay too, really really really don't want to be sodomized by their captors.
Sure they do not get pregnant but they may think of it as taking away their manhood and dignity.

Though the repercussions are different, rape by captors is a horrible crime to both women and men.
Can someone really make the call that a man being raped is less serious than a woman being raped?
Same thing for torture.

For that reason I'm not sure the potential for rape of POWs should be an argument for puting men at risk for it but not women.
If someone asked me, "Kenny how would you feel about your POW daughter being raped?"
I hope I'd answer, "The same as I'd feel about my POW son being raped. I'd be sick over it."

I do not have a son or daughter so I can't say if I would honestly feel that way, I just think and hope I would.
I'd love to hear from parents who have grown kids of both genders on this.

Kenny, you may not understand or maybe just not agree with her take on the situation, but Andelain explained WHY the injury and rape of women is worse in points number 4 & 5. It's not because it is intrinsically worse, it's because of the unacceptable risks to themselves that men will take for women that they wouldn't necessarily take for themselves. Since we're assuming here that she speaks not from merely conventional wisdom, but also from first-hand experience, I'm not sure what the issue is. The way men react in this situation simply IS.

This whole situation brings to mind a quote (one of many by this author) that I've had in my head for 30 years. It still holds, in my mind.

"All societies are based on rules to protect pregnant women and young children. All else is surplusage, excrescence, adornment, luxury, or folly which can -- and must -- be dumped in emergency to preserve this prime function. As racial survival is the only universal morality, no other basic is possible. Attempts to formulate a "perfect society" on any foundation other than "Women and children first!" is not only witless, it is automatically genocidal. Nevertheless, starry-eyed idealists (all of them male) have tried endlessly -- and no doubt will keep trying."

~ Robert Heinlein, "The Notebooks of Lazarus Long"

 

[kenny]

Thanks Ksinger.

It's is interesting how equality of the genders takes a back seat at times.
As you said, it's not good or bad, right or wrong.
It just is.

This is particularly informative to those of us (well let me speak for myself . . . me) who's attitudes towards women is not personally influenced by the business of reproduction.
I have tunnel-vision, militantly pro-equality values.

Maybe some of the quaint notions of old fashioned chivalry are not so bad after all - not that the human race would go extinct if I didn't open a door for a woman.

 

[Andelain]

Yes. Women do in Canada and Israel. I'm sorry, Adelain, I admire and respect what you do, but I have to disagree. My sister is a Combat Engineer in the Army (Canadian Forces). She loves what she does and is darn good at it. Finished 2nd in her class in training and is on the fast-track for a promotion. She's definitely a tough woman, but she can do just as well as the guys, even better than some. I strongly believe that if a woman wants to do it and can prove that she can do it just as well as the guys, she should. She will definitely have to work harder than the guys, but she should be given a chance. Not giving her a chance is discriminatory.

Hi anchor, a couple points. Israel is fighting the war on their own soil, which means less walking the countryside with an 80+ pound combat load. They're much more stationary, which required a lot less strength. Our guys have to cover some very rough ground both here and in Afghanistan. Mountanous in some areas, sand like quicksand in others. Plus the summertime heat here is hard to comprehend until you experience it. It got over 140 degrees several times here last summer. Very few women can handle that, not enough to restructure the existing units. And that's what would happen, because new units aren't being created. If all female units could be creates I might have a different opinion, but I'll never favor putting men and women together in combat because it will cause more men to be hurt or killed. My equality isn't worth my battle buddy's life.

Combat Engineer is a different MOS, and although a physical one, it's not like being a ground pounder. Women tend to make great engineers, we're good at that sort of thing. I'm an engineer of sorts myself, but the only thing I pound is a keyboard. If I was 25 years younger I might really enjoy being a combat engineer myself.

 

[Andelain]

I actually believe that this thread has exposed the confusion over what the proposal is:

Should woman be allowed in combat: Yes

Should all positions in the armed forces be open to woman: No

Woman pilots are already in combat.

There are many "combat" positions that do not require upper body strength (especially with the focus on electronic warfare).

Would I expect woman to fill out an infantry battalion: No. These positions require a lot of upper body strength.

I note that there are a few women who have the upper body strength to meet the physical standards for infantry and other positions. I believe that there are positions where these people could serve if they wanted to use their physical capabilities without being in the infantry.

Perry
USN 5 years

Perry, I completely agree with you on this. I was answering whether or not I think women should be in line units. Pilots, Combat Engineers, and so many other jobs are well suited for women because they require less brawn and take advantage of brain instead. Let's use people doing what they do best, and there's lots of jobs in the military that women can do as well as or better than men.

 

[swimmer]

I think the question is just too broad. In the military, like in all aspects of life, we all have our strengths and weaknesses. I served like all young Israelis, in a position that was selected for me to be the best match for my skills. Men and women were in that MOS because of our temperament, language skills, ability to evaluate risk, in addition to physical skill in disarming at close proximity. My DH served in a different capacity because his language skills are crap but he has some other skills that they managed to suss out. My point is that the old fashioned concept of WWII fighting in the trenches where some areas are in combat and some are not is just not accurate most of the time when you are fighting an elusive enemy called "terror." To think like that is sort of like the red coated British approaching the hidden patriots of New England. To serve in most modern militaries is to see action as the enemy is "terror" and wears no uniform. Whether we like it or not enlisted women are in high danger positions at this very moment, are they deemed "combat" positions? Depends on if your convoy is stopped by an ied.

Very very few battles are fought like they were back in the day (Falklands?) From what I know watching the news, in Iraq and Afghanistan, supply lines are worked by women who are very much in the line of fire though that used to be considered an easy logistical job. Israel is very different. The country is the size of NJ (but with a better infrastructure), so a supply line is really not much of an issue. Carrying water is of course, but 140 degrees, yeah, it happens and women can take it.

I am struggling to think of a time when men in my squad put themselves in harms way to protect me... My position was in a high risk area and a role that only women could hold, patting down other women as they crossed the border checkpoint. No man could do my job or violence would have escalated. A smart military recognizes that different people are better at different things and that sometimes a job is for a woman or a man specifically. My father did hostage negotiations back in the day, could a woman have done that? No. The country he was negotiating with does not treat their own women like people, so why send a woman to anger them and get your people killed? Blanket policy in any military is usually a mistake, I bet Andelain will agree with me on this: there are always exceptions. I had no problem carrying all my water, food, gear, and a decent amount of firepower, but I'm 5'10" (and used to be ripped) so a rule that women should carry x lbs and men y lbs is going to be foolish if some tiny dude had to carry my pack. I would have been ashamed to not carry my load.

US women already are serving directly unintentionally in combat roles. Should women be able to be at the "front lines?" If they are capable I think so, but more to the point, I wish the question was purely academic and that there was no need for anyone to be in combat positions. I pray that wars with no meaning cease and all our fine young people are brought home to their loved ones. My fervent wish is that my son does not have to fight as his father did.

 

[anchor31]

Yes. Women do in Canada and Israel. I'm sorry, Adelain, I admire and respect what you do, but I have to disagree. My sister is a Combat Engineer in the Army (Canadian Forces). She loves what she does and is darn good at it. Finished 2nd in her class in training and is on the fast-track for a promotion. She's definitely a tough woman, but she can do just as well as the guys, even better than some. I strongly believe that if a woman wants to do it and can prove that she can do it just as well as the guys, she should. She will definitely have to work harder than the guys, but she should be given a chance. Not giving her a chance is discriminatory.

Hi anchor, a couple points. Israel is fighting the war on their own soil, which means less walking the countryside with an 80+ pound combat load. They're much more stationary, which required a lot less strength. Our guys have to cover some very rough ground both here and in Afghanistan. Mountanous in some areas, sand like quicksand in others. Plus the summertime heat here is hard to comprehend until you experience it. It got over 140 degrees several times here last summer. Very few women can handle that, not enough to restructure the existing units. And that's what would happen, because new units aren't being created. If all female units could be creates I might have a different opinion, but I'll never favor putting men and women together in combat because it will cause more men to be hurt or killed. My equality isn't worth my battle buddy's life.

Combat Engineer is a different MOS, and although a physical one, it's not like being a ground pounder. Women tend to make great engineers, we're good at that sort of thing. I'm an engineer of sorts myself, but the only thing I pound is a keyboard. If I was 25 years younger I might really enjoy being a combat engineer myself.

In response to bolded sentence: Phase 1 and Phase 2 of Combat Engineer training is actually Artillery/Infantry training. Combat Engineers are part of the Infantry/Armour/Artillery/Field Engineer Combat Arms team on the battlefield. From the Forces.ca website:
The role of the combat engineers is to assist their own troops to live, move and fight on the battlefield, and to deny enemy troops the same ability. As combat troops, they are an important member of the Infantry/Armour/Artillery/Field Engineer Combat Arms team on the battlefield. The men and women employed in this occupation can be compared to various tradespersons in a large and versatile construction firm; however, they work under far more difficult and challenging conditions:

•Construct accommodations in the field
•Construct runways
•Construct and maintain roads, airfields, heliports, bridges, causeways and rafts
•Construct and maintain buildings for the protection of personnel, equipment, aircraft and vehicles
•Construct field defences and obstacles
•Provide drinking water by testing, purification, filtration and construction of local distribution systems
•Detect and dispose of land mines, booby traps and bulk explosives
•Deny enemy mobility on the battlefield by demolishing roads and bridges, and laying minefields and booby traps
•Demolish enemy roads, airfields and buildings
•Maintain engineering equipment, weapons, vehicles and supplies
•Provide engineer communications on the battlefield
•Fight to protect themselves, or in an infantry defensive role in land battles, when required.

Women have been serving in combat positions in the Canadian Forces since 1989 and there has been no evidence that it endangers the lives of the men serving with them.

 

[zoebartlett]

This is a really interesting thread.

Andelain -- thank you for all that you're doing!

Swimmer -- how long did you serve?

 

[dragonfly411]

This thread is very fascinating.

I don't feel fully informed enough to have a detailed opinion. I do think the question is a bit broad. I'll be interested to keep reading everyone's responses!

 

[kenny]

Two people said the question is too broad . . . do you mean . . .

too broad to be discussed here? (if so, why?)
too contentious to be discussed here?
too broad for the U.S. military to consider this new policy? (which would mean just leave the ban on females as it is and avoid this can of worms)
or so complex that any position you take can be easily shot down by very good arguments?

 

[Tuckins1]

I hope our female service member in Iraq, Adelain (sp?), speaks up.

I normally won’t touch a thread like this with the end of my rifle, but since I was named and the posters in her seem to want to know instead of insult women as I often see, here I am. I'm not a combatant, but have been outside the wire several times and have been in combat situations. Not as a ground pounder, but while in vehicle transport. I've seen the effects of war and just how ugly it really is. So here's my $.02 worth.

No, women should not be allowed in combat MOS’s. For several reasons.

1. Physical. Most women simply don’t have the strength to hump a combat load at the speed and distance required in combat. Not being able to keep up with your squad can get your battle buddy killed. They also would have to be able to pull their 250 # wounded squadmate from the line of fire. Women also have a lighter bone structure, making them prone to stress fractures and other problems caused by those loads even if they can tote them. That requires they be pulled from combat while being treated, which takes away from unit cohesiveness. Sure, there’s some women out there that could handles it, but they’re the exception. The PT test that we women are required to pass is considerable easier then the test for the same age male. That’s fine for most MOS’s, like mine for example, but completely unacceptable in an MOS where strength and endurance is needed. Most women can’t pass the men’s PT requirements.

2. Many combat units are stationed at places like COPs (Combat Outposts). Most people don’t know what crapholes these places are, but I’ve seen a couple for myself. They simply don’t have separate latrines and showers for the women, nor the resources to build them. When a man has to relieve himself while on a patrol it’s much easier, and he doesn’t have to squat behind a rock to hide from the men, as a woman would have to do. While riding in a vehicle a man can make water into an empty bottle. Ladies, just try that yourself, especially while bouncing down a dirt ‘road’.

3. Women, by our nature are mothering, nurturing, caring. We find it harder to engage the enemy. Sure, we do, but that split second hesitation can get our battle buddies killed. Women are also more prone to PTSD. While that may not be a negative on the battlefield it costs you taxpayers more to care for us afterwards.

4. Men, by their nature are the protectors, the warriors, the defenders. They cannot stand to watch women suffer, bleed and die. They’ll take unacceptable risks to protect or save a woman, and people die that way. I can tell you for a fact that a wounded woman, even an unattractive middle-aged one, upsets the men around her to the point that medics will leave a more critically injured man to go to her aid. That’s completely unacceptable and can cost lives.

5. There are a lot of jobs that women can do as well as, or even better than a man. Let them do just that, don’t try to retool the military, waste taxpayer money, and risk the lives of my brothers in arms for the rare woman who could handle it. I'm not even going to address things like sexual harassment and unit morale, plus Anne made a very good point about females being captured and being used to break our will to fight.

Kenny, your question on pregnancy is actually moot. Pregnancy renders a woman non-deployable, no exceptions, no grace period. Sadly some women use that to get out of deployments.

Thanks for the insight Andelain!

 

[Sizzle]

Yes, I believe women should be allowed to serve. Anytime you put a blanket statement out there that excludes it shows ignorance. Just because women woul be allowed to serve doesn't mean ALL women would be qualified/eligible to serve. Some women can complete the physical requirements AS OUTLINED, and therefore deserve the right to serve as they so see fit. I don't think any one persons opinion is more prized than anothers on here. Just because someone hasn't revealed their occupation for all of Pricescope, doesn't mean he/she is removed from military situations.

 

[lliang_chi]

This thread is very fascinating! I'm very interested in hearing everyone's opinion. Especially active duty / ex-military personnel.

Question: Does anyone thinks it makes a difference for what branch of the military we're talking about? E.g. air force/navy, vs army?

To Ande and all other military personnel, my greatest thanks to you and your families.

 

[stone-cold11]

•Fight to protect themselves, or in an infantry defensive role in land battles, when required.

Notice the phrase, 'defensive role'? That is the difference. All armed force personnel are trained to fight defensively, meaning how to use your weapons and fight from defensive position, else they might as well be civilian when the enemy attacks. Knowing how to use your weapons does not mean you will be able to go on the offensive. Commanders are less likely to use support arms personnel for offense anyway because that is not their specialties, unless situations are desperate.

 

[anchor31]

•Fight to protect themselves, or in an infantry defensive role in land battles, when required.[/i]

Women have been serving in combat positions in the Canadian Forces since 1989 and there has been no evidence that it endangers the lives of the men serving with them.

Notice the phrase, 'defensive role'? That is the difference. All armed personnel are trained to fight defensively, else they might as well be civilian when the enemy attacks.

We have women serving in every role and position in combat including offensive, so no, there is no difference.

 

[stone-cold11]

My point was just that the phrase you pointed out in the training of CE is meaningless. Basic would have covered that, it is not evidence of proficiency in offensive combat. Sending anyone fresh out of basic is just to be cannon fodder. Extra training is required, as in all different MOS.

 

[TooPatient]

Two people said the question is too broad . . . do you mean . . .

too broad to be discussed here? (if so, why?)
too contentious to be discussed here?
too broad for the U.S. military to consider this new policy? (which would mean just leave the ban on females as it is and avoid this can of worms)
or so complex that any position you take can be easily shot down by very good arguments?

Kenny,

I see the question as beeing a bit broad too. I'm fascinated with the arguements from both sides and am quite interested to keep reading the responses.

By broad, I (personally -- can't speak for others) find it difficult to say yes or no to the question or to even argue one side or the other. In a way, I think it is broad in a good way -- it is allowing people to discuss and debate different aspects.


Your question is just VERY far reaching --- I guess a good way to put it is that it isn't a yes/no, black/white, right/wrong kind of question because there are just so many different cases that really each need to be taken on their own.



Ande --
Thank you SO much for all you do and thank you for posting here. You have a unique perspective that I really enjoy hearing.
I have debated this topic before IRL and mentioned some of the things you posted, but so much of what you posted was stuff I never would have thought about. Thanks for sharing.

 

[hmr_mama]

If a woman can carry a wounded comrade to safety she can serve on the "frontline".

 

[hmr_mama]

Just read Andelain's response--well "said"!

 

[kenny]

Too broad or not, the U.S. military has to answer the question.

I'm still not understand why, 3 now, people say it's too broad.
To broad for what? to be asked? for you to care to answer?

Do they mean it is like the questions, "What is the meaning of life? or "what happens after you die?" - in that such question are contentious at best and unanswerable at worst?

 

[anchor31]

stone-cold: Yes, sending anyone just out of basic into combat situations would be stupid. CE don't go through just basic however. They are trained as infantry/artillery officers, THEN as engineers. So they are fully combat ready, men and women. At least here they are, I wouldn't know about other countries.

hmr_mama: Women go through then same training as men, and are required to meet the same standards. If they wouldn't make it through training if they couldn't carry a comrade.

kenny: I have to say I'm just as puzzled as you are by the "it's too broad".

 

[swimmer]

Kenny: What exactly does combat mean? What are the parameters? What if "combat" breaks out unexpectedly in previously safe locations? Is that direct or only accidental combat? Its like a ban on rain on your wedding day. You can hope like heck, schedule, make a variety of plans, but sometimes it still happens in modern warfare.

One can also get into the sliding scale that is gender identity. That is a whole other ball of wax, but my CO was the manliest woman I have ever met, no problem at all for her to carry out a wounded 250lb soldier. She shaved her head the first day we went for training and has ever since in order to blend in with the men. Should she have been kept from combat because of her ovaries?

So, the question is not that deep or whatever you were asking earlier, but I have no idea what the US military deems combat, I have no idea how they can have a blanket ban on women being in it if they can't keep combat from breaking out unexpectedly in random places. Should women just flee the scene if the crap hits the fan? Hardly. Also, if we are defining combat and direct, lets also get a good handle on defining woman. Some people born with ovaries self identify as men, why can't those who physically can handle it, want to do it, and self identify as men, serve? Heck, what on earth does the military do about hermaphrodites? Hey, its a big institution, with that kind of scale they see all kinds.

If a person can meet the requirements, I believe they should be able to serve. I am still trying to think about when a guy serving with me risked himself to protect my womanhood. Might have to make a few calls. We were 18, carrying uzis, trying not to get upset at 18yr olds on the other side throwing rocks at our heads all day and trying to blow us up at night. To borrow and bastardize a quote, it was mind numbing boredom punctuated with brief periods of terror. I am however as a result of that time, killer at backgammon.

 

[anchor31]

swimmer, I find both your posts fascinating. Thank you for sharing your story. I agree with you. My sister also does. She says she has met women in the Artillery and Infantry trades who are some of the best in their units. I think your point about the front lines and direct combat being blurred is also the point of the article and why this is being considered in the US military now.

 

[KimberlyH]

Anyone who can meet the requirements and wants to do so should be allowed.

 

[hmr_mama]

anchor, let me re-phrase. personally, i know very few women that could carry a 200 lb incapacitated man to safety if the need were presented. i also agree with andelain and believe that our enemies would use a man's desire to protect a woman against us. i think our military already have the hardest job on the planet--i think this would hinder them more than it would help.

 

[stone-cold11]

There was only a ban on serving in direct combat troops. In the support, if they got attack, they can defend themselves. There was at least one awarded the Silver Star in Iraq, that is an award only awarded for bravery in combat.

 

[stone-cold11]

stone-cold: Yes, sending anyone just out of basic into combat situations would be stupid. CE don't go through just basic however. They are trained as infantry/artillery officers, THEN as engineers. So they are fully combat ready, men and women. At least here they are, I wouldn't know about other countries.

Officers only maybe? For the enlisted, highly unlikely they would cross-trained that much as it leaves them non-operational for active duties longer. Even then, they are unlikely to be as proficient in combat tactics/techniques as the infantry mainly due to the different emphasis in their training. CE are trained to support other units, be it mine clearing, bridge building, etc. while infantry are trained for assault. No sane officer would send in a CE unit to clear a fortified position when there are infantry units around mainly because of the specialize knowledge CE has that are no replaceable by other troops.

The only CE units that I would trust in an assault situation are the pioneer units.