Women in Military Service & Combat (not just USA)

[SWJED]

Moderator's Note

Ten SWJ Blog entries and two small threads have been merged in today, hence this non-USA thread from 2006 appearing first. There is a second parallel thread on 'Women in Conflict', which maybe worth checking:

3 November Associated Press - Palestinian Women March Into Combat Zone (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/03/AR2006110300170.html) by Yakub Ralwah.


Hundreds of Palestinian women in robes and head scarves streamed into a Gaza combat zone Friday to help free gunmen besieged by Israeli troops at a mosque. Two women who came under fire were killed and at least 10 wounded, but some gunmen managed to escape.

The women, many with ties to the Islamic militant group Hamas, left their homes after daybreak in response to appeals on the local Hamas radio station or telephone calls from friends and relatives. By nightfall, they were celebrated as heroes, an unusual role in a deeply conservative society that tends to keep women on the sidelines. Until Friday, battling Israeli troops had been men's business in Gaza...

[Culpeper]

I think they should become aware that entering into a combat zone on the side of the enemy is a hostile act and should be treated accordingly. No different than playing dead on the battlefield is also a hostile act. Sorry if that sounds cruel but these people only understand strength. They are not Westerners and don't play by our own rules but take advantage of them, which is the fallacy of counterinsurgency tactics. They have their own version of handling things and that includes using human shields. I hate to be the one to state this but things are going to escalate in the Middle East until we start seeing massive casualties and suffering comparable only to the times during World War II. Germany and Japan kept up the "total war" strategy and determination until they had to be burned to the ground and started up again from the rubble. Ironically, they are basically our allies today.

[slapout9]

I think this is just another example of how we need to start exploiting non-lethal weapons technologies.

[carl]

I've wondered for years why the Palestinians have not done this sort of thing before. Hundreds of unarmed, determined women are a very powerful force in a world shaped by television. If I remember correctly, public demonstrations by women had a great effect in Chile years ago.

I am not qualified to comment of the precise legality of this specific event. I do know if future IDF movements are confronted by streets blocked by masses of women, they will have a very big problem, military and PR.

[SWJED]

I've wondered for years why the Palestinians have not done this sort of thing before. Hundreds of unarmed, determined women are a very powerful force in a world shaped by television. If I remember correctly, public demonstrations by women had a great effect in Chile years ago.

I am not qualified to comment of the precise legality of this specific event. I do know if future IDF movements are confronted by streets blocked by masses of women, they will have a very big problem, military and PR.

Moreover, add using children to the fray...

[slapout9]

Missed opportunity. If they had used non-lethal weapons and captured them. They could have exploited the fact that the chickensh** men would not come out and fight, but sent their women to do it. Plus they could have used it as an opportunity to turn them to their side by" killing them with kindness."

I say we need to exploit these types of situations as we are going to see more of them if we don't develop and effective counter measure.

[marct]

Missed opportunity. If they had used non-lethal weapons and captured them. They could have exploited the fact that the chickensh** men would not come out and fight, but sent their women to do it. Plus they could have used it as an opportunity to turn them to their side by" killing them with kindness."

I say we need to exploit these types of situations as we are going to see more of them if we don't develop and effective counter measure.

I would totally agree. I think the trick would be to use not only non-lethal weaponry, but weapons that do not "look" bad on a TV screen. For example, tasers can be spun as "dangerous" - maybe tranquilizer dart guns would be better <wry grin>.

On the PR exloitation, at truly "evil" way of exploiting this specific situation would have been to tranquilize the women, capture the men, and mount posters of the men with a caption reading something like "This man lets women fight for him", with poster of the women reading "The TRUE heros of Gaza".

Marc

[slapout9]

Marc, I would agree about the weapons and as much as I like tasers that would have been the wrong way to go. Tranquilizing gas would even be better (no gun at all) and don't call it gas, call it a pharmaceutical agent.

Great idea about the posters and since the men were already in custody it could have been done easily. Break their will not their body.

I don't know where the quote came from but I once heard that a great general can convert any enemy to a friend. That is the transformation we need in the military. A broad array of weapons to subdue not kill, we already have that base covered.

[Ray Levesque]

This is but one example of a tactical evolution that uses what we in the west perceive as a moral strength, trying to avoid harming women and children, against us. Since the "enemy" cannot fight us on our terms, they develop other tactics to achieve their objectives. And they evolve these tactics within the context of "their" value system.

It creates a lose-lose situation for the west; if women and children, civilians in general, or civilian-use buildings are used as shields for "fighters", who themselves are often in civilian clothes, we put our own soldiers at risk of death if they do not respond. On the other hand, if our soldiers open fire and civilians are killed, then the enemy can exploit the situation to achieve their political goals via our open press and society.

Even if the killings of civilians are justified in a given situation, ambiguity is created in the minds of the public, at best, or the images and the event, interpreted in isolation, provides fodder for critics and an enemy's supporters.

In the end the development of non-leathal weapons appears to be the best way ahead. This would allow our own forces to protect themselves and perhaps still be able to capture the civilian-clad fighter without the "hot" medium of television galvanizing public perceptions with an image-of-the-moment that shows violence without context.

[Culpeper]

Missed opportunity. If they had used non-lethal weapons and captured them. They could have exploited the fact that the chickensh** men would not come out and fight, but sent their women to do it. Plus they could have used it as an opportunity to turn them to their side by" killing them with kindness."

I say we need to exploit these types of situations as we are going to see more of them if we don't develop and effective counter measure.

Sounds like a good idea. But you have to use these types of tactics over and over again. The result of which would be constant bad press. Classifying them has hostile combatants and acting accordingly would only give one good incident of bad press and the enemy would have to decide if they are determined enough to keep it up. Is there anything in the Geneva Convention that states these women were anything other than providing support and protection for the enemy on the battlefield. Next, they are going to be wearing Red Crescent arm bands? There is no "powder-puff" solution. These women were hostile and endangering the Israeli troops. You cannot and will not win against combatants by respecting "their" values. The Israelis waited too long to act accordingly and the result was some of these morons in the mosque escaped. We constantly try to over evaluate these extremists and put them and their tactics up on a pedestal. In reality, they're morons and we come up with all sorts of ideas to protect them. That doesn't make any sense. The more martyrs we create the more water-downed the meaning of a martyr becomes for them. How's that for a tactic? It would be like awarding everyone KIA the Medal of Honor.

[slapout9]

Culpepper, I am not any kind of cultural expert on the middle east by any means, but I think the female population is vulnerable to being converted to a fifth column so to speak because of how Islam treats the female population in general. Using non-lethal weapons was not meant to protect them just to be "nice" but to allow access to a population group in order to influence them and cause a general disruption to the family unit. Problems at home can cause big problems with armed forces, it would give them a constant internal problem (burden) to deal with.

All through history women have been the ultimate "net-workers" and if you get them spreading an idea that the west treats their women(and children) far better then Islam you stand a chance of collapsing or changing the whole movement. I believe in the use of non lethal weapons for this purpose should at least be tried. What do we have to loose?

As for your tactic, it has been done before and has been successful for certain regimes! I don't think the US would support that. At least not until we have another disaster(9-11,nuke,chemical attack,etc.)

anyway time for some more coffee, later.

[Culpeper]

No problem. I happen to be drinking some coffee as I read. This whole thing reminds me of what Col. David Perkins told reporters after the first "Thunder Run" recon by fire into Baghdad when asked about Iraqi soldiers taking off their uniforms and changing into civilian clothes and fighting alongside Saddam Fadayeen, and foreign fighters, all of which were intermingling with civilians along Highway 8.


They [the combatants] are putting their populace at risk by not having a clear delineation between civilians and military. In effect, Saddam has made his civilian populace combatants. If I put my family in a Humvee and drove them into Baghdad, I would be to blame if they got blown away.

As for other "regimes" with success? I don't need to remind you that we burned Germany and Japan cities to the ground for good reason. We used artillery and aerial bombardment to soften targets before we sent our troops on the offensive knowing our enemies were commingling with civilians in all types of areas. WE hold the record. What was the outcome of such outrage? We won our engagements with the enemy and Japan and Germany are our allies today. Italy was the only Axis partner that didn't suffer such a fate because they didn't dare put their civilians in the line of fire as a point of "total war" strategy.

I'm not stating you have a bad idea. It's a good idea. But it is a micromanagement short term solution to an age old problem of bad guys using their women and children as shields and the only thing that has ever worked with success was being forced to the conclusion that the mission is more important than enemy tactics such as these.

[Bill Moore]

No one is admitting check mate, so far we have the following the options:

1. Culpeper's parallel of Lenin's kill one it’s a tragedy, kill 10,000 it’s a statistic.
2. Slapout’s call for beltway bandits to make more non-lethal weapons.
3. Marct’s call for spanking them with non-lethal weapons, but making it look good, no tasers, no gas, or S. Korean police in riot gear.

Option 4. Come on, we’re dealing with women. We simply need to distract them with a 50% off sale in the vicinity. Their husbands would soon realize that their wives are spending the money they need to sustain the fight and go home with their tail between their legs.

O.K., I’ll get serious again. I think this tactic currently puts Israel in check mate (until options 1-3 are refined into something feasible), but Israel has been known to respond in stupid ways before that only makes the problem worse. I do like the ideas on the counter psyop where we exploit that cowering jihadis call for their wives and sisters to bail them out.

[Culpeper]

No one is admitting check mate, so far we have the following the options:

1. Culpeper's parallel of Lenin's kill one it’s a tragedy, kill 10,000 it’s a statistic.
2. Slapout’s call for beltway bandits to make more non-lethal weapons.
3. Marct’s call for spanking them with non-lethal weapons, but making it look good, no tasers, no gas, or S. Korean police in riot gear.

Option 4. Come on, we’re dealing with women. We simply need to distract them with a 50% off sale in the vicinity. Their husbands would soon realize that their wives are spending the money they need to sustain the fight and go home with their tail between their legs.

O.K., I’ll get serious again. I think this tactic currently puts Israel in check mate (until options 1-3 are refined into something feasible), but Israel has been known to respond in stupid ways before that only makes the problem worse. I do like the ideas on the counter psyop where we exploit that cowering jihadis call for their wives and sisters to bail them out.



I would prefer my parallel being compared to Curtis Lemay, thank you very much. :D

[Bill Moore]

O.K., stratch Lenin and replace with good ole Curtis LeMay.

[Fabius Maximus]

Note this high profile article, the lead story in the NY Times Sunday Magazine insert. As you know, the NYT is the lead ship in the US media convoy. It sets the agenda for the major newsmagazines and network news, so we can expect to see many more follow-up stories in the next few months. This could be another Tailhook.

The Women's War
New York Times
March 18, 2007
Prints out at 28 pages.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/18/magazine/18cover.html?_r=1&ref=magazine&oref=slogin


Here is the article which I beleive ignited this discussion.

The private war of women soldiers
By Helen Benedict
Salon
March 7, 2007

“Many female soldiers say they are sexually assaulted by their male comrades and can't trust the military to protect them. "The knife wasn't for the Iraqis," says one woman. "It was for the guys on my own side."”

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/03/07/women_in_military/index.html?source=rss

[RTK]

Note this high profile article, the lead story in the NY Times Sunday Magazine insert. As you know, the NYT is the lead ship in the US media convoy. It sets the agenda for the major newsmagazines and network news, so we can expect to see many more follow-up stories in the next few months. This could be another Tailhook.

The Women's War
New York Times
March 18, 2007
Prints out at 28 pages.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/18/magazine/18cover.html?_r=1&ref=magazine&oref=slogin


Here is the article which I beleive ignited this discussion.

The private war of women soldiers
By Helen Benedict
Salon
March 7, 2007

“Many female soldiers say they are sexually assaulted by their male comrades and can't trust the military to protect them. "The knife wasn't for the Iraqis," says one woman. "It was for the guys on my own side."”

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/03/07/women_in_military/index.html?source=rss

So far off topic, in fact, that it probably needs it's own thread.

[Jedburgh]

So far off topic, in fact, that it probably needs it's own thread.
Agreed. And here it is.

[Bill Moore]

This is definitely an important topic for our nation, because any mishavior in the ranks will have an effect on the nation's will.

I support equal rights and opportunity, but I also accept the fact that women are women and men are men, and the differences are considerable (far beyond mating mechanics). This creates the friction in values, because most of us support it, but then again we know there are differences, so how do you support it in practice, and not just in principle?

Based on observation of reality (not the way we want it to be) I think placing a woman by herself in a squad or platoon of men is simply asking for trouble unless you have outstanding leadership at that level. It may make a good photo opportunity for those inclined to show how well the system works, most of us know there are serious underlying troubles. Will time solve this like it did for racial integration? I education over time will have some positive effect, but it won't erase the male/female attraction aspect and the subsequent eroding effect this will have on good order and discipline in the ranks.

We have or had problems with sexual harrassment in our military academies, which are generally composed of average intelligence with decent moral values (it is a value focused institution), so what do we expect to have in our enlisted ranks when we are now recruiting more category four soldiers and soldiers with criminal records, who obviously have interest in values? Most of us try to live a good life, and feel bad when we make a mistake (our darker nature prevails at certain times), but a criminal simply doesn't care, and if you put him in a war zone where he thinks he can get away with anything because there are limited safety mechanisms in place what do you expect? There has also been an increase on male on male rape, so what does that indicate?

Part of the problem is the historical biological conflict between the sexes, but the other part is that we're slowly lowering the quality of our recruits and we're begining to feel the effect.

Women bring a lot to the fight in select career fields (to include military policing), but it will always be a tough fit with numerous rough edges. I wonder if the European Armies have done a better job at integration than we have, or if they have the same challenges?

[tequila]

Kind of makes me glad I chose infantry.

[Uboat509]

Standard NYT smear piece. "If you are a female in the Army, you will be raped or harassed. The men all want to rape or harass you." Blah, blah blah. Certainly, rape and harassment do happen but to read this article you would think that it is only a matter of time before any woman who dares to join the great big misogynist frat party that is the military is raped and/or harassed. Now, in order to maintain the pretense that this was balanced report the author did throw in this paragraph on page six of the sixteen page article


There were women, it should be noted, who spoke of feeling at ease among the men in their platoons, who said their male peers treated them respectfully. Anecdotally, this seemed most common among reserve and medical units, where the sex ratios tended to be more even. Several women credited their commanders for establishing and enforcing a more egalitarian climate, where sexual remarks were not tolerated.

I worked with females early in my career before a reclassed to combat arms and my current wife serve a little over three years before leaving the Army as a Sergeant (one of the best I have seen in my career by the way). I have seen how it works. This article seems to imply that most often commanders will ignore harassment or even rape. That is so patently untrue that it is laughable. Most commanders I have known are so paranoid about even the possible appearance of impropriety that they will crush anything that even looks wrong. I have seen some downright draconian policies enacted to prevent this sort of thing. I once saw a young soldier get his butt chewed because he used the word "chick" to refer to a female and a female soldier who was neither being talked to or about said she was offended. This is not "tailhook". This is just the NYT trying to stir up trouble again, the same as yesterday and the day before and probably tomorrow as well.

SFC W

[Old Eagle]

It is a small war issue when Al-Jezzera features it on their English language website. I can't imagine ANYONE making sexual advances at Al-J's star witness, Janis Karpinski.

[Jedburgh]

...This article seems to imply that most often commanders will ignore harassment or even rape. That is so patently untrue that it is laughable. Most commanders I have known are so paranoid about even the possible appearance of impropriety that they will crush anything that even looks wrong. I have seen some downright draconian policies enacted to prevent this sort of thing....
Very true. The most outrageous example of this that I have experience of was at a Corps-level MI Bn when a SSG was given a Company Grade Art 15 because he did not intervene when a male SPC was making off-color comments to a female SPC who both were in his PLT. The incident occurred off-duty, in a civilian nightclub, and he was not with them - they were on a "date" together, and he just happened to be sitting at a table across from them at the time. The command simply assumed he could hear what was going on, and asserted that he failed in his responsibility to immediately stop the SPC from making such remarks. The male SPC received a Field Grade.

[tequila]

DoD 2004 study on the issue here (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/May2004/d20040513SATFReport.pdf).

[Steve Blair]

It is a small war issue when Al-Jezzera features it on their English language website. I can't imagine ANYONE making sexual advances at Al-J's star witness, Janis Karpinski.

I'd say it's more of a media management/IW/IO-type issue for Small Wars. In other words, how do you counter the story?

[dusty]

I'd say it's more of a media management/IW/IO-type issue for Small Wars. In other words, how do you counter the story?

How about having a credible source that is not affiliated with the Army, do an article on integration of the sexes in a combat environment?

I don't buy into the pile that the NYT puts forward - every female at risk for rape. But I do agree that putting a few females in a platoon is a recipe for trouble. I think it translates into a discipline issue at that point.

[Stan]

Dusty,
Although I somewhat disagree with using a source outside of the Army channels (starts to sound like we're in a scandal cover-up and worse, who knows what it means to be a woman in the Army, better than the Army ?), there are indeed several good pages on female veterans that cover those bases where doubt exists.

Such as: http://userpages.aug.com/captbarb/

There's more than enough opinion out there and I think we could use a female's perspective herein. Do we have any ?

In my 23 years, I never saw such Bravo Sierra. Where did our discipline go ?

Regards, Stan

[SWJED]

... when I ran the Urban Operations Journal webpage and it has carried over to here. Both sites attracted / attract serious students and practitioners of urban operations and small wars. So... how come our site visitor demographics and SWC membership are overwhelmingly male? Food for thought or maybe ammunition for a food fight...

[Bill Moore]

Women are not interested in warfighting for the most part, these are foolish ventures that would never happen if women were in charge, at least that is the world according to my wife. :)

Are women less competitive than men? Are they more interested in getting along than dominating? If true, does this translate into a problem solving methodology focused on co-opting rather than fighting? I haven't a clue, and of course if any us understood the psychology of a woman, we would a book on it and retire rich. Part of the beauty is the mystery. :)

In all seriousness I think women played an important role in Vietnam (on the other side), and in other conflicts in a variety of roles, but I'm not aware of any women who are or have been noted strategic military thinkers, are you guys?

[120mm]

I'm particularly fond of Dr. Mary Habeck, and Dr. Jacqueline K. (I forget her name) who wrote the "Long War" paper seems to have some firm opinions on military strategy, but other than that, I don't know of many.

[120mm]

Davis. That's the name of Dr. Jacqueline K.

I beg to differ that women are natural compromisers. I think if women ruled the world, the first conflict post-nuclear age would've resulted in a general nuclear exchange. IMO, women do not have the natural "break-points" in a disagreement that men do. They are also completely and utterly incapable of enduring honest feedback in social terms.

[BPowell]

I honestly did not go searching for this thread--it just happened to be at the top of the list!

As a female officer in the Air Force, I will be the first to admit that my experiences are miles away from an enlisted female in the Army, so I won't even add to that debate. What I did want to comment on is the idea of women as strategic (and I think "military" is implied) thinkers.

All cliches aside, I believe part of the reason that there are so few women who are known as strategic thinkers has more to do with time than anything else. It's only been, what, about 40 years that women have even started to be accepted in military ranks? And as all of you well know, it takes time, experience,and education to grow strategic thinkers.

Some may argue that only those who experience direct combat action qualify to bill themselves as strategic thinkers; however, I think with a little thought we can all identify great writers/historians who fall closer to the category of armchair quarterbacks.

Those are just my thoughts--I'm certainly glad I found this web page! Just as a side note, I found the site while preparing for the Strategic Art lesson I have to teach next week at the staff college where I'm an instructor.

Thanks for the opportunity to respond.

r/Bridget

[120mm]

Thanks for "stopping in". We hope you will read through the site more thoroughly and make as many posts as you like.... We are also trying to get our minds around "how the Air Force can be more involved" in COIN, in a meaningful fashion.

[marct]

Hi Bridget,

Welcome to the SWC!


All cliches aside, I believe part of the reason that there are so few women who are known as strategic thinkers has more to do with time than anything else. It's only been, what, about 40 years that women have even started to be accepted in military ranks? And as all of you well know, it takes time, experience,and education to grow strategic thinkers.

I suspect that that is certainly a part of it. I keep thinking about Elizabeth I who had a pretty good Grand Strategic vision, and certainly enough time has passed in the corporate world to see a number of women reaching CEO status and being very good strategic thinkers. I know that's not "military", but it is an indicator against the genetic difference argument which is at the root of a lot of the "women can't do X" arguments.


Those are just my thoughts--I'm certainly glad I found this web page! Just as a side note, I found the site while preparing for the Strategic Art lesson I have to teach next week at the staff college where I'm an instructor.

Pardon my ignorance, but what is "Strategic Art"? I'm an Anthropologist, not in the military, and trying to parse that phrase is giving me some very weird visions (mass produced copies of the Mona Lisa dropping on Taliban bunkers, etc. :D).

Marc

[goesh]

I think we can safely rule out Bodicus and Hillary as strategic military thinkers. That's a start on the short list anyway. Regarding the gist of the Originator's post, my hunch is that sexual harassment and assault are no more prevalent in the military than they are in the civilian sector. At least the Military doesn't have a need for domestic violence shelters. I would propose that said domestic violence shelters in the civilian sector are filled to capacity with waiting lists. Any CO can confine a man to Post on-the-spot and throw his a** in the brig if that man so much as sets foot off post if DV issues are at play. I would take issue with the Originator's assertion that, "..the NYT is the lead ship in the US media convoy. It sets the agenda..." The Gray Lady has some gaping credibility wounds that are far from healed.

[Tom Odom]

Women are not interested in warfighting for the most part, these are foolish ventures that would never happen if women were in charge, at least that is the world according to my wife. :)

Are women less competitive than men? Are they more interested in getting along than dominating? If true, does this translate into a problem solving methodology focused on co-opting rather than fighting? I haven't a clue, and of course if any us understood the psychology of a woman, we would a book on it and retire rich. Part of the beauty is the mystery. :)

In all seriousness I think women played an important role in Vietnam (on the other side), and in other conflicts in a variety of roles, but I'm not aware of any women who are or have been noted strategic military thinkers, are you guys?

I believe that if you look at the British queens of note--Elzabeth and Victoria--there you will find strategists of the first order. Interestingly enough some of the inner circle of the Rwandan Patriotic Front as rebels and later victors were women; they played key roles in aligning the RPF's agenda to build greater support. That became especially important after genocide when there was a fundamental shift forward for womens' roles in Rwandan society based on pure necessity.

I would also offer that the "Dark Queen" of the genocide and leader of the hardline faction most likely to have decided to shoot down the Rwandan President's aircraft was his wife, Madame Agathe. The leader of the organized rape campaign built into the genocide (250,000 rapes reported) was Pauline Nyiramasuhuko (http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0307/p09s01-woaf.html), the first woman charged with genocide and using rape as a crime against humanity. She was the former Rwandan Minister of Family and Womens Affairs.

She was not alone: women played an active role as scouts for the killers and sometimes did the killing. My ambassador's driver--a Tutsi--had his wife--A Hutu hardliner--go get the Presidential Guard to kill her husband and sons (because the Tutsis are patrilineal). Her husband and 2 boys escaped; she went into exile in Goma.

best

Tom

[dusty]

Dusty,
Although I somewhat disagree with using a source outside of the Army channels (starts to sound like we're in a scandal cover-up and worse, who knows what it means to be a woman in the Army, better than the Army ?), there are indeed several good pages on female veterans that cover those bases where doubt exists.



Stan,

I see what you mean, but I was really aiming for the 'disinterested party', a business that would release the story for good or ill of the Army.
I don't have statistics or studies on this subject, so I'm left to personal experiences.
When I deployed into Afghanistan in DEC 01, we left the females in our platoon aboard ship. They weren't allowed ashore until a month or so later. As I haven't deployed to Iraq yet, I asked my SNCO about his experiences - if he ever saw females sexually harassed. He said no, but then added the caveat that if it was a National Guard unit, he would believe it, no problem.

[BPowell]

Pardon my ignorance, but what is "Strategic Art"? I'm an Anthropologist, not in the military, and trying to parse that phrase is giving me some very weird visions (mass produced copies of the Mona Lisa dropping on Taliban bunkers, etc. :D).


Marc,

that's a very good question, and I think highlights one of the issues confronting the military--we have a broad vocabulary that means almost nothing to other people. We sometimes confuse ourselves, as well! What I'm referring to is in conjunction with the three levels of war (strategic, operational, and tactical). For the purposes of the course I teach, strategic art refers to the art of strategy--looking at not only key strategic thinkers but at key documents such as the National Security Strategy, National Military Strategy, and the National Defense Strategy. The idea behind it relates to the time-honored argument between the art of war vs. the science of war; we try to get our students thinking at the higher levels (e.g. the boring stuff--tactical is fun because you get to blow stuff up!)

How's that?

Bridget

[Bill Moore]

You can't compare sexual harassment and intimidation statistics between the civilian and military worlds. Obviously they are serious in both environments, but the effect in the military is much greater.

I also think you underestimate the scale of the problem, but I'll leave it at that, because it is basically a social norm problem that we're faced with it, and a power point class on sexual harassment isn't going to create a paradigm shift in how people treat one another; however, as you eluded to the fear of punishment does create behavior change, and that is the advantage the military has. It will take time to change social norms, and we also want to make sure that we want to change them. There is a difference between equal opportunity and equal in ability across the spectrum. While the only differences I can readily identify that most will agree with is the physical differences. A man is "generally" stronger than a woman, which makes women vulnerable to abuse. I think there are other differences, not so much genetic as Marc stated, but cultural, based on the circles we grew up in (male activities versus female activities). You see a merging of the two gradually, with more and more female sports teams, etc., but it will take a long time to make a significant change.

While I was somewhat joking in a previous post, having sat in on a few planning sessions for different crisises, I have noted that the female officers frequently had a different perspective of the problem, which most of us found useful. I don't think it is genetic, but social, but none the less useful.

120mm, a nuclear war? O.K., I agree, my wife doesn't read this, but when she gets mad, I'm glad she doesn't have access to the little red button (lol).

BPowell welcome, look forward to your insights. I don't agree with your comment on time though, that is strictly an American issue. Women have been involved in conflicts for hundreds of years, and I guess if I looked hard enough perhaps I could find some strategic approaches implemented by women if I look at some of the queens of old Europe? I do concur that the ability to develop strategy has nothing to do with time in combat.

[marct]

that's a very good question, and I think highlights one of the issues confronting the military--we have a broad vocabulary that means almost nothing to other people. We sometimes confuse ourselves, as well!

LOL. It happens inside every profession, we do exactly the same thing to the never ending complaints of our students :D.


What I'm referring to is in conjunction with the three levels of war (strategic, operational, and tactical). For the purposes of the course I teach, strategic art refers to the art of strategy--looking at not only key strategic thinkers but at key documents such as the National Security Strategy, National Military Strategy, and the National Defense Strategy.

Okay, that's clear. Do you also include other elements such as trade patterns, demographic shifts, financial systems, etc.?


The idea behind it relates to the time-honored argument between the art of war vs. the science of war; we try to get our students thinking at the higher levels (e.g. the boring stuff--tactical is fun because you get to blow stuff up!)

So a Zen paradox approach? Clausewitz vs. Musashi and William the Silent vs. Sun Tzu? That could be a lot of fun. Are you using David Kilcullen's Countering Global Insurgency (http://smallwarsjournal.com/documents/kilcullen.pdf) piece? He does a really nice job of setting the levels up as fractally decomposable. I'm assigning it as a text for my next class in theory and methodology.


How's that?

Excellent answer :).

Marc

[Maximus]

Great discussion. Have been grappling with this topic for the past few months and would appreciate any feedback on some thoughts running through my head...

If the people are the center of gravity in Iraq and in COIN in general, how can we succeed if we almost never interact with the women, who are more than 50% of the Iraqi population? More specifically, if succeeding in COIN has historically taken 10 years or so, who do we need to believe in our and the host nation cause? I think part of the "who" are the children and teenagers, who while maybe age 15 now, will be the 20-25 year olds leading security forces, creating businesses, going into politics, etc. as the COIN campaign continues. How do you influence this group? I think the answer is in large measure through their mothers. I'm not an anthropologist or otherwise cultural expert on Islamic and/or Iraqi culture, but based on leading well over 500 patrols in Iraq, I think Iraqi mothers play just as important a role in raising their kids as do American mothers, IF NOT MORE (most don't work outside the home). For example, I'm a USMC infantry officer that's in the field or in another state training roughly 50% of the year (I'm 3000 miles from my family as I write this). When not in the field, I'm preparing for training, PTing, studying, etc. I'm probably home with my daughter and wife maybe 20-30% of their lives. My wife is with my daughter almost 100% of the time. The same will apply when our son is born within the next 3 weeks. That said, if you want to influence my daughter's views on the world, you'd better convince my wife of your cause. Using a similar train of thought for Iraq, if we're trying to sway 5-20 year old boys not to join the insurgency now or over the next 10 years, not to plant or dig holes for IEDs, not to wear suicide vests, not to serve as look-outs, not to tolerate insurgents, etc. I think we need to convince their mothers that this is a bad idea, or at least not in her family's long-term interest.

So then, how do we do this? Given that my Marines almost never spoke to female Iraqis (same applies for every Marine/Soldier that I know) how do we deal with this significant problem? I think the answer is that during COIN/IW/4GW/Small Wars/Whatever you want to call what we're doing in Iraq now, we need women on our patrols. These women must be specially trained in Iraqi culture, language, understand the role of women in Islam, etc. Their mission should not be to persuade Iraqi women to be like American women. They should simple focus their efforts on why our cause is good for the average Iraqi family. My gut says creating a cadre of women PsyOps Marines/Soldiers for this purpose would definitely help our cause, both short and long term.

I understand this idea opens a whole series of questions about integration in infantry units, training, manpower, etc. That said, if fighting an enemy whose center of gravity is a regiment of T-72s, would we simply ignore 100-150 of these tanks because we ran out of ammo?

Thoughts?

[Jeremy Carver]

That is going to be a continuing issue we are going to have to deal with since women continue to push the Military to become an equal opportunity employer. Women are petitioning to be allowed to join the Infantry and other combat arms mos's. I do not disagree that women can play a very important role in our ranks. There are plenty of mos's that they perform well at. What must be determined is should we change the rules for the exceptions. I believe strongly in standards and don't believe the standard should ever be compromised. If a female can perform to the standard should she be allowed to join the ranks of the combat mos's? Should matters such as sexual assault be taken into consideration? I have faith in the soldiers, and given the proper leadership it will be able to be accomplished. I do not personally like the idea but I see it becoming inevitable.

[SWJED]

Maximus,

Great question and something I would like to hear thoughts on from Council members. In recent years I’ve heard a whole range of opinions on what target group an IO / influence campaign should focus on. Several OIF operators I talked to were adamant that women (at least in Iraq) should be the number one priority.

Any thoughts?

[BPowell]

Maximus et al--

great thoughts! I've got some random input to several of the posts; no particular order:

Women in combat arms roles: I am a firm believer that the standards in the military should be based on the job; if the job requires accomplishing tasks x, y, and z to a certain level, then EVERYONE regardless of age or gender needs to be able to perform those tasks to that level. It's the next part of the question that gets hairy; if women can accomplish those tasks, should they be permitted to serve in those units? Honestly, I don't know how I feel about that. Some ideas would be voluntary mixed units--that is, identify a group of individuals who ELECT to work in a mixed-gender unit.

Where I struggle, though, is with the fact that most of the men in these kinds of units could probably be classified as alpha males, and the ingrained tendency to protect those weaker could, potentially, be an issue. You'll notice a lot of "coulds" and "mights"--because I don't know. I've never been in combat, so I don't know how a squad mate might react if he has a female in his unit who comes under fire. I do know that women have been successful in standoff combat roles (like fighter pilots, etc.) but that's an entirely different area.

That being said, I think we in the military could learn a great deal from NGOs and IOs--my particular experience is with Christian missionaries, who are tremendously effective in certain sensitive countries because the husband is a teacher and the wife is a nurse or a doctor. And this gets to the point that Maximus made--it's the women who, to a large degree, influence the future. If Afghan and Iraqi women can be influenced to view us in a positive light, they may, in turn, exert that influence (whether overtly or covertly) on their children.

This does not remove the requirement to influence the underlying reasons for discontent; however, as we are all very well aware, perception is often 9/10ths of reality and (this might belong in another area) I don't believe we are waging a tremendously effective information campaign.

I guess my final thought would be that creating a blended security/CA type unit that was either predominantly female or had several female members (all with proper training and education) could be tremendously beneficial. But this leads to another question that I think goes along with this--is there a role for older people? How about a similar effort to recruit a civilian over-50 unit to go over and function as an elder corps?

That last part may be way out in left field. What do you all think?

Regards,

Bridget

[slapout9]

How about a Joan of Allah Brigade? The Palestinians have a female that is on the news alot that represents their views, I can not remember here name but she made a big splash when she appeared. An educated,well spoken female instead of a blood thirsty terrorist.

Not to long ago myself and Bill Moore had a thread about this very subject, it involved the incident where Palestinian women charged some Israelis and they let some prisoners go instead of shooting them. I have always thought that we had nothing to loose by involving the Iraqi women in the fight. I don't know about the culture and maybe there is a valid reason not to do it, but if we can it would be worth a try.

[120mm]

Bridget, good points, all. Oddly enough, I've been a member of the ILARNG Linguist company, and worked with the Homewood CA guys, and the Linguist Company is female-dominated and the CA guys are all male. I could never figure out why that is.

There are other dynamics as well to the male/female combat arms thing. I'm a combat arms guy who is now force-branched into a non-combat MOS. I was an extremely effective leader in a combat arms unit, using a very personal and charismatic style. By the end of my first two commands, we, as a unit, "had a love thang going on." This "band of brothers" dynamic is extremely effective in combat arms, and I had effectively developed the skills to make it happen.

Fast-forward to my third command, a mixed-gender transportation unit. We were scheduled to deploy to Iraq in a few months, so I started initiating the bonding techniques that I had depended on for the first two commands, and "not good" things started to happen. First, I am naturally and comfortably an "alpha", plus I was an authority figure. This combination, combined with the incipient mobilization (I believe) caused the younger females to react in ways that made me extremely uncomfortable.

I discussed this with my XO, who was female, (and working on her Psychology doctorate) who concurred as to the things that made me uneasy and we agreed that I should shut down the "charisma machine" tuit suite. The net result, was that I felt like I was operating blind-folded and fettered.

Dominant males, in positions of authority and especially during stressfull situations have a certain attraction to females under that authority. This can lead to stress to both the leader and the led, as well as situations that are corrosive to good order and discipline.

Luckily, I was hired away from that location in my civilian job, and my XO took those guys to "the box." It was then that I realized what a liability I was to that organization. (And quite possibly to the Army) I've developed an entire leadership tool-box that is not useful in a mixed gender unit.

[tequila]

Returning to the original topic, DoD FY 2006 report on sexual assaults (http://www.sapr.mil/contents/references/2006%20Annual%20Report%2015%20Mar%2007.pdf) in the military.

[Sarajevo071]

About that report:


Reports of sexual assaults in the military increased by about 24 percent last year and more than twice as many offenders were punished.

There were nearly 3,000 sexual assault reports filed in 2006, compared with almost 2,400 the previous year, a Pentagon report said Wednesday. Action was taken against 780 people, from courts-martial and discharges to other administrative remedies.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070321/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/military_sex_assaults

[tequila]

This is the first year where the military has full year stats for their restricted reporting program, so last year's stats are hard to compare.


The restricted, confidential reporting program allows the victims to consider pursuing an investigation later; that was done in 86 of the 756 cases last year. Data for 2005 included only the restricted cases for half the year.

[goesh]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,261400,00.html

"Major mistakes in New York Times story about rape in the military"

[Sargent]

... when I ran the Urban Operations Journal webpage and it has carried over to here. Both sites attracted / attract serious students and practitioners of urban operations and small wars. So... how come our site visitor demographics and SWC membership are overwhelmingly male? Food for thought or maybe ammunition for a food fight...

Not so male as you might think.

Also, it's not necessarily the first thing I advertise about myself, because it's not the most important thing to me. It's not something I can avoid at a conference -- but then, being the prettiest person in any room full of military historians is great fun (that's mostly tongue in cheek) -- but I don't feel the need to make a big deal about it otherwise. And I've stayed out of the subject of women in the military as a professional matter because it's too trite for my taste. On the other hand, being of the female variety does help out when doing things like talking to veterans -- not so hard on the eyes, add a smile, and they'll talk to me forever, tell me everything I want to know.

Of course, there is a whole, strange demographic of men who fall for me because I can and will talk about war and combat with abandon -- it makes my husband chuckle -- I recall he noticed once, with this LtCol, he turned to me at the end of a social evening and said "He's totally sweet on you!" Of course, he can relate, because he fell for me during a field exercise. I was a civilian/student visitor, and I was super enthusiastic to learn, see, and do whatever was available to us. I was the only one to separate from the group and talk to the Marines in the units we were visiting, I was the first to volunteer to fire the howitzer -- oh, what a sweet joyous memory, pull string go boom -- and just generally mixed it up as much as possible. Anyway, it's a minor hazard of my profession.

As for the demographic that is attracted to the subject matter of this forum, well, a lot of it does dovetail out of professional experience of some sort, which would tend to dampen the female participation. I may just be strange. I like to joke that I was the son two fathers never had -- played sports with one, went off to work (carpentry) with the other -- so maybe that influenced my interests. On the other hand, I consciously chose not to do the military, because I never wanted to be part of something that, by the rules, would bar me from full participation. But I never would have joined expecting the military to be something it wasn't, like a sorority (but then I never wanted to be in a sorority), or a place where off-color was off-limits.*

I don't know if any of this answers the questions. It's just my perspective -- maybe you'll find it useful.

And FYI, the username is not poser -- it happens to be my middle name. There's a word for a person with a name that fits their profession, but I can't think of it now. Anyway, it's a family name, and it was a terrible burden as a child (you can imagine the teasing), but as an adult I've come to treasure it -- maybe because I had to earn it.




*Historian's hazard, but I can't help dropping a footnote here and there. Anyway, to the point -- obviously, I don't profile as the standard Mrs. Field Grade Officer. But that's not always obvious. When my husband was training up for his deployment in 29 Palms, I went up for a visit and to bring the team some treats. Anyway, at first the guys kept scampering by me, with their heads down, and nobody would really talk. It took me aback. My husband said, "Yeah, they were pretty scared of you, that they might offend you -- but then you dropped the f-bomb at some point, and they totally relaxed after that."

[SWJED]

Not so male as you might think.

... in all fairness I did not say 100%. Welcome to the board - very good first posts and they are appreciated. What is the subject of your dissertation?

[120mm]

Sargent: I know how you feel. My wife is a civilian pilot, and is quite attractive. When we go to various gatherings of (largely male) pilots, "we" lack for nothing. Especially the from older pilots who are completely and utterly exploitable for various "goodies" like free dual-time, etc..

[SWJED]

28 May Washington Times commentary - A New Woman in Combat. Not! (http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20070527-094423-1577r.htm) By Suzanne Fields.


Jessica Lynch turned out to be a soldier worthy of the uniform, but not, as we were told she was, the poster child for the women in the military. Hers was a great story when it broke. She was Sergeant York and Audie Murphy in skirts (although she mostly wore combat fatigues), spraying fire at the enemy with the ferocity of a warrior on fire.

Only later we learned that actually she hadn't fired a shot when her Humvee crashed and, severely wounded, she was quickly surrounded by the enemy. Wonder Woman morphed into Cinderella when American soldiers, all men, rescued her as she lay captive in a hospital held by hostile Iraqi troops.

Pfc. Lynch testified before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform the other day, displaying none of the bravado of certain senior female officers campaigning for women in combat. She had been there, done that, and recognized her limitations. Jessica Lynch deserves the honor we pay to all young Americans, male and female, who wear the uniform. But Pfc. Lynch, never responsible for inventing or perpetuating the myth, scoffs at the Pentagon spinners who tried to turn her into "a little Rambo."

Reporters and editors back home were eager to buy the Pentagon fairy tale of how she fought off her attackers, and they had a lot of company. A lot of people wanted her story to be true, to shut up once and for all the skeptics of women on the battlefield...

[tequila]

A shame that so many know PFC Lynch's story but not SGT Leigh Ann Hester's (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/25/AR2005062501263_pf.html).

[SWJED]

A shame that so many know PFC Lynch's story but not SGT Leigh Ann Hester's (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/25/AR2005062501263_pf.html).

The rule or the exception to the rule?

[tequila]

Undoubtedly the exception. Most soldiers and Marines don't win Silver Stars for valor in close combat action.

[SWJED]

Undoubtedly the exception. Most soldiers and Marines don't win Silver Stars for valor in close combat action.

Yep. Some get medals and some don't. We've all known people who were deserving...

[Jimbo]

Not enough drama, I mean come on who would play the bad guy. At least in the Lynch story there is the default bad guy of an incompetent chain-of-command angle. (sarcasm)

In Hester's case you would have to show the fighting will adn spirit of the American soldier triumphing in a really bad situation. Hell, the E-6 got the DSC. Nobody is covering this or making a movie.:mad:

[Jedburgh]

RAND, 6 Sep 07: Assessing the Army's Assignment Policy for Women (http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2007/RAND_MG590-1.pdf)

The current U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) policy for assigning military women dates to a 1994 memorandum from then–Secretary of Defense Les Aspin. During the ensuing years, the U.S. military has undergone significant technological and organizational transformation, which has resulted in changes in how the military organizes and fights. Specifically, the Army’s recent transformation to modular brigades, as well as the differences between military missions in Iraq, and the global war on terrorism (GWOT) more generally, and military missions fought on linear battlefields during past military engagements, prompted concern among some members of Congress about the role of women in military operations in Iraq. Reflecting that, Section 541(b) of Public Law 109-163 requires the Secretary of Defense to submit a report on the current and future implementation of DoD policy for assigning military women.

This monograph is intended as input in DoD decisionmaking and focuses on Army operations in Iraq. In particular, it focuses on the Army’s brigade combat teams (BCTs) that deployed to Iraq in a modular configuration, paying specific attention to the new organic relationships of these BCTs with brigade support battalions (BSBs).....
Complete 186 page report at the link.

[neowolfe]

My CO once told us, in sort of a pep speech, "I expect you all to act like men, not girls. We're the infantry, we are one of the last jobs that is all men. We function effectively because we dont have all the drama and problems caused by working with women."

I cant remember what he said word for word but thats pretty much the jist of it. Working with females in a military environment (like 80% males) probably causes more problems than anything else in the military. no im not being sexist thats just the truth.

[kehenry1]

There were a lot of interesting thoughts on this subject that were all over the spectrum.

First, aside from Hester, you would be surprised how many women have been in fire fights and have medals that you never hear of. I think there are two issues here:

1) The military does not promote it because they want to avoid having to keep defending the subject of women in "near combat" roles.
2) If you want equality, you don't necessarily promote one over the other. You make them like the other. Like the men who are quietly going about their jobs without fanfare who do plenty of things every day that would be noteworthy. But the media attention is very distracting. Much better to treat it like an every day thing.

since I am someone that is interested in the subject, I actually look for it and know of several women that have CABs and silver stars.

I think that the military is going about it the right way in terms of slowly integrating forces through different field operations. There are plenty of units in both Afghanistan and Iraq doing CMOC or CAP that have at least one or more women attached. women are doing "convoy security" or actually driving a truck in hostile territory. The Army corps of engineers have women doing much and so do several of the civilian elements attached to PRTs in these theaters.

To me its the "quiet, quiet" approach. One day, you're going to wake up and find this discussion moot and you won't even know when it happened.

I always liken it to the struggle of integrating blacks and other minorities in the military. Except, of course, some of that occurred during much more turbulent times so its history is a little more intense. Still, you can bet that there was plenty of discussions in the open and within barracks. Plus bad behavior. but that is how we work things out until we are satisfied its resolved. At least until the next issue.

In regards to the abilities of women or what issues they cause in a unit, what its really about it "personalities" and "character". I have worked in female dominated offices (health care is full of women) and ones that were relatively integrated. I've also worked in offices and situations where I was the only woman.

Women in a group can be equally "off color" as men. In the "female dominated" office, I had two men who worked there and had to routinely tell the women to "tone it down" because they would be talking about subjects that are not appropriate for mixed company.

I've worked with "integrated" offices where there is always at least one guy and one girl that don't know how to behave themselves in "mixed" company.

And, in the male dominated area, there is always at least one guy that forgets his manners. I actually was hit on - I mean, hand on the leg, making remarks about body parts, asking what I was doing later, and he was married - by a brand new salesman that I had only met two hours previously at a "working dinner"; the rest of the men in the group all stopped talking when I picked up his hand and stuck it back on the arm of the chair. That guy was gone in two days because my boss, a man, told him that was wrong and chose to set the tone.

The point I'm trying to make here is that, yes, the military actually reflects male/female relationships and working issues outside. While it may not be "deployment", you understand that people spend a lot of time together, sometimes more than with their family, in the work place. In my experience, I actually flew around with a team that was all men and me, staying at hotels, long working hours, eating together, going to "fun" times, etc.

While no one was shooting at us and death was not eminent, it certainly was "living in each others pockets". none of these men made on-toward advances or attempted anything inappropriate. Neither did I freak out when they told jokes that were slightly off color. On the other hand, if things were getting out of line, I would signal that through either word or I would simply make my excuses and leave their company. It usually worked to pull everyone back in line.

The issue here is, as one said, who sets the tone? Leadership sets the tone and so do the people. I have mentored young professional women. My advise to them is that, if they say nothing to the person that is making them uncomfortable, then they have missed the opportunity to set the tone. In my experience, most people are receptive to "gentle rebukes" that let them know where other people's lines are.

Men or women have a responsibility, not just to behave appropriately, but to signal their own comfort levels. Any woman that has made it through boot camp and received a few stripes or bars ought to be comfortable enough to set it. Failure to do so is partly their responsibility. That is why most offices have a policy where they ask the "complainant" what action they took before making a formal complaint. Some think that is making women a victim "again", but I don't see it. This policy helps to re-enforce that part of the responsibility for the tone of the office is up to the people that work there. I would say that goes for a military unit.

However, those that don't accept direction or correction of inappropriate behaviors are discipline issues, inside or outside of the military. In the office, it can be just as detrimental to the work atmosphere and accomplishing goals if you are distracted with internal "relations" issues. However, the office has been integrated and so have many work situations that are long hours, difficult and even labor intensive simply by not accepting that the problem is the integration, but individuals.

I think that is the appropriate tone for the military to set. It doesn't take power points, it takes people who are willing to accept their responsibilities, up and down the chain of command.

Three women I can think of in the military who have done what is barely covered in the media even for men are Sgt Hester, SSgt O'Hara and a Sgt whose last name escapes me but her first name, Lauren, sticks with me (she is army, received the CAB and a silver star for combat). Each of these were either MPs or convoy security. I can't remember their names, but five women have bronze starts for their actions under fire (they were medics). however, all of the women have eschewed most of the publicity because, as Hester said, it would be detrimental, not helpful. They are like the rest. That is the tone they are setting.

When the shooting starts, by the way, I don't think that there is a lot of time to be worrying about the "women" in the unit and their protection. As far as I can tell, it winds up at the age old situation that all male units always talk about: when the stuff hits the fan, you're worried about living, dying, protecting everyone and going home to tell about it.

I will make a final point. I am a big history buff. Reading diaries of women pioneers, they would probably find some of the arguments about women's roles and capabilities amusing. They worked in the fields, fought fires, staved off threats with fire arms and did many other things, sometimes without a man, that would make some combat situations seem like a day at the park. all this angst is really not about women, its about culture. Since we reverted back to largely urban dwelling people, we have also reverted to some stereotypical categorization of gender roles.

All discussed on the academic side, far away from reality. Somewhere, as I type this, a female officer is taking down a criminal. Right down the street, a woman is finishing her twelve hour shift at the Ford plant, welding car parts. Somewhere in Afghanistan, a woman captain is leading a patrol (I know, I read about it). Somewhere in Iraq, a woman is standing guard at the gate of a camp with her rifle while, down the road, another "mans" the .50 pulling convoy security.

And, yeah, somewhere over there, some chuckle head is making an off color comment to a female soldier who is either putting him in his place or is thinking that's the third time and she's not sure whether to report him or kick him in the 'nads.

yet, somehow, the army goes rolling along, combat patrols happen and the world has not fallen apart.

Go figure.

[Maggie]

Maximus et al--
Where I struggle, though, is with the fact that most of the men in these kinds of units could probably be classified as alpha males, and the ingrained tendency to protect those weaker could, potentially, be an issue. You'll notice a lot of "coulds" and "mights"--because I don't know. I've never been in combat, so I don't know how a squad mate might react if he has a female in his unit who comes under fire. I do know that women have been successful in standoff combat roles (like fighter pilots, etc.) but that's an entirely different area.



I was a volunteer firefighter for 14 years. This was a definite problem and infuriated me no end. The attitude had nothing to do with ability, the men I usually ran with were the ones doing the training too and they knew I could do the job. They simply could not seem to back off and LET me do it at times. It led to a catch-22 situation: They were worried about having a woman on the team not because she was incapable of doing the job but because she was a distraction--and not because of what she did or didn't do but because of THEIR OWN reaction to a woman on the job. It left me wondering exactly what I was supposed to do....

Maggie

[Maggie]

My CO once told us, in sort of a pep speech, "I expect you all to act like men, not girls. We're the infantry, we are one of the last jobs that is all men. We function effectively because we dont have all the drama and problems caused by working with women."

I cant remember what he said word for word but thats pretty much the jist of it. Working with females in a military environment (like 80% males) probably causes more problems than anything else in the military. no im not being sexist thats just the truth.


And some of the firefighters I've worked with would agree with you. I, however, consider that the men were the ones causing the drama and problems....

Maggie

[Maggie]

You've pretty much summed it up, kehenry1. Thank you.

Maggie

[Rob Thornton]

I wish I could recall their call-signs at least, but I do recall their actions. One was a KW pilot and another a MP platoon leader. They seemed to always be out when there was a fire-fight going on. Their element always seemed to be first to respond and reinforce the unit in contact. Cool and measured, their reports provided clarity and direction to the situation. I also remember a soldier who happened to be female in one of the EOD units. You might see this young lady in any number of careers - she was not how many would stereo-type females who join the military. You could tell she was extremely proud of being in what was in my opinion one of the most demanding jobs in combat, and you could tell her male peers had a great deal of confidence in her. These are just a few of the roles I watched soldiers whose gender was female take on that put them in harm's way and may have required them to take a life - all of these soldiers were up to it and reflected the very professional demeanor we hold up in our best. You'd see them in turret of an 1114/1151, see them on the ground helping to secure an area, conducting interviews and assisting mostly male patrols with cordon & search/knock operations, conducting combat camera interviews - there simply was no place (I did not say job) or like location, I recall where I saw a task to do where I had not seen a female soldier operating in some complimentary fashion at some time while there- although the jobs/MOSs may have been different, the requirements at the physical location and environment were the same.

The role of women in combat has changed with OIF, just as how we think about the battlefield has changed. I've seen them perform as equals, and in some cases better then their male counterparts on a battlefield where courage, confidence and intelligence trump how much we can put in our rucksack. Its not a matter in my opinion of needing them in times where we have growing personnel requirements - these women are simply some of the best human beings who could be serving with us, and to have them serve on the battlefield where those qualities are always in need puts us at an advantage.

Best Regards, Rob

[Maggie]

The role of women in combat has changed with OIF, just as how we think about the battlefield has changed. I've seen them perform as equals, and in some cases better then their male counterparts on a battlefield where courage, confidence and intelligence trump how much we can put in our rucksack. Its not a matter in my opinion of needing them in times where we have growing personnel requirements - these women are simply some of the best human beings who could be serving with us, and to have them serve on the battlefield where those qualities are always in need puts us at an advantage.

Best Regards, Rob

My daughter is 25; when I was her age women had just been admitted to the service academies and this was NOT what I was hearing then, I have at times wondered if things had changed at all for my daughter's future. My son is 29, when he was 18 he was accepted into the Officer's Candidate pool for the Naval Academy. While he did not ultimately get an appointment he did spend a weekend at the Academy during the application process. I watched as the female naval officers there shook the hands of female candidates--but not the male candidates. I hope your sentiments and those of kehenry1 are becoming the norm, not the exception.

Maggie

[Stan]

Hi Maggie !

My daughter is 25; when I was her age women had just been admitted to the service academies and this was NOT what I was hearing then, I have at times wondered if things had changed at all for my daughter's future. My son is 29, when he was 18 he was accepted into the Officer's Candidate pool for the Naval Academy. While he did not ultimately get an appointment he did spend a weekend at the Academy during the application process. I watched as the female naval officers there shook the hands of female candidates--but not the male candidates. I hope your sentiments and those of kehenry1 are becoming the norm, not the exception.

Maggie
All I have to go on is my 23 years in the Army, and we never had problems shaking hands with collegues, male or female. That was some time ago, but I haven't noticed any serious changes.

Oddly enough, there's some Navy folklore regarding males and females shaking hands (the old man was Navy til death....that's why I went Army :D):


Shake Hands With Women (http://www.ehow.com/tips_2737.html) - According to old Naval etiquette, a man should never extend his hand to a woman first. A smile and a nod will do. If she wants to shake, a gentleman takes her hand as if to kiss it and shakes it by holding it (not gripping it).

Hmmm, I kinda like that just a smigin :)

Honestly, I have no idea what happened at the Naval Academy. Perhaps just graduates separating themselves from the pledges, male or female.

[Maggie]

I think there are other differences, not so much genetic as Marc stated, but cultural, based on the circles we grew up in (male activities versus female activities). You see a merging of the two gradually, with more and more female sports teams, etc., but it will take a long time to make a significant change.

It does take time, and it's only been 50-60 years since the first changes such as access to univerities and careers really opened up, not to mention access to power such as elected offices and boardrooms (yes, there were a few women before that but they were exceptions rather than indication of a norm). Even sports. When I was in high school that school fielded no women's sport teams and in fact girls were allowed only one year of gym, our faciliies were mostly dedicated to the boys and their teams. I've noticed that the few female strategists offered as examples have been queens--who had access to the power to use that talent. How many women in the past had that power? Cultural is right--and those are often based on gut reactions of 'what's fitting' which doesn't change at the stroke of a pen.


While I was somewhat joking in a previous post, having sat in on a few planning sessions for different crisises, I have noted that the female officers frequently had a different perspective of the problem, which most of us found useful. I don't think it is genetic, but social, but none the less useful.

It may or may not be genetic, there do seem to be some differences if one looks at broad generalities between the sexes, it certainly can be cultural. However, different does not automatically mean there needs to be a value judgement applied to either perspective. As you found, different perspectives are useful no matter where they come from.


Women have been involved in conflicts for hundreds of years, and I guess if I looked hard enough perhaps I could find some strategic approaches implemented by women if I look at some of the queens of old Europe? I do concur that the ability to develop strategy has nothing to do with time in combat.

I don't think time or nationality is the factor here, it's who gets the recognition from history and why. You mention queens of Europe here--it's certainly true that women have always been involved in conflicts but it's the women with acess to power and recorded by history that we know. The lack of female mention could then reasonably be considered simply a reflection of the cultural norms of the time and not taken as evidence that there were none.

[Rex Brynen]

Since 2002—when we acquired the larger, Victoria-class submarines that allowed for adequate berthing—the last restrictions on women in combat roles were lifted in the Canadian Armed Forces.

It is true that there are relatively few women serving in combat arms (about 2% of the total), due to the physical requirements, retention issues, and a degree of self-selection. But they are there, and they do fight and die (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nichola_Goddard) with bravery and honour, like the guys.

There are, of course, some guys in the combat arms who continue to grouse about the effect of women on combat cohesion and performance, and those retrograde attitudes have contributed to retention problems. However, the question is essentially settled and closed both within the Armed Forces/DND and within society as a whole. No significant politician of any stripe in any party raises the issue.

I did my (brief) reserve service in a mixed gender unit, and I can honestly say I can't remember the issue of women in the military came up once. This may have been due, on reflection, to the most competent, efficient, and at times frankly terrifying NCO in the unit being a woman! (I also had a grandmother who served as an officer in the Free Dutch forces during WWII, who was also quite formidable.)

[Maggie]

Hi Maggie !

All I have to go on is my 23 years in the Army, and we never had problems shaking hands with collegues, male or female. That was some time ago, but I haven't noticed any serious changes.

Hiya! My dad was a very young and very proud sailor in WWII, but he was disappointed too :p Two of us did Civil Air Patrol instead of Sea Scouts and a third joined the AF!



Honestly, I have no idea what happened at the Naval Academy. Perhaps just graduates separating themselves from the pledges, male or female.

No, unfortunately. These were officers manning (so to speak) the check-in line where the applicants were picking up their papers before heading out with their midshipman hosts for the weekend. Such distinctions either way irritate me no end and only the thought of how my son would disown me if I made a scene kept me from saying something :D The male officers behind the table shook everyone's hand, the females only the female candidates.

Btw--at one time women were considered bad luck aboard a ship at all, never mind what how one is supposed to shake hands (or not)...:D

Maggie

[Norfolk]

Since 2002—when we acquired the larger, Victoria-class submarines that allowed for adequate berthing—the last restrictions on women in combat roles were lifted in the Canadian Armed Forces.

It is true that there are relatively few women serving in combat arms (about 2% of the total), due to the physical requirements, retention issues, and a degree of self-selection. But they are there, and they do fight and die (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nichola_Goddard) with bravery and honour, like the guys.

There are, of course, some guys in the combat arms who continue to grouse about the effect of women on combat cohesion and performance, and those retrograde attitudes have contributed to retention problems. However, the question is essentially settled and closed both within the Armed Forces/DND and within society as a whole. No significant politician of any stripe in any party raises the issue.

I did my (brief) reserve service in a mixed gender unit, and I can honestly say I can't remember the issue of women in the military came up once. This may have been due, on reflection, to the most competent, efficient, and at times frankly terrifying NCO in the unit being a woman! (I also had a grandmother who served as an officer in the Free Dutch forces during WWII, who was also quite formidable.)

I think it was around '91 when the first women were permitted to go into the Royal Canadian Infantry Corps. I think the introduction of women into the Combat Arms in general, and the Infantry in particular, could and should have been done a lot differently. As one of the generals who was in charge of the CF's own study and planning group on the matter said, the Army could (theoretically) have had a few hundred women in battalions across the Corps if the Human Rights Commission and the courts hadn't directly intervened themselves and simply impposed it on the Military. The swift result of course was a few women in a few battalions who while, having passed the same standards of their male counterparts (theoretically at least, in my battalion all the females were given red medical chits, in effect an exemption, because they could't pass the battle fitness tests), those standards had been dropped considerably.

The old standard, for example, had been the 2x10: a 10-mile forced march ith full kit performed in under two hours followed immediately by a live shoot on a 300m range (Falling Plates), followed the next day by a 10-kilometre (little over 6 mile) jog (with webbing, helmet, rifle, etc.) in 1 hour, 6 minutes, and I think an assault course.

The new standard that both men and women came under had been a 13.2-km (8-mile) route march with full kit in 2 hours, 26 minutes, and a 3.2-km (2 mile) "forced march" in 22 minutes with webbing, helmet, rifle, etc. I've been out for some years now, but this year a friend of mine who is in a abattalion told me that the 2x10 was back.

The net result was a shoddy introduction both for the women entering the infantry, and the infantrymen who were receving them, and it tended to poison the units so affected. Aside from a fair bit of minor (so far as I know) sexual harassment, there was no rape or assaults. But there was was a serious break-down in discipline, as officers (and some NCOs) were pretty sensitive about something going wrong, and for any number of reasons. I saw at least one young women, with an entire rifle company present, talk back to and swear at an NCO, a chargeable offence and somethign that would have had a man doing the hatless dance in front of the CO.

With women in the battalion, the strict discipline that had previously existed quickly evapourated, men (including married ones) fooled around with a couple of the women, and generally those men who may have been otherwise favourably disposed towards integration of the sexes, were turned off. I have to admit being one of those. Of course, there were those who would not have accepted women under any circumstances, and they quietly made their views known and felt (especially after the battalion's displine unravelled). I think that had the officers not been afraid of repercussions from above, the women would not have been treated with kid gloves, and the men would not have loss respect for the women, the officers, and the Army. A lot of guys left; after my Platoon Warrant left (2 tours in Northern Ireland, was in the SAS in the Falklands), I began considering leaving myself -3 months later I was gone.

One other observation about women in the infantry, and I thought it was very strange, and this occurred ex after ex: none of the women in the battalion lasted for more than 3 days in the field before going "squirrely" and having to be sent to the infirmary for the rest of the ex; I had thought that maybe the women were just slackers, but the last one to invariably join them most definitely was not a slacker, and I saw at least one of the NCOs who would not accept women in the infantry give her a bit of a hard time once. I still have no clear answer as to why the women went "squirrely" after no more than 3 days in the bush.

Generally speaking, I strongly suspect that women in the infantry is not a good idea, even if proper standards are enforced; and it is a disaster waiting to happen if they are trained to lowered standards (even if those are the same for the men, that just makes things even worse), especially when the officers (and NCOs) are afraid to enforce discipline out of fear of political retaliation from above.

Interesting, perplexing topic.

[Rex Brynen]

I think that had the officers not been afraid of repercussions from above, the women would not have been treated with kid gloves, and the men would not have loss respect for the women, the officers, and the Army.

This very much sounds like a battalion leadership problem to me--exacerbated, perhaps, by the way combat arms were opened up to women--but a leadership problem nonetheless.

[Rob Thornton]

I agree its a leadership issue. We often impose self-constraints where there do not need to be any. In any unit there needs to be a clear set of standards both for individual and collective tasks - passing a PT test is a standard, executing a battle drill correctly is a standard. Not enforcing those standards indicates a leadership failure, an is an abdication of responsibility to those we lead.

After what I've seen I think many of the arguments I've heard in the past about women serving in line units don't add up. A real problem though could be leaders who won't maintain a standard, but that is a problem regardless. As for fraternization and sexual misconduct - well that is also a moral and ethical problem in addition to being a general leadership one - it has not stopped those problems from occurring on the FOBs or in settings where men and women are in hand grenade range. If we're worried about our grenadiers and SAW gunners getting it on in a firefight - well, we've got misplaced priorities.

When I took command the first time, I told the company I had some non-negotiables: use or sell drugs and I would do everything I could to get you separated from the Army and punished to the max; steal from a soldier and I'd do everything I could to see the maximum UCMJ penalties imposed and you'd be transferred from the company; have an affair with another soldier's wife and I'd punish you to the full extent and see you separated from the Army.

There are always going to be things we have to weigh out in cost - benefit both as an individual and as a leader. Sometimes leaders must explain both the consequences for individual actions in terms or responsibility and the impact on the unit.

I simply want the best people available doing the the jobs that require the most responsibility and character in a person. Flatly, there are some females who are more capable on a number of levels then their male counterparts - this is as true in soldiering as in any other profession. It is the leader's responsibility to ensure the standards are maintained as prescribed by the higher command, by the service and by the UCMJ.

I do not make military policy with regard to what jobs are open to women, however, I will say that if policy changed to reflect that women were suddenly allowed to serve in Infantry or Armor units I'd have no personal issues with it. The actions I saw in Iraq indicate to me that they have the potential to serve as well as their male peers in those roles - but the standards must be enforced by the leaders.

For me, the physiological considerations are small potatoes compared to what some of these folks bring to the fight.

Did not mean to rant, but want to be clear that actions on the ground are challenging many of the myths and preconceptions about who does what, or is capable of doing what. With only a small percentage of Americans willing to serve in uniform, I want the very best of that small percent where they matter most.

Best regards, Rob

[Tom Odom]

I believe you have to keep things in perspective:

A. Current operations in Iraq and to a lesser degree in Afghanistan (where it is very much like mountain Ranger school with live rounds) constitute a certain operational environment.

B. An operational environment like WWII, Korea, Viet Nam, or as above with the line units in the mountains in OEF is different.

Women certainly have done well in both theaters. That does not change the physical demands of the Infantry in an environment like Korea, WWII, or again OEF depending on units.

It is not simply a leadership or a culture issue. An infantry unit on a battlefield like Korea has to be able to do its job. That is not served by lesser standards for one part of the unit.

Best

Tom

[Ken White]

that simple. :confused:

Been my observation that about 25% of the males in Infantry units, peace or war -- possibly a slight rise in wartime in all volunteer units, larger rise in those with draftees -- don't really want to or need to be there. They are a tad too sensitive psychologically speaking to enjoy what they're doing. Most cope but they do not ever really adapt well. They also tend to sustain long term psychological damage at a higher rate than their more sociopathic peers.

That percentage was slightly lower 60 years ago but has increased as our western society has gotten wealthier and more and better -- or, at least, more lengthily -- educated. It may even be slightly higher today but I think that serves as a broad average figure.

My belief is that the females I have seen in the CS and CSS units in the US Army that routinely serve in a field environment at least double that percentage.

I think I'm saying that the physical and psychological stresses of the Armed Forces in a field environment are inimical to the more sensitive among us and logically, combat exacerbates that. I have seen females of all ranks in a field environment that were ever bit as well adapted as many -- even most -- males and there is no question that women can sustain combat stress. I'm suggesting that where they sustain that stress has an impact that might be difficult to measure and that the percentage of females susceptible to ground combat stress is higher than is the not insignificant male number.

There have been numerous examples of outstanding female aviators, in and out of combat. Most female naval types are as good as or better than their male counterparts. Same goes for those in the ground forces.

That there have been and will be a number of female infantry-like fighters that are as tough as anyone is not questioned; nor is the fact that, so long as its voluntary, not that many females will opt for the infantry and those that do are likely to have a psychological profile that adapts to the role.

That, IMO, does not address the desirability or utility of having them there not does it address the impacts on the nearby male creatures. :wry:

The issue of field living -- and I mean in an austere environment, not on an FOB in an air conditioned trailer -- is not pleasant to contemplate for anyone, sex immaterial. Add to that the blood, sights, sounds and smells of close combat and you have an environment not attuned to emotional sensitivity, male or female. My perception -- and that's all it is -- is that a higher number of females are not attuned to it.

I think the infantry combat environment assists in creating a "you're on trial here" mentality in Troops; they apply it to every male that serves and the females get closer scrutiny due to a lot of cultural baggage. Possibly also to a lot of genetic and gender baggage.

Long way of saying what we all know; it's not a job for everyone -- and that, IMO, it's a lot more complex than a simple leadership issue... :(

Lest I be accused of being opposed to females in service or even in the infantry, I'm not; have no problems at all with that. All for it in fact -- I just think it is not a simple question and I'm unsure we know nearly as much we think we do about the answers.

And that also gives me a chance, yet again, to beat my 'psychological selection is necessary for a professional force today' drum... :D

[Rob Thornton]

I'm not saying dumb the standards down - keep the standards the same - the minimum these days are pretty low on all accounts. If you want to do the job, meet the standard - whatever the standard is. If we say we need Infantry with higher GT scores, or better language proficiency at what point do those become standards? I think its an important question, not because its about gender, but because we are rethinking what we value most in those MOSs and leaders.

Where do we strike the balance between "you either have to be smart or strong, so hand me my rucksack"? I'm not sure. What of emotional strength - the ability to endure harsh conditions and persevere? How do you measure some of those things?

I agree with you about extending beyond leadership and culture, but I do believe its leadership that turns things around, makes positives out of negatives, mitigates risk while acknowledging it, and creates opportunities where non may have existed.

When we're discussing what capabilities we need in this war where so many value judgments are required and where people are emphasized over technology, the questions are going to come up. Even if we said we were going to create more Maneuver Enhancement BDEs with lots of MPs (or anything else but BCTs) to meet the capabilities requirements we expect in the next decade or two, those formations will still be out there.

Where are we willing to accept risk? Do we think we will ever be as logistically challenged as we were in WWII or Korea? How has good tech enabled us to improve the life of the Infantry? What are the values to be gained vs. the negatives?

I just think we may want to consider it from all angles before we resign ourselves to maintaining things. If in light of all that the powers that be decide that its still true and that the benefits don't clearly out weigh the costs, or that culturally we just can't do such things, then that is the way it has to be - in fact that is where we're at right now in terms of policy. However, it may be time to consider all of the options and not just those regarding organizational, doctrinal and material options when it comes to thinking about the future.

Best Regards, Rob

[Rex Brynen]

I agree with you about extending beyond leadership and culture, but I do believe its leadership that turns things around, makes positives out of negatives, mitigates risk while acknowledging it, and creates opportunities where non may have existed.

I think this was the point I was trying to make, only Rob has made it far more effectively. It must be the poet in his soul (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=4088) ;)

Tom--I agree, undoubtedly the stress of the field deployment, and even more so combat, complicates matters several fold. However, the absorption and discipline problems that Norfolk was describing took place in a (Canadian) Reserve infantry battalion (if I understood), consisting of volunteers and not subject to involuntary overseas deployment (well, not without a major national crisis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_Crisis_of_1944)!)

[Norfolk]

I think this was the point I was trying to make, only Rob has made it far more effectively. It must be the poet in his soul (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=4088) ;)

Tom--I agree, undoubtedly the stress of the field deployment, and even more so combat, complicates matters several fold. However, the absorption and discipline problems that Norfolk was describing took place in a (Canadian) Reserve infantry battalion (if I understood), consisting of volunteers and not subject to involuntary overseas deployment (well, not without a major national crisis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_Crisis_of_1944)!)

You're quite correct, but bear in mind that a fair number of the infantrymen in the Regular Battalions going overseas to places like Afghanistan are actually Reservists, and a 90-day beat-up before going over to A-Stan isn't going to undue all the bad habits they've learned; for that matter, the Regulars themselves have only in the last few years really shed a lot of the mediocre (and sometimes poor) leadership (the Airborne Regiment anyone? some VanDoos running guns and engaging in sexual abuse of psychiatic patients in the Balkans?) and inadequate training that was going on for much of the 90's and even into the early years of this decade. The Army just brought back Battle Inoculation over the past couple years.

If standards like the 2x10 followed immediately by a live shoot at targets up to 300m away (and allowing no rest between marches and shoots) to simulate going into contact are not conscientiously applied and enforced in both Regular and Reserve Units by leaders who know, and care about, what they're doing, and discipline fairly and firmly enforced, it will show on the battlefield. Again, I give you the Airborne Regiment in Somalia (and these problems were going on for over a decade before the whole thing exploded in everyone's face), and the problems with some Royale22eRegiment guys in Bosnia who were selling their 50-cals to the locals (who would promptly turn around and use them on our guys) and gettin' frisky with mental patients in a hospital that they had to take care of because no one else would.

Incidently, a lot of those "Regular" Battalions in Yugo were up to half Reservists, including the one that fought the Croats in the Medak Pocket (and most of the line guys in that unit were Reservists, with a few Regulars, mostly NCOs). It's a good thing the Croats at that time were little more than a mob, unlike a couple years later. Imagine what a Regular Battalion brought up to strength with a large draft of Reservist volunteers from my and similar Battalions would have fared in A-Stan if 9/11 had occured in 1991, not 2001, when discipline and training was being restored by what amounted to the heroic efforts of those senior officers who had endured the pain of the 90's and were bound and determined when they got to the top that that wasn't going to happen again - like General Hillier.

[Norfolk]

The Regular Battalions were faced with much the same problems as the Reserve Battalions, as the 2x10 was officially dispensed with for infantry regardless of component. You may recall Rex, a young female infantry officer from the Royal22e in the mid-nineties, of whom pictures of her blindfolded, gagged, and tied to a tree while in SERE training were given by someone to the national media. The Infantry was accused of beastliness in general, and trying to subject women infantry candidates to standards that were dieliberately high in order to keep women out of the infantry (ie. the 2x10 et al).

The result was that for most of the '90s, the Infantry School at Gagetown enforced only the 13.2km (8 mile) route march and the 3.2km (2 mile) "forced march" for Regular Force infantry officer trainees. In 2000 or so, even that standard was not enforced; in fact the infantry officer candidates were not formally tested at all on the BFT/CFT. Sad but true. As I said in a previous post, a friend of mine who is in my old battalion (4RCR) told me in the spring that the 2x10 is back. None too soon.

[Maggie]

The net result was a shoddy introduction both for the women entering the infantry, and the infantrymen who were receving them, and it tended to poison the units so affected. Aside from a fair bit of minor (so far as I know) sexual harassment, there was no rape or assaults. But there was was a serious break-down in discipline, as officers (and some NCOs) were pretty sensitive about something going wrong, and for any number of reasons. I saw at least one young women, with an entire rifle company present, talk back to and swear at an NCO, a chargeable offence and somethign that would have had a man doing the hatless dance in front of the CO.


I became a volunteer firefighter in 1977, the county involved had just hired the first professional firefighter in the US the year before. I can tell you with absolute certainty that this kind of behaviour does indeed "poison" the atmosphere and is entirely the wrong way to go about it.


I still have no clear answer as to why the women went "squirrely" after no more than 3 days in the bush.

In what way? Did they collapse physically?

Maggie

[Maggie]

The issue of field living -- and I mean in an austere environment, not on an FOB in an air conditioned trailer -- is not pleasant to contemplate for anyone, sex immaterial. Add to that the blood, sights, sounds and smells of close combat and you have an environment not attuned to emotional sensitivity, male or female. My perception -- and that's all it is -- is that a higher number of females are not attuned to it.

Oddly enough I had noticed this with the female volunteers coming in after me. Most of them opted for EMS after finishing the obligatory basic instruction in firefighting--and couldn't understand why I was willing (if not exactly eager :p) to get so dirty and sweaty and stay in the firefighting! At this point I wonder whether it has to do with cultural factors rather than factors supposedly inherent in males and females. The US has a high standard of living--how many people, male or female, actually do their own hunting, butchering, or even something as simple as taking care of those who are very messily ill on a routine basis? My dad and his brothers hunted regularly, I watched him dress his kill sometimes and while it's not something I do it's not something I find gross and beyond the pale. I suspect my kids would though, simply because they've never seen it. I'm not so sure it's got a whole lot to do with "emotional sensitivity" (sorry, hot button for me!:D) as it is familiarity BEFORE joining the service with a "close to the ground" style of living as a norm.


I think the infantry combat environment assists in creating a "you're on trial here" mentality in Troops; they apply it to every male that serves and the females get closer scrutiny due to a lot of cultural baggage. Possibly also to a lot of genetic and gender baggage.

Yah. Believe it. I have a lot of (sort of) funny stories about that....


Long way of saying what we all know; it's not a job for everyone -- and that, IMO, it's a lot more complex than a simple leadership issue... :(

No, these types of jobs are not. My worry is that the opportunity not be closed to those who can and will do the job simply on the basis of gender and expections thereof.


Maggie

[Norfolk]

I became a volunteer firefighter in 1977, the county involved had just hired the first professional firefighter in the US the year before. I can tell you with absolute certainty that this kind of behaviour does indeed "poison" the atmosphere and is entirely the wrong way to go about it.



In what way? Did they collapse physically?

Maggie

So true on the first point Maggie; there may be a place for political "influence" when it comes to various issues within the military, including gender ones. But is has to be limited and the civilians have to let the military work it out themselves, otherwise everyone loses, as well as any opportunities or benefits that may have arisen out of a measured, properly though-out and executed introduction of women to men in the infantry.

While there are a tiny proportion of women in Canadian infantry battalions, and the formal issue of gender integration is settled, I think the damage is done there, and many of the men, in their heart of hearts, will never really accept the women (even if on the surface it appears that they do). This leads to an unseen split within units between those men who are confortable with the women, and those who are not (and all the worse when the latter are discrete about it). I'm sure that I don't need to tell you about this. And I blame both the civilans masters and the military leadership for this. It didn't have to be this way. And I have to admit because of that experience I can't really bring myself to accept women in the infantry without real reservations.

As to the women going "squirrely", what I observed was that the women became disorientated, often dizzy, and simply couldn't keep up on the march. This "squirrely" condition invariably occurred within 3 days. I have never been able to identify an efficient cause for this; like I said in a previous post, for a while I thought that they were just slackers, but the last one to always join them was no slacker.

She was a good gal, and a lot of the lads felt comfortable with her because she was focused on the job at hand and did it well; the incident I witnessed where an NCO (who I took did not accept the women) gave her a hard time occurred during a run. She kept falling out of formation and the guys would try to carry her kit for her so she could stay with us (she was well liked), but the NCO wouldn't let us and just watched her as she fell out and we had to leave her behind (a truck was following some distance behind us and it picked her up).

Anyways, back to the matter at hand, I don't know what the reason for the "squirreliness" was, but the women were clearly somewhat out of it and had been unable to keep up with the men in the field, and subsequently sent back to MIR. Disorientation and dizziness were the main things that I noticed. Touch of hypothermia maybe?

[goesh]

The closer you are to death, the tighter the bonds get amongst the living and with raging young male hormones at play it simply is not a good mix to have a few women in with grunts in a combat zone, even the rare few that can handle the fatigue/heavy humping requirements and there are bathroom issues in the bush as well that would need to be addressed. This impacts unit cohesion and mission focus and said needs trump PC/politics.

[Ken White]

Oddly enough I had noticed this with the female volunteers coming in after me. Most of them opted for EMS after finishing the obligatory basic instruction in firefighting--and couldn't understand why I was willing (if not exactly eager :p) to get so dirty and sweaty and stay in the firefighting! At this point I wonder whether it has to do with cultural factors rather than factors supposedly inherent in males and females. The US has a high standard of living--how many people, male or female, actually do their own hunting, butchering, or even something as simple as taking care of those who are very messily ill on a routine basis? My dad and his brothers hunted regularly, I watched him dress his kill sometimes and while it's not something I do it's not something I find gross and beyond the pale. I suspect my kids would though, simply because they've never seen it. I'm not so sure it's got a whole lot to do with "emotional sensitivity" (sorry, hot button for me!:D) as it is familiarity BEFORE joining the service with a "close to the ground" style of living as a norm.
. . .
No, these types of jobs are not. My worry is that the opportunity not be closed to those who can and will do the job simply on the basis of gender and expections thereof.

Maggie

I'm pretty sure it's cultural. There are a lot of guys, mostly urban raised, who hate field living more than they dislike actual combat. It, as we seem to agree, is a phenomenon that not everyone adapts to. I used 'emotional sensitivity' only as shorthand and there are as many guys who lack a desire to get dirty as they are females. My perception is that the females are culturally inclined to express or show that discontent to a greater extent than most guys are. In any event, no slam intended.

That current trend in males her age (~30) causes my Daughter to refuse to date anyone who has more beauty care products than she does -- and she's a minimalist.

My oldest Grandaughter was a West Coast firefighter, got married, moved East with a serving husband who was about to go off on deployment and decided she'd go as well. She enlisted and is a Medic in Iraq now. Lot of work, long hours and she apparently tolerates the living conditions about twice as well as most of her contemporaries, male or female. Some adapt, some don't -- and that is true of almost any human endeavor.

Then tendency of the guys to come down excessively on females has to be watched really closely. Unfortunately, sometimes those who should be watching participate and they ought to be caught and required to spend a week in a female prison.

That might give most of 'em a whole new outlook on who's tough enough...:D

[Norfolk]

The closer you are to death, the tighter the bonds get amongst the living and with raging young male hormones at play it simply is not a good mix to have a few women in with grunts in a combat zone, even the rare few that can handle the fatigue/heavy humping requirements and there are bathroom issues in the bush as well that would need to be addressed. This impacts unit cohesion and mission focus and said needs trump PC/politics.

That's something that just can't be ignored, or avoided without serious consequences. Good point, and kind of the elephant in the room.

[Jedburgh]

SSI, 24 Jan 08: Women in Combat Compendium (http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB830.pdf)

This compendium resulted from a request by Colonel Michele Putko for sponsorship of a “Women in Combat Study” as a multistudent elective alternative. Dr. Douglas Johnson agreed to sponsor the project on the condition that the perspectives of male officers who had commanded units with women in them be specifically included, as their views might provide a different evaluation of performance. As the editing of the original papers extended into the following student year, Colonel Mark Lindon’s paper filled an obvious gap, that of documenting the progressive change in public opinion. It has, therefore, been included.

The topic of Women in Combat has been one of great emotion, but uncertain factual content until recently. The rules created to deal with the fact that women want to serve in the armed forces have ranged from silly to serious, but the factual bases have changed and the plea of all the contributors is to review the entire issue with objectivity and attention to the facts as they exist. These facts are: Women comprise approximately 15 percent of the U.S. Army today; as of this writing (September 2007), 70 Army women (including three Department of the Army Civilian women) have been killed and a significantly larger number wounded; [icasualties.org/oif/Female.aspx] the American public is vaguely aware of this state of affairs and has raised no outcry. The nature of the current battlefield makes it impossible to apply strictly the existing rules for excluding women from combat without serious reduction in combat capabilities, degrading the professional development and thus status of women, and producing a potentially serious reduction in overall readiness. The sections that follow are edited extracts of U.S. Army War College (USAWC) Class of 2006 (except as noted) Personal Experience Monographs, Strategy Research Papers, or Directed Study: Writing Option papers. These papers are available in full through the USAWC Library Reference or Interlibrary Loan Section. The editors included major portions of several papers in order to emphasize the context within which these observations were made. The reader should take away two major points--the nature of combat for the U.S. Army has changed, and the existing rules governing the employment of women do not fit this new situation; and there is not the slightest doubt that women can perform their assigned duties in the combat zone, including engaging in combat actions essential to their personal and unit’s self-defense, with skill and valor equal to their male comrades. From the Survey, the reader should note continuing ambivalence about assignment to direct combat units, but strong support for revising the existing employment rules. No attempt has been made to examine Post-Traumatic Stress in women combat veterans, pregnancy rates, or any of the host of other gender-related issues. These officers asked simply, “Did the women do their jobs?”.....

[Jedburgh]

AP, 10 Mar 08: Woman Earns Silver Star in Afghanistan (http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,163630,00.html?wh=news)

A 19-year-old Army medic from Texas is set to become the first woman in Afghanistan -- and only the second female Soldier since World War II -- to receive the Silver Star, the nation's third-highest medal for valor.

Army Spc. Monica Lin Brown saved the lives of fellow Soldiers after a roadside bomb tore through a convoy of Humvees in the eastern Paktia province in April 2007, the military said.

After the explosion, which wounded five Soldiers in her unit, Brown ran through enemy gunfire and used her body to shield wounded comrades as mortars fell less than 100 yards away....

[reed11b]

The Female MP's in the MP company attached to my infantry company in Iraq did an excellent job under fire, returning fire, and living inside the wire. Camp Kalsu was nothing but a bombed radar station when we arrived with few generators and no plumbing. The females did not develop "feminine or Hygene" problems and remained fit to serve for the entire year, there were zero accounts of sexual assault or harrassmnt, and they performed very efectivly under fire. They earned my respect.
I am a counselor at the VA and talking with other GWOT combat vets, the women in forward deployed units that spent more time outside the wire had far fewer sexual harrasment or discipline problems then women in FOB units and the worse rates by far seemed to have come from Doha and Arifjan in Kuwait. Unfortunetly I have no studies or numbers to back this up, so take it for what it is worth
Reed

[120mm]

I've found, in my career, that the majority of female "duds" are present primarily because they've been catered to because of their gender.

Good female soldiers are good soldiers. Bad female soldiers tend to get a pass from superiors, because the superior is afraid to discipline the female soldier, and have the wrath of God visited upon him/her-self via the EO chain. As to whether females infantrymen can hack it, physically, I think it would take a special female soldier to do the job. As far as unit dynamics are concerned, female soldiers bring a unique challenge, but it isn't all bad. Female soldiers and leaders tend to have a unique view on things that can be good for a unit.

Just like with any soldier, it's a matter of leadership.

[Lilabeth]

Hasn't anyone on this website heard of COL Heidi V Brown?
She is 100% Army and proud of it.
Might want to check her out!

[Cavguy]

Hasn't anyone on this website heard of COL Heidi V Brown?
She is 100% Army and proud of it.
Might want to check her out!

I googled her.

OK, so she's an ADA COL. A great American. And? Lots of women have achieved lots more. I'm sure they're all 100% army and proud of it to.

Would be nice to see an intro posted on you and some more on why you think her career in particular brings something new to the discussion. As it is, I'm confused. No one here would stipulate that there have not been successful, extremely competent females who have achieved high rank.

[Fuchs]

Here's something funny
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BuoZGTMykI

The tragic: She made lieutenant later.


Personnel should be selected for the job, it's that simple.
If someone fails or hasn't the qualities anyway - why employ him or her in an unsuitable position?

[Norfolk]

Oooh, that brought back some bad memories of some similar events a long time ago on this side of the pond. Including one of a certain female who sort of freaked out on a range and sprayed live rounds on full auto right over the heads of many of the other soldiers on said range. I was ten or fifteen feet from her...:wry: Yeah, individuals like this one, male, female, Cousin It, or whatever, should either be thoroughly sorted out or separated from the service. But made an officer? [Shake head.]

My main worry is what standards are the males held to. Can they cross that assault course macht schnell with rifle and in full webbing, and be fit enough to go straight into a fight? I sure hope the Bundeswehr hasn't found itself caught in the jaws of a top-down, imposed political imperative/policy requirement here. I've seen how that works out.:(

And BW TV sure wasn't pulling any punches with this one. But it would probably have been better for BW TV not to feature those who should be culled, even if only in jest. Causes those who are capable and competent - male, female, whatever - to be pre-judged by others as being of the sort apparently featured here.

[jmm99]

I googled COL Brown - Now, I know I'm old because that sentence meant something quite different back in the day.

Anyway, the first Google hit was this:

http://userpages.aug.com/captbarb/firsts5.html

Lots of talent there. Four of six also are African-American. Not statistical proof of anything, but it supports Cavguy's bottom line.

I suspect the 24 other pages in that website have a lot more to offer.

My wife would say "right on - all the way".

[120mm]

Case in point: My former Battalion Commander was an African-American Female, and is the "poster-child" of what is wrong with the status quo with women in the military.

She is a double-minority, and it is my opinion that the only reason she is still in the military, an O-5 and a Battalion Commander, is because of the color of the skin and her plumbing.

She has a long and undistinguished history of failure in each and every leadership position she has held. It's a relatively small world, and I've had the opportunity to speak with several of her former subordinates who verify this. She is actively driving her current command into the ground, and they have consolidated the equivalent of another battalion under her due to reorg for her to destroy.

She is unable to qualify on her personal weapon. Her excuse is that the Army hasn't trained her properly, so she refuses to take efforts to train herself. "It's not my job to train myself, the Army needs to train me on my weapon" is what she has repeated told her subordinates, in public.

She has also repeatedly spoken in public and to her direct subordinates about how she's really not responsible for failures in her Battalion, "it's all on the Brigade Commander" is her response.

She repeatedly exhibits a lack of knowledge about how chain of command works, and is, frankly, a "dud". I have never met a male or caucasian officer who is this bad, who got promoted and had B.C., though some shot for close.

But she gets good OERs and has a decent shot at O-6.

On the other hand, I know several females between the ranks of E-1 and O-6 who have their stuff wired tight. Somebody, somewhere didn't do their duty vis-a-vis the aforementioned B.C.. And I suspect her gender and/or race influenced her continued promotion.

[Van]

120mm, it's not limited to women. LTG Sanchez (ret) on his post retirement book tour, apologia stomp sounds just like your old Bn CDR; "Higher didn't back me up, my subordinates are incompetent and untrained, we failed, but I did nothing wrong". And much like your aquaintance, he had a reputation (according to several primary sources) for systematically destroying morale and cohesion in his commands.

In my experience, women average a little more competent than men as leaders. I've seen a higher percentage of toxic commanders with the XY than the XX, but generally the guys get weeded out faster. The exceptions I've observed are as political as the gender issue ("we can't fire him, he went to [fill in the prestigious commissioning source]", or "he's a [pilot, ranger, high-speed course graduate], we need to give him another chance").

[120mm]

I agree. The problem isn't the commissioning source/ethnic background/gender, it's the lack of solid leadership, doing the right thing by either developing that individual, holding them accountable, and when necessary, seeing they are booted out of the Army.

So, are you still around Leavenworth?

And I personally really resent the Sanchez and others' comment about the competence level of his subordinates. During the train-up, his guys sucked, but by the time the war kicked off and after, they had weeded out the "duds" and had some pretty competent individuals working for him. Who lacked direction from him, obtw....

[BayonetBrant]

I think there is a lot more "personality" at play here than "gender" necessarily. But "gender" is more immediately discernable, and therefore becomes a proxy for having a multitude of personality traits ascribed to someone until they are later confirmed/denied.

An example would be the B.C. described above. Definitely a personality issue, and likely would not cut it in the combat arms.

But I've have a variety of women serve with tank battalions - as medics, S1 personnel, 77F's, etc - and mesh with the team just fine. It was their personality that allowed them to blend in. Someone above mentioned the wife dropping an f-bomb in front of the Marines, and suddenly everyone calmed down. That's a personality that can blend in with the Marines.

Unfortunately, there's no good, objective way to quantify the 'personality' issue such that it could be used as an acceptable discriminator for integrating women more closely into the combat arms, or for placing certain men into mixed-gender situations. Without that objective measure, we're back to arguing about XX vs XY and spinning our wheels.

[120mm]

I think there is a lot more "personality" at play here than "gender" necessarily. But "gender" is more immediately discernable, and therefore becomes a proxy for having a multitude of personality traits ascribed to someone until they are later confirmed/denied.

An example would be the B.C. described above. Definitely a personality issue, and likely would not cut it in the combat arms.

But I've have a variety of women serve with tank battalions - as medics, S1 personnel, 77F's, etc - and mesh with the team just fine. It was their personality that allowed them to blend in. Someone above mentioned the wife dropping an f-bomb in front of the Marines, and suddenly everyone calmed down. That's a personality that can blend in with the Marines.

Unfortunately, there's no good, objective way to quantify the 'personality' issue such that it could be used as an acceptable discriminator for integrating women more closely into the combat arms, or for placing certain men into mixed-gender situations. Without that objective measure, we're back to arguing about XX vs XY and spinning our wheels.

I think you're missing my point: The problem isn't that this individual has problems, and to be sure, "personality" is part of the issue, it is that her basic incompetence has been given a pass because of her gender and/or the color of her skin.

The typical army officer is extremely reluctant to "do the right thing" when confronted with a "dud" who happens to belong to a protected group. I guaran-freaking-tee you that being a member of that protected group gives them a potential lever to use against leaders who don't have their stuff wired extremely tight.

Having said that, non-dud women and ethnic minorities have a disadvantage, in that they are often excluded from "good ole boy" activities. My best friend, and best man at my wedding, is a brilliant leader whose ethnic identity is African-American, and he got completely hosed over by the system as currently constituted, for example. But he's not the kind of guy who'd use his ethnic makeup to defend himself. I work with some female former officers who've experienced similar things.

Really good leaders who DO have their stuff wired tight are able to get protected class duds out of the army. It just takes a little more work, in my experience.

[Jedburgh]

PBS Independent Lens: Lioness (http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/lioness/)

LIONESS profiles five women who saw action in Iraq’s Sunni Triangle during 2003 and 2004. As members of the U.S. Army’s 1st Engineer Battalion (http://www.diehardengineer.com/), Shannon Morgan, Rebecca Nava, Kate Pendry Guttormsen, Anastasia Breslow and Ranie Ruthig were sent to Iraq to provide supplies and logistical support to their male colleagues. Not trained for combat duty, the women unexpectedly became involved with fighting in the streets of Ramadi.

Told through interviews, journal excerpts and archival footage, LIONESS offers a portrait of five soldiers who are also wives, mothers and daughters, and who have long coped with the demands of military life, especially the sacrifices involved in leaving behind spouses and young children. These combat-tested women exemplify what it means to be a good soldier, and illustrate the complicated role that women play in direct war combat. Reflecting on their recent deployment, the Lionesses display strength and candor, bridging the gap between the perception and the reality of the essential role women are playing in Iraq.

[120mm]

Not trained for combat duty, the women unexpectedly became involved with fighting in the streets of Ramadi.

I've not read the article yet, (but will, I promise) but the above quote deeply offends my sensibilities. I don't think post-2004, you can use this as an excuse anymore. Everyone, as far as I know, is trained for combat duty. Those that are not, are either not motivated to pay attention, or are suffering from epic poor leadership in their CoC.

[reed11b]

Most of the problems with "not trained for combat" as I understand it, had little to do with combat training but failure to understand and be able to interoperate with the marines which they had been attached too. Many Army Infantry soldiers could have had the same problem. There is alot of sensationalism in the story that I take with a grain of salt, but I feel there is a point to saying that it is unfair to state that women are "not in combat roles" and expect them to take combat training with the same seriousness as the male soldiers. Heck, you should have seen the male medical support company soldiers I was trying to help train for the A-stanin 05-06. Pretty sorry bunch when it came to combat skills. This was because they convinced themselves they would never be under fire in a support battalion. They were wrong.
Reed

[Schmedlap]

Kings of War (http://kingsofwar.wordpress.com/2009/10/21/women-at-war/#comments) posted a piece titled, "Women at War (http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&site=kingsofwar.wordpress.com&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2009%2F10%2F21% 2Fopinion%2F21iht-edbroadwell.html%3Fhpw)" from a NY Times op-ed. The gist of it...

The U.S. ground combat exclusion policy is outdated. Women from many countries have shown themselves to be valuable contributors in our wars – from conventional warfare to countering insurgencies. At least twelve countries around the globe allow women to serve on the front lines. Why are the U.S. and the UK behind the times? Or, should our role remain limited on the battlefield?I posted a couple responses, but then quickly saw where the comment section was going, so I called it a day. The gist of my responses...

In response to the article...

The author takes a theater-specific, mission-specific anecdote and turns it into justification for a sweeping policy change. Among other issues that I have with this piece, I have a problem with the leading question that, at least twelve countries around the globe allow women to serve on the front lines. Why are the U.S. and the UK behind the times? That’s like asking, “some high school baseball team has a girl playing left field, so why doesn’t the Boston Red Sox start recruiting women softball players?”

The US military, in terms of its degree of lethality and the manner in which it is used, is very difficult to compare to any other military. Even if one could find some close matches, American culture is unique and the role of women in the the US military is as much a function of the way in which we use our forces as it is a function of the attitudes of our society about the role of women in combat. If our infantry units did little more than set up base camps in safe areas, like many other western military units, then our society might have a different opinion of combat and, by extension, the role of women in combat. If we were continually threatened – or at least perceived that we were – with existential threats, like the Israelis, then we might demand more of all of our citizens, including women. But neither of those are the case for the US.

I hope that policy makers will look at the example given and recognize how narrow this set of circumstances is, and that those policy makers will be hesitant to consider it as a justification for making sweeping policy changes.And then my response to a commenter who wanted to know the justification for opposing the policy change.

I don’t think the burden of persuasion in this case is on the party “opposing change.” I think the burden of persuasion is on the party proposing the change. Why is the current policy inadequate? We’ve been given a theater-specific, mission-specific anecdote and the story includes a summary of how we adapted to make the FET possible within the construct of our current personnel regulations. So why the need for a change? It seems that changing the policy would be a broad, long-term alteration for a very specific, short-term use.Am I making any sense here or am I smoking crack?

I was particularly struck by commenters who assumed that our policy should be guided by equal opportunity.

[reed11b]

After serving along side female MP's in poor living conditions and not seeing any of the many excuses I have often heard against women in combat come to reality, I disagree with you. That being said, your logic is sound and the burden is on us that disagree with current policy. The "pregnancy excuse" I always hear roled out due to the Navy's bad experience on ships, I have not seen in units w/ female soldiers that often go outside the wire, but I saw a ton of it in Kuwait and the larger FOBs. Probably something to that, but my face hurts due the dentist, so I am done for now.
Reed

[OfTheTroops]

My Soldiers were judged on individual merit regardless of sex by me and my direct chain of command. However we were constantly bombarded by senior combat arms and sister services who had ZERO experience with female Soldiers in combat or anything close. I would not propose that we shoot for a demographically representative Infantry on the front lines of Z-Day or the like but when a Soldier has a job (like MP) that they are train for and meet the mission and training requirements they should do the job. In many places they fail to train their female troops to boots on the ground reality and refuse to assign them below certain levels. My MP's told me they became that because it was the closest they could get to the fight. I was damn proud of them. They were not each the greatest but every Soldier on their individual merit.

[OfTheTroops]

Guess I shoulda read the article. What a sham? Train the Troops. There is no front. "NUTS!"

[Perpetual_Student]

I have tried to search the blog to find this topic and see the arguments that have already been posted, only to find that this specific issues seems to have not been talked about. Therefore, I would like to discuss whether women should or should not be allowed to have a combat arms MOS.

I was educated this weekend on the fact that Canada and Germany both have Female Infantry Officers. I do not know if this is correct but I am coming here to find the facts and get others opinion.

[82redleg]

GEN Chiarelli has a discussion about this topic in the CAC blogs

http://usacac.army.mil/blog/blogs/guestblog/archive/2010/07/28/women-in-the-army.aspx

[SJPONeill]

We've allowed women in all the combat trades for some years now, the arbiter being their ability to do the job rather than where where their bumpy bits might be. The only area in which women have yet to gain entry is into the badged SAS - there is no legislative barrier to this, just that none has attempted Selection yet. Women have successfully served in many SF support roles, flying roles including strike, and infantry and armour roles.

Once all the talk prior was over, the actual opening up of these roles was pretty painless and, to date, there have been no more or no less incidents with women in these roles than with women in more traditional support roles. IMHO, by offering to treat women differently for no good reason (as opposed to where such reason may apply) we are doing some very professional operators a disservice.

[Brett Patron]

How about: "When will women have the same PT test standards?"
or
"When will women publish professional articles on combat service support functions in combat zones (e.g. counter ambush, small unit defense, etc)?

You know...stuff they are doing now.

[SethB]

What do you mean about PT tests?

[SJPONeill]

"When will women publish professional articles on combat service support functions in combat zones (e.g. counter ambush, small unit defense, etc)?


Who's to say they don't now? I tend to be more interested in the content of the article than the sex of the author...

[Perpetual_Student]

I know in the USMC women do a flex arm hang instead of pullups. This is a whole different topic but instead of doing dead hang pull ups (which your body isnt naturally built for) we should do kipping pull ups and raise the standard on the number that needs to be accomplished. I am from the crossfit community and there are PLENTY of women that can do plenty of pullups. Same thing for the run. The standards are set lower for the amount of time that it takes them in achieving a 100 pts for the run or for passing it in general. It does not just stop at the PFT either.

But why should it change in relation to them having a combat arms MOS? If they can pass the PT standard they should be combat arms? I know you did not directly say that but is that what you are implying?

[Adam L]

This is a whole different topic but instead of doing dead hang pull ups (which your body isnt naturally built for) we should do kipping pull ups and raise the standard on the number that needs to be accomplished.

Kipping pull ups are a nice trick, but more a test of technique than physical strength.


But why should it change in relation to them having a combat arms MOS? If they can pass the PT standard they should be combat arms? I know you did not directly say that but is that what you are implying?

I believe what he is saying is that there should be ONE PFT standard for combat arms. For that matter, there should be one PFT scale for all service members regardless of age or sex.

Adam L

[SJPONeill]

For that matter, there should be one PFT scale for all service members regardless of age or sex. Adam L

Well...no....The fitness scale should be relevant to the trade and employment group...those relevant for a pilot are not the same as those required in the infantry or armour and those may be different again from those necessary for SF or CSS or staff...

It's all very well to want a force all at the same high standard but I'd suggest that would be a very small force indeed...

Certainly my current requirement to navigate the Zimmerframe around the circuit in less than a week is less than the standards that had to met in my infantry days but the current requirement for me is certainly adequate for my (non-op) staff role...

[82redleg]

I'm with Adam. If we truly have an expeditionary army, then everyone must be capable of the minimum of physical exertion. Yeah, you're only a ...... (Patriot missile maintenance unit anyone?) but, push comes to shove, you need to be able to fight.

SPJONeill, your mindset is indicative of the mindset we had to get rid of from the US Army after 2003.

That isn't to say that individual units shouldn't set higher standards, based on the unit mission, but in the units I've been in, the unit standard was a single standard, regardless of age/gender, not age- and gender-normed, like the APFT is. An example is the XVIII ABN Corps 20km footmarch standard- the standard is 4 hours, with 35lb pack, weapon, helmet and LBE, regardless of age and/or gender. That said, IN (and other combat arms units) hold themselves to significantly higher standards.

[Perpetual_Student]

What I am saying is that if EVERY Marine is a rifleman than there should be one rifleman standard. Once a student gets to their specific MOS producing school there should be another standard for PT that needs to be met. For instance when you go to IOC to become a Marine Infantry Officer you have to pass the Combat Endurance Test. That is not the standard for the Communications Officer that is going to his/her follow on school after TBS.


Kipping pull ups are a nice trick, but more a test of technique than physical strength.

Not an entirely true statement. There is a technique, I do not disagree with that at all. But there is a techniques to climbing a tree as well and I guarantee you that it looks more like a kipping pullup that a dead hang pullup. And also I would doubt that on a consistent basis you would be capable of jumping through multiple windows and over multiple walls in country (full combat load) without executing some sort of kipping.

Which brings about the question WHY do we have a PT standard at all? Is it for promotion? Is qualify people to be a part of the service? Is it to separate the services? Why don't we look at that question as well. Regardless though going back to the original argument the reason I said kipping pullups is because it is functional and then you wouldn't have to scale that portion for women. Also it would tie into the concept that every Marine is a rifleman. The implied statement there is that you will be exercising the muscles that make it capable for you to be able to climb over walls and through windows amongst many other things a strong back and abs will do for you.

Which brings me back to if every Marine is a rifleman and we all need to be able to accomplish the same task, the standard needs to be that when I ask a female to get over a wall in country or she needs to get through a window she has the ability and has been held to the standard of exercising those muscles that will allow her to accomplish the mission. I do not believe that a flex arm hang mental prepares her for the challenges she may face.

[SJPONeill]

I'm with Adam. If we truly have an expeditionary army, then everyone must be capable of the minimum of physical exertion. Yeah, you're only a ...... (Patriot missile maintenance unit anyone?) but, push comes to shove, you need to be able to fight.

SPJONeill, your mindset is indicative of the mindset we had to get rid of from the US Army after 2003.

That isn't to say that individual units shouldn't set higher standards, based on the unit mission, but in the units I've been in, the unit standard was a single standard, regardless of age/gender, not age- and gender-normed, like the APFT is. An example is the XVIII ABN Corps 20km footmarch standard- the standard is 4 hours, with 35lb pack, weapon, helmet and LBE, regardless of age and/or gender. That said, IN (and other combat arms units) hold themselves to significantly higher standards.

But you are still only talking of a minimum standard. I'm sure that the standard you cite above from XVIII ABN Corps was the minimum , not the only, standard within that corps and that the various functional units within it had their own (higher) standards applicable to their roles. From an infantry perspective that standard is pretty light and I'm willing to bet that the infantry community in that corps would have been interested in longer distances, heavier loads AND, most importantly, being able to operate at the end of the foot march.

My point is that, if you insist on a single service fitness standard (as opposed to a practical (i.e. based on operational requirements) minimum standard), you will either have a standard based on the lowest common denominator or a service that is a lot smaller...

[davidbfpo]

As I read this thread and reflecting limited newsreel watching - what is practice in the Israeli Defence Forces? Who appear to have conscript women in some roles, although my limited memory cannot recall them being combat roles.

(Incidentally do we have an Israeli members?).

[82redleg]

But you are still only talking of a minimum standard. I'm sure that the standard you cite above from XVIII ABN Corps was the minimum , not the only, standard within that corps and that the various functional units within it had their own (higher) standards applicable to their roles. From an infantry perspective that standard is pretty light and I'm willing to bet that the infantry community in that corps would have been interested in longer distances, heavier loads AND, most importantly, being able to operate at the end of the foot march.

My point is that, if you insist on a single service fitness standard (as opposed to a practical (i.e. based on operational requirements) minimum standard), you will either have a standard based on the lowest common denominator or a service that is a lot smaller...

The standard is always the minimum, because, by definition, you can exceed it, but not fall below it. If it is not the minimum, it is a goal, not a standard.

[Infanteer]

As I read this thread and reflecting limited newsreel watching - what is practice in the Israeli Defence Forces? Who appear to have conscript women in some roles, although my limited memory cannot recall them being combat roles.

(Incidentally do we have an Israeli members?).

Don't know about Israel but we've had women in all branches for a few decades now. We've lost two female soldiers from the combat arms in Afghanistan - A FOO in a ambush/firefight and an armoured recce trooper to an IED.

It's really a non-issue up here.

[Perpetual_Student]

Infanteer: What have you seen to be the advantages/disadvantages of women in combat arms MOSs? Also are they both enlisted and officer or just one or the other?

SJPOneill: I think a smaller service would not be the end of the world. But I do not think that the qualifier/disqualifier should not necessarily be a physical test because their are some people out there that just are not physically fit but are very smart and have great critical thinking skills, which certain services demand. I still want those guys on my side but maybe not in certain MOSs. So does it change from service to service or from MOS to MOS (the standard)? Then linking it back into the topic, does a female that passes whatever the standard is have the ability to join combat arms MOSs and then test at that follow on schools PT/academic test?

[Adam L]

Well...no....The fitness scale should be relevant to the trade and employment group...those relevant for a pilot are not the same as those required in the infantry or armour and those may be different again from those necessary for SF or CSS or staff...

It's all very well to want a force all at the same high standard but I'd suggest that would be a very small force indeed...

Certainly my current requirement to navigate the Zimmerframe around the circuit in less than a week is less than the standards that had to met in my infantry days but the current requirement for me is certainly adequate for my (non-op) staff role...

I never said we should have the same scores necessary for given positions. Rather, I am suggesting that there be a single scale. A 120 should be a 120 and a 295 should be a 295. There shouldn't be a different test for women. Instead there should simply be different acceptable minimums.

Sorry for the confusion.
Adam L

[Adam L]

Don't know about Israel but we've had women in all branches for a few decades now. We've lost two female soldiers from the combat arms in Afghanistan - A FOO in a ambush/firefight and an armoured recce trooper to an IED.

It's really a non-issue up here.

Hmmm....yes and no. Yes, the Canadian Forces is fully integrated, but the debate over whether they are better of for it is still a matter of some debate. Norfolk made some very interesting and insightful comments to this respect in this (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?p=28155&highlight=women#post28155)thread.

Adam L

[Adam L]

Not an entirely true statement. There is a technique, I do not disagree with that at all. But there is a techniques to climbing a tree as well and I guarantee you that it looks more like a kipping pullup that a dead hang pullup. And also I would doubt that on a consistent basis you would be capable of jumping through multiple windows and over multiple walls in country (full combat load) without executing some sort of kipping.

Yes, but kipping pull up technique can be taught with relative ease. Physical strength isn't as easy. Give me 15 minutes and I'll have 50 men doing Kipping pullups. Training on properly conditioned muscles is a whole other thing. I think your comments about whether you would do much in reality without some sort of kipping pull up is very weak. You could also make the argument about push ups. How often do you have to keep your body that straight? When would you be unable to get to your knees before pushing yourself up? Push ups and pull ups are simply effective time tested methods of increasing strenghty (when used as an exercise) and/or measuring strength.

Adam L

[Rifleman]

OSS and SOE both used women agents in WWII in Europe. So women have successfully served in some sort of special ops capacity in modern war.

Having said that, I don't know the details of how the were used but I don't think they were members of Operational Groups or Jedburghs.

[Fuchs]

Women in normal combat units are still an experiment, for there's not enough relevant (combat) experience with them.


The Russians dodged the problem of uncertainty about the psychological effects by training women as snipers - a speciality which is typically not much integrated into the cohesive small units of infantrymen.


Btw, it is totally self-evident to me that fitness requirements for soldiers of need to be blind to gender. The job description (aka MOS) and the individual's weight&size should be the only influences on the minimum standard.

[Have Gun - Will Travel]

For what purpose?

The only valid purpose is: in order to increase the likelihood of victory in combat (military necessity). All other purposes (such as equal opportunity) are irrelevant.

[Fuchs]

Actually, no.

Equal opportunities are seen as a right, and a military cannot defend the freedom and well-being of its country by violating its values and rights of its citizens.


There are more possible reasons anyway; the recruitment pool is widened, thus recruitment might become cheaper, saving taxpayer money.

[jmm99]

Fuchs

We've discussed this somewhere else; but the bottom line is that Germany and the US have different values and rights re: employment and the place of the military vice general society, in their basic laws (for us, Constitution) and statutory laws.

So, neither did the older US policy (no women in the military) violate US values and rights of that time; nor does the current policy (women in limited combat roles) violate US values and rights of today.

Cheers with the rest of the debate.

Mike

[82redleg]

Actually, no.

Equal opportunities are seen as a right, and a military cannot defend the freedom and well-being of its country by violating its values and rights of its citizens.


There are more possible reasons anyway; the recruitment pool is widened, thus recruitment might become cheaper, saving taxpayer money.

So the military should have to accept the mentally retarded, the overweight and the physically handicapped? It is, after all, a right. We'd save money in recruitment, too, since we might not have to recruit so hard. Military effectiveness be damned, right?

And I am not equating the three groups, just pointing out three other groups that have even fewer options for service than women.

[Uboat509]

This same debate comes up periodically and it never really changes. PT is always the first thing that is brought up. Ignoring all the emotional issues, the simple fact is that females do not produce large amounts of testosterone which is the primary muscle builder in males. It also increases bone density. Women's bodies are simply not made for strength. That is just biology. Now, of course someone always has a story about a female he knew that that could do a thousand dead hang pull-ups and then run six minute miles for ten miles. That's great but the PT test standards aren't built toward the exceptions, they are built toward the averages. Is the average female able to physically do the same things as the average male. The answer is no.

[Fuchs]

So the military should have to accept the mentally retarded, the overweight and the physically handicapped? It is, after all, a right. We'd save money in recruitment, too, since we might not have to recruit so hard. Military effectiveness be damned, right?

And I am not equating the three groups, just pointing out three other groups that have even fewer options for service than women.

"Equal opportunity" would be given with equal entrance requirements. You do not need to accept everyone, just treat them equal for "equal opportunity".

[Adam L]

"Equal opportunity" would be given with equal entrance requirements. You do not need to accept everyone, just treat them equal for "equal opportunity".

Equal opportunity is irrelevant here. The job of the US Armed Forces is to be combat effective. All assets are to be used where, when and if practicable. If you can argue the military is not doing so for arbitrary and capricious reasons then you have a point then you might have a legitimate grievance.

Adam L

[Infanteer]

Hmmm....yes and no. Yes, the Canadian Forces is fully integrated, but the debate over whether they are better of for it is still a matter of some debate. Norfolk made some very interesting and insightful comments to this respect in this (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?p=28155&highlight=women#post28155)thread.

Adam L

His observations from 20 years ago are simply that, observations from 20 years ago. Times are a bit different these days.

[JMA]

I believe what he is saying is that there should be ONE PFT standard for combat arms. For that matter, there should be one PFT scale for all service members regardless of age or sex.

Adam L

Exactly

[JMA]

... in the units I've been in, the unit standard was a single standard, regardless of age/gender, ...

That's how it should be.

[JMA]

There shouldn't be a different test for women. Instead there should simply be different acceptable minimums.

Sorry for the confusion.
Adam L

What are you saying now? That everyone done the same test but the minimum standard required from women is different (lower)?

[JMA]

This same debate comes up periodically and it never really changes. PT is always the first thing that is brought up. Ignoring all the emotional issues, the simple fact is that females do not produce large amounts of testosterone which is the primary muscle builder in males. It also increases bone density. Women's bodies are simply not made for strength. That is just biology. Now, of course someone always has a story about a female he knew that that could do a thousand dead hang pull-ups and then run six minute miles for ten miles. That's great but the PT test standards aren't built toward the exceptions, they are built toward the averages. Is the average female able to physically do the same things as the average male. The answer is no.

I have always assumed that the PT tests / Battle fitness tests I did were designed around the minimum physical requirements (through years of experience) required of a soldier to perform in the type of unit. The minimum standard would apply across the board while the better units trained against a higher (self imposed) standard.

None of this should have changed... to either make it easier or more difficult for females to join the army and any particular unit. It anything has changed - up or down - then that is a problem.

[JMA]

Its all pretty hypocritical really...

I am told that in the US this is the standard (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703389004575033601528093416.html) to be used:


... This they do by means of an ethos that stresses discipline, morale, good order and unit cohesion. Anything that threatens the nonsexual bonding that lies at the heart of unit cohesion adversely affects morale, disciple and good order, generating friction and undermining this ethos.

Does the introduction of females into combat units and the military in general comply with the above?

Sorry... forgot to say that that quote relates to gays in the military.

So I ask again... does the introduction of females into combat units and the military in general comply with the above?

Surely there needs a look into this following situation?

Pregnancy during Operation Iraqi Freedom/Operation Enduring Freedom (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3912/is_200705/ai_n19431431/)

Hang on a minute with 75% became pregnant after arrival in theater what ever happened to this nonsexual bonding ?

Then we have this one:

Serving U.S troops could face prison if they fall pregnant while active (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1237333/Serving-U-S-troops-face-prison-fall-pregnant-active.html)

And then we look at this:

US military sex attack reports up (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7950439.stm)


Among the report's findings:

* There were 2,923 reported sexual assaults in the 2008 fiscal year, up from 2,688 in 2007

* There 251 incidents in combat areas, including 141 in Iraq and 22 in Afghanistan

* Investigations took place in 2,763 cases. In 832 cases, action was taken, including 317 courts-martial, a rise of 38%

* Of the 6.8% of women and 1.8% of men who indicated they had experienced unwanted sexual contact, the majority - 79% of women and 78% of men - chose not to report it.

Perhaps the following website /book (http://www.warandgender.com/) will provide a point of departure for this discussion?

[Pete]

The Field Artillery Officer Basic Course after mine at Fort Sill in 1978 had its first female student. To prevent the anticipated snide remarks and rumors she was made the student class leader. If I recall correctly some years later when she was coming close to the end of her service obligation she gave an interview in which she said she was disappointed that female FA officers were then limited to missile-type systems, Lance and Pershing, and excluded from tube artillery units.

[Traveling Man]

Marines, especially grunts, have no difficulty finding trouble as it is. Realistically, women in the combat arms fields would yield more problems than benefits, physical fitness aside. Junior officers/Staff NCOs have enough discipline problems to deal with. Trying to maintain and improve a victor unit's combat effectiveness would be almost untenable with females in the picture. Just my two cents.

[JMA]

The Field Artillery Officer Basic Course after mine at Fort Sill in 1978 had its first female student. To prevent the anticipated snide remarks and rumors she was made the student class leader. If I recall correctly some years later when she was coming close to the end of her service obligation she gave an interview in which she said she was disappointed that female FA officers were then limited to missile-type systems, Lance and Pershing, and excluded from tube artillery units.

Were they... and if so why?

[Ken White]

combat roles really revolves around fear of their capture -- and, today, for the potential of rape and the resultant publicity / IO aspects. The rationale was that those in rocket and missile units would be further in the rear in a linear war and thus less subject to potential capture while the tube Arty folks were right up front. Same principle held for the aviators; initially they were restricted to transports and such, theoretically less subject to enemy downing -- despite the fact that the average female has some advantages over average males in aerial combat.

We still put a lot of stock in 1917...:rolleyes:

[Pete]

We still put a lot of stock in 1917...:rolleyes:
When Pershing was Chief of Staff in the 1920s the basic and advanced branch officer courses were instituted to put company-grade officer training on a more solid footing.

[Perpetual_Student]

I can understand and wrap my head around the idea that being in combat arms (Infantry) puts you more on the front line and "in the action." Although we should not forget and absolutely must appreciate specifically the logistical trains that go out EVERYDAY that are in just as much danger if not more than Infantry units. I have never been to Afghanistan but I can only imagine since they dont have much of a "road" network that the log trains would be traveling a lot of the same routes.

All this said there are women that are motor-t drivers and logisticians. Should we be removing them as well.

I am only playing devils advocate. Not agreeing at all that women should be in Combat Arms, but we need to have a strong argument in the future because the time may come sooner than we think.

[Pete]

The integration of racial minorities and women into the U.S. armed forces are done deals. The gay thing will eventually happen. My impression is that people younger than I don't have the same predjudices that we did in the old days -- the kids today are more comfortable than my generation was about having openly gay people around them. In any event, the U.S. armed forces will survive, and weirdos, misfits, and those who can't hack it will be sent packing, as they always have been.

[Rifleman]

Besides aviation, the combat role I think women could be most suited for is certain SOF roles.

I don't mean on ODAs - I don't think women belong on a sure enough rucksack team - but, as I mentioned, the OSS and SOE employed numerous women agents in occupied Europe with parachute insertions, espionage, sabotage, partisan liasons, etc., being done by women at times. All of this put them in position for death or capture. I also believe women could be suited for certain counter terrortist roles.

Besides, if you get a couple of gals who look like the ones protrayed in Where Eagles Dare how could you not be for it? :D

[Uboat509]

Although we should not forget and absolutely must appreciate specifically the logistical trains that go out EVERYDAY that are in just as much danger if not more than Infantry units.

This is another argument that invariably gets made in the debate. It really does not hold true. There is a world of difference between a CSS unit where the primary goal will be to avoid contact and break contact if they cannot avoid it and a Combat Arms unit where the goal is to seek contact and then close with and destroy the enemy.

[Ken White]

For less than good reasons. Thanks for reminding everyone.
"There is a world of difference between a CSS unit where the primary goal will be to avoid contact and break contact if they cannot avoid it and a Combat Arms unit where the goal is to seek contact..."

[Uboat509]

Besides aviation, the combat role I think women could be most suited for is certain SOF roles.

I don't mean on ODAs - I don't think women belong on a sure enough rucksack team - but, as I mentioned, the OSS and SOE employed numerous women agents in occupied Europe with parachute insertions, espionage, sabotage, partisan liasons, etc., being done by women at times. All of this put them in position for death or capture. I also believe women could be suited for certain counter terrortist roles.


I tend to agree with this but this is, I believe, a wholly different argument than the one that this thread is about. SOF is a different animal than than GPF. Whereas the primary purpose (in broad terms) of GPF Combat Arms forces is to close with and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver, SOF, by definition, is required to fill a great many more, what I will call niche jobs for lack of a better term. Some of these are jobs for which females are well suited and may even be better suited than males.

[Adam L]

What are you saying now? That everyone done the same test but the minimum standard required from women is different (lower)?

For combat arms there should be one standard, but there are a great many areas where physical strenght isn't as important. What is needed though is good general fitness. An average woman in minimum acceptable fitness will score lower than an average male who is at minimal acceptable fitness. In an ideal world there would be one standard, but there are certain areas where we need everyone we can get.

Adam L

[Uboat509]

Over the years I have somewhat moderated my feelings physical fitness in the military. I have decided that competence at your job is FAR more important than physical fitness. When I go to finance to get my pay problems fixed, I want a guy who will get that done in a timely and effective manner. If I can find that guy, I don't care if he can do A sit-up or run two miles in under a day, he is still much preferable to the guy who can score 400 on the extended scale PT test but leaves my paperwork in a desk drawer for two months until I have to resubmit it for the second or third time. Sure, ideally we would like to have both, in a perfect world but since we live in this one I would prefer that supervisors recognized which of those two things is more important.

There is a caveat to my view, however. For some jobs, notably most Combat Arms (excluding Armor :D) physical fitness is a component of job competence. In other words, you can be fat and out of shape and still be a good PAC clerk or Heavy Wheel Vehicle Mechanic but you cannot be a fat and out of shape and be a good infantryman. That is an oversimplification and I realize that some basic fitness standards are necessary for everyone in the force. I am simply trying to put things in perspective with regards to physical fitness standards. I have seen too many guys who were good at their jobs whose lives were made extra difficult because they were not the strongest at PT or did not meet the arbitrary height/weight standards and at the same time I saw way too many "PT Studs" get over with not being particularly good at their jobs because they were good at PT.

Having said all that, I am definitely a proponent of changing PT standards to be more in line with the Branch or even MOS.

[Boss Mongo]

Arguing back and forth about the PT capabilities of females is missing the point.
For combat arms units, my objection to allowing women in is the same as my objection to homosexuals: anytime the spectre of the ballistic impact of glistening genitalia enters the realm of small units, morale and discipline is adversely affected.
One may exalt the Israelis for what they've accomplished with regard to Equal Opportunity, but when is the last time the Israelis fielded a long-term expeditionary force?
In the close confines of a small unit that faces mortal combat day in and day out, I don't care what the aggregate number of pull-ups within the unit is. What I care about is the destructive force of x percentage of the unit getting a nut while y percentage remains celibate. This may not be egalitarian, this may not be fair, this may not conform to the equal rights for which we fight for the population at large. So?
If the purpose of combat arms is to field a cohesive, all-for-one-and-one-for-all unit, then sex--homo or hetero--needs to remain outside the domain of the unit. Anyone who thinks our society has evolved beyond such quaint notions as love, jealously, and vindictiveness is setting up the combat arms for an epic fail. Put Othello, Desdemona, and Iago in the same Infantry squad (or ODA) and see how that works out.

[JMA]

Besides aviation, the combat role I think women could be most suited for is certain SOF roles.

I don't mean on ODAs - I don't think women belong on a sure enough rucksack team - but, as I mentioned, the OSS and SOE employed numerous women agents in occupied Europe with parachute insertions, espionage, sabotage, partisan liasons, etc., being done by women at times. All of this put them in position for death or capture. I also believe women could be suited for certain counter terrortist roles.

Besides, if you get a couple of gals who look like the ones protrayed in Where Eagles Dare how could you not be for it? :D

The numbers we would be talking about here are insignificant and would not address the demand for gender integration in the (any) armed forces.

[JMA]

For combat arms there should be one standard, but there are a great many areas where physical strenght isn't as important. What is needed though is good general fitness. An average woman in minimum acceptable fitness will score lower than an average male who is at minimal acceptable fitness. In an ideal world there would be one standard, but there are certain areas where we need everyone we can get.

Adam L

This standard would be varied because of the differing physical demands of the various work requirements or to accommodate females?

[JMA]

Over the years I have somewhat moderated my feelings physical fitness in the military. I have decided that competence at your job is FAR more important than physical fitness. When I go to finance to get my pay problems fixed, I want a guy who will get that done in a timely and effective manner. If I can find that guy, I don't care if he can do A sit-up or run two miles in under a day, he is still much preferable to the guy who can score 400 on the extended scale PT test but leaves my paperwork in a desk drawer for two months until I have to resubmit it for the second or third time. Sure, ideally we would like to have both, in a perfect world but since we live in this one I would prefer that supervisors recognized which of those two things is more important.

There is a caveat to my view, however. For some jobs, notably most Combat Arms (excluding Armor :D) physical fitness is a component of job competence. In other words, you can be fat and out of shape and still be a good PAC clerk or Heavy Wheel Vehicle Mechanic but you cannot be a fat and out of shape and be a good infantryman. That is an oversimplification and I realize that some basic fitness standards are necessary for everyone in the force. I am simply trying to put things in perspective with regards to physical fitness standards. I have seen too many guys who were good at their jobs whose lives were made extra difficult because they were not the strongest at PT or did not meet the arbitrary height/weight standards and at the same time I saw way too many "PT Studs" get over with not being particularly good at their jobs because they were good at PT.

Having said all that, I am definitely a proponent of changing PT standards to be more in line with the Branch or even MOS.

I believe you are casting the net too wide. This issue being argued here is simple.

Is it necessary to have the same physical fitness standard and physical capability for male and female soldiers doing exactly the same job?

[reed11b]

My personal experience with being co-located with a company of MPs in Iraq in '03 at (then) Camp Kalsu tells me that some women could do just fine in combat arms. The last two excuses of why women could not be in combat arms that I held on too were disproved there. Our hygiene and living conditions were as minimal as they can be and not a single female soldier was sent home for "feminine issues". There was also no sexual harassment or women sent home pregnant, we were too busy fighting and surviving. They kept cool under fire and did not complain any more (often less) then the men. Now when we got to Kuwait, where the women were treated different, sexual assault and pregnancies were the rule, not the exception. Treat them like soldiers and they might surprise you and live up to the expectation. My final caveat is that until there are enough women that want to do infantry, the few who could do it and are willing to try will be harassed and hazed into quitting, unfortunately.
Reed

[Perpetual_Student]

Boss Mongo
Missing the point
Arguing back and forth about the PT capabilities of females is missing the point.

Could not agree more! When you look at the arguement we all go back to PT standards (myself included) which I do agree have some relevance. Although I think we are missing the bigger picture because I know some women that can definitely beat some of the men I have seen in the combat arms. If all we can argue is PT standards and physical tests I think that we are missing the point or just do not have a solid argument. There are other reasons such as pregnancy, how the world views women, how America would respond to a female getting killed in a "combat" situation. There are a lot more arguments out there that I think we are missing. Lets transfer the PT conversation to another thread. I will start it in a second.


There is a world of difference between a CSS unit where the primary goal will be to avoid contact and break contact if they cannot avoid it and a Combat Arms unit where the goal is to seek contact and then close with and destroy the enemy.

I would absolutely agree with you on what the stated "goal" is of the perspective units. I would disagree or you misunderstood my point that although CSS units try to avoid contact or break contact, the enemy knows these are the least trained units as well as they are able to break our logistical assets (because we do not live off the people) getting to our FOBs and COPs. Therefore why try and attack the Infantry when I can attack these units that are bound to the same roads and are huge targets of multiple vehicles?

[Adam L]

This standard would be varied because of the differing physical demands of the various work requirements or to accommodate females?

Forget about the two standards thing. Make one standard and waiver in anyone we really nead. (For example: Mathematicians who just don't cut it physically, but it doesn't matter because the closest they will get to the frontlines will be a computer several thousand miles away.) All I was trying to say is that absolute minimum standards for waiverability for men and women should be different. That was kind of stupid now that I think about it. If we suddenly need a brilliant computer programer who hasn't left his mother's basement in 35 years and is 2 cheeseburgers away from a heart attack we probably won't give a damn. :D)

Adam L

[baduin]

The issue of women in combat is, as usual, obscured by the traditional Western prejudice, romanticism and chivalry. Therefore, some obvious facts:

1) Women, on average, make much worse soldiers than men.
2) It makes no sense to require women to possess physical standards identical to men. You will not make women men, anyway. I hope I will offend nobody by observing that women differ physically from men, and this has consequences for various tests. If someone doubts it, I suggest to watch some sports on TV. A woman in a good physical condition will have different physical capabilities from a man.
3) This is no reason not to allow female citizens to die for their country. Al-Qaida does it, despite the notorious Arab sexism. Why shouldn't America do the same? The main problem in Afghanistan is not enough soldiers on patrols. Any soldier helps. Even if women are not as good as men, they can still fight, die, and kill. They will suffer perhaps more casualties - but even so, if we send 1000 women to Afghanistan, and 200 are eliminated, we have still 800 soldiers more than we would have otherwise. Anyone, Taliban are a fairly weak opponent, and women should manage to kill them.
4) It is well known that young women and men tend to engage in sex when placed in close proximity; and even if they do not, thanks to the well-known American self-discipline, you still get some feelings, which are impossible to eliminate. This is bad for unit cohesion. Moreover, women are, as I wrote above, different physically from men (on average smaller, weaker, lighter etc) and therefore require different standard kit, etc.
5) For those reasons, women in combat will be most useful if placed in an all-female unit. This has been the usual practice in all armies that used female soldiers. I think that as a minimum, an all-female battalion would be required to function effectively. Such a unit could help to offset inadequate number of troops in Afghanistan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahomey_Amazons

6) Such a unit would also have wide ranging public relations possibilities. It would serve to showcase the oppression of women by Taliban, esp. if there was a widespread volunteer movement amongst feminists.

[Ironhorse]

We don't have a great track record with "separate but equal" through myriad flavors of segregation, and "separate + unequal" has all kinds of problems, too. Your idea addresses one issue (intramural sex) but is rife with many others.


This has been the usual practice in all armies that used female soldiers. I think that as a minimum, an all-female battalion would be required to function effectively. Such a unit could help to offset inadequate number of troops in Afghanistan.

Really? The usual practice? You say that like it is obvious and I honestly don't know -- can you provide more examples than one obscure Benin group? Of legitimate employment of all-female units, rather than some training / sourcing process.

[reed11b]

. Therefore, some obvious facts:

1) Women, on average, make much worse soldiers than men.


Please, be all means explain to me how this is a FACT and not an OPINION that you ASSUMED to be true.
Reed

[120mm]

Really? The usual practice? You say that like it is obvious and I honestly don't know -- can you provide more examples than one obscure Benin group? Of legitimate employment of all-female units, rather than some training / sourcing process.

The Soviet female units in WWII come to mind.

[120mm]

Besides aviation, the combat role I think women could be most suited for is certain SOF roles.

I don't mean on ODAs - I don't think women belong on a sure enough rucksack team - but, as I mentioned, the OSS and SOE employed numerous women agents in occupied Europe with parachute insertions, espionage, sabotage, partisan liasons, etc., being done by women at times. All of this put them in position for death or capture. I also believe women could be suited for certain counter terrortist roles.

Besides, if you get a couple of gals who look like the ones protrayed in Where Eagles Dare how could you not be for it? :D

This is already being done in theater.


My personal experience with being co-located with a company of MPs in Iraq in '03 at (then) Camp Kalsu tells me that some women could do just fine in combat arms. The last two excuses of why women could not be in combat arms that I held on too were disproved there. Our hygiene and living conditions were as minimal as they can be and not a single female soldier was sent home for "feminine issues". There was also no sexual harassment or women sent home pregnant, we were too busy fighting and surviving. They kept cool under fire and did not complain any more (often less) then the men. Now when we got to Kuwait, where the women were treated different, sexual assault and pregnancies were the rule, not the exception. Treat them like soldiers and they might surprise you and live up to the expectation. My final caveat is that until there are enough women that want to do infantry, the few who could do it and are willing to try will be harassed and hazed into quitting, unfortunately.
Reed

I agree with this wholeheartedly. The problem is almost always misogynist males. And you know what? The Army would be better without them.

One thing about COIN, Combat Arms are only support for the main effort, which is not kicking in doors and shooting people in the face. The "Main Effort" should be staffed with lots of females, whether soldier or not.

[Deus Ex]

I know in the USMC women do a flex arm hang instead of pullups. This is a whole different topic but instead of doing dead hang pull ups (which your body isnt naturally built for) we should do kipping pull ups and raise the standard on the number that needs to be accomplished. I am from the crossfit community and there are PLENTY of women that can do plenty of pullups. Same thing for the run. The standards are set lower for the amount of time that it takes them in achieving a 100 pts for the run or for passing it in general. It does not just stop at the PFT either.

But why should it change in relation to them having a combat arms MOS? If they can pass the PT standard they should be combat arms? I know you did not directly say that but is that what you are implying?

You couldn't be more wrong. Kipping pull ups are generally worthless and that is why most sensible crossfit websites (crossfit football, military athlete, etc.) have moved away from it. If you need to pull yourself up in a military zone and you're on a wall, please explain how the F you would do a kipping pull up. You have 40 lbs on gear on at a minimum, and being able to pull yourself up dead hang when a wall is dead smack in front of you is more important than being able to do 50 kipping pull ups.

[JMA]

You couldn't be more wrong. Kipping pull ups are generally worthless and that is why most sensible crossfit websites (crossfit football, military athlete, etc.) have moved away from it. If you need to pull yourself up in a military zone and you're on a wall, please explain how the F you would do a kipping pull up. You have 40 lbs on gear on at a minimum, and being able to pull yourself up dead hang when a wall is dead smack in front of you is more important than being able to do 50 kipping pull ups.

Here is a good enough resource on PT in the military (http://www.ihpra.org/military.htm).

I asked this question earlier... and no one responded.

Is it necessary to have the same physical fitness standard and physical capability for male and female soldiers doing exactly the same job?

I would take this further by asking whether the same level of fitness is required across the board within a platoon all tasked with the same duties?

Does a recce platoon take a member on a (heavy load) 8 day patrol because he is a good signaler but is in reality unlikely to be able to make it up the first hill? Of course not. The same basic fitness/strength level is required across the whole platoon (in this example) to be able to a) complete their mission and b) be able to perform operationally when contact is made.

The gender thing does not come into it. There is a minimum fitness/strength level required.

And I would say that by adding a sub-group to the mix who can do some of the tasks and not others (due on physical limitations) makes no sense at all.

Maybe its time for some honesty on this matter and that would go something like this:

There is a societal/political requirement for women to be absorbed into the military in increasing numbers in all areas of the service. As such, for better or for worse, a dual set of standards and requirements need to set up and any negative organisational and operational effects need to just be absorbed. Just get on with it.

[120mm]

In addition to the above post, so-called "minimum PT standards" much like certain medical qualifications/disqualifications are based on a completely bull#### "SHTF" scenario that presupposes that some kind of superhuman effort by all members of a unit may be necessary.

I remember the old "feminine hygiene products will overcome the capabilities of our logistics system" argument. Nevermind the fact that soda, chew, big screen TVs and porn are quite well supplied to male soldiers downrange without so much as a squeek.

In certain ways, the "he-man woman haters" in the military are reminiscent of the Taliban in their arguments. Of course, there is a solution: It's called instilling discipline in troops, which solution has gone out of style in the US military from my point of view.

[JMA]

In addition to the above post, so-called "minimum PT standards" much like certain medical qualifications/disqualifications are based on a completely bull#### "SHTF" scenario that presupposes that some kind of superhuman effort by all members of a unit may be necessary.

I remember the old "feminine hygiene products will overcome the capabilities of our logistics system" argument. Nevermind the fact that soda, chew, big screen TVs and porn are quite well supplied to male soldiers downrange without so much as a squeek.

In certain ways, the "he-man woman haters" in the military are reminiscent of the Taliban in their arguments. Of course, there is a solution: It's called instilling discipline in troops, which solution has gone out of style in the US military from my point of view.

I'm not sure I understand where you are coming from on the matter of PT Standards. Are you saying there should be no minimum standards? I am not saying that the current PT Standards are the best to assess combat fitness (they are probably not) but I am saying that there is a standard necessary.

Why do we hear so much about the modern soldier being overloaded and unable to hump his battle kit? We discussed this issue in another thread and spoke about this fitness. See The Roles and Weapons with the Squad (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?p=97709) and start at about post #598

I would suggest that first off the load the infantryman is expected to carry should be reassessed. Surely it is this apparent load requirement that would remove 95% of females from contention for the infantry.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_H8KDKpNcbYo/S85xDhyeAKI/AAAAAAAAA5A/ncbcvZh3cpE/s400/blog+us+light+inf.jpg

I assume that this sort of load is deemed necessary by commanders so how would this load be divided up if there were some females in the squad? The guys carry more?

Then if a female could get upright with such a load can she do 20kms in a day or a week or at all?

Going back to PT (I was trained as a PT Instructor in 1973) the idea of the t-shirt, short pants and running shoes initial PT was to exercise the whole body as the army would not know what the overall physical condition of each recruit was. There was the 10 week build-up programme which covered 2,3 or 5 kms runs and pull-ups, sit-ups, push ups and the like. By the end of basic training one was able to see a difference in the physique of the youngsters and if they past that type of PT test they were deemed fit to move onto training which required them to apply exertion under load. By the end of their training (I think called the MOS in the US) the ability would be tested by a march and shoot exercise where they would march under load (48lbs - 21.7kgs) for maybe 5kms within a certain time and be required to score a minimum on a range shoot at the end.

I would (FWIW) support a review of battle strength/fitness standards if it were done based only on the operational demands of modern combat but not... if the hidden aim is to lower the bar to allow women entry... because with the women will come a whole bunch of male weaklings and that would be the real disaster.

[baduin]

The topic of women in combat used to be unusually divisive, and this in general causes the discussion to devolve into senseless name-calling. In this thread, however, there was a number of eminently insightful comments which together caused me to change my view on the "women in combat" problem.


We don't have a great track record with "separate but equal" through myriad flavors of segregation, and "separate + unequal" has all kinds of problems, too. Your idea addresses one issue (intramural sex) but is rife with many others.


Exactly so. All historical armies -except the West - kept different social or ethnic groups as separate units in the army. The Western tradition always demanded full equality, and any instance of different treatment was an aberration which had finally to give way (even if sometimes it took centuries). Female-only military units in the modern West are unimaginable.



Therefore, some obvious facts:
1) Women, on average, make much worse soldiers than men.



Please, be all means explain to me how this is a FACT and not an OPINION that you ASSUMED to be true.


Generally, the distinction between FACT and OPINION is that facts are external reality, which is accessible to other men (eg when I say that grass is blue, one can walk outside and check it oneself). Opinions are individual mental states which are inaccessible to other people, (when I say that I think that there are too many Jews in ruling elites, you can believe me or not, but it is generally assumed that there is no way to check whether I really think this or not).

In addition, at present it is assumed that all FACTs must be provable scientifically - ie when I say that God exists, it is an opinion, not a fact.

Facts can be divided into true or false. Opinions, as my first example shows, are divided into commendable, neutral and distateful and forbidden. For example, if I express an opinion that Jews, non-white races, women etc are inferior, should not be allowed to vote etc, I will not be accepted in polite society, I can be fired from work or appropriately punished as a member of armed forces.

Now, there is NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF that women are worse soldiers than men. There were no proper experiments etc. The lack of historical examples makes any statistic reasearch impossible, and anyway it would be tainted by the issue of misogyny amongst the commanders, other units and the enemy.

Therefore it necessarily follows that the idea that women on average make worse soldiers is an OPINION. It remains to consider whether such an opinion is commendable or otherwise.


The problem is almost always misogynist males. And you know what? The Army would be better without them.


Precisely so! The opinion that women are worse soldiers is a misogynist and hateful opinion which is not to be allowed in polite society. All who express such an opinion should be properly punished.

In addition, all apparent instances when women underperfom in combat (I know of no such examples, of course, and consider only hypothetical accusations) will be and must be caused by misogyny in male soldiers. For that reason the fact there there will be no all-female units is against very advantageous.

Because of those considerations women must and will be part of all military specialities, including combat ones. In fact, in many Western European armies, which generally are not expected to fight often or against dangerous opponents, women are already allowed to serve in combat. American armed forces managed to avoid that natural development since they fight more frequently. It is, however, not a real obstacle.


In addition to the above post, so-called "minimum PT standards" much like certain medical qualifications/disqualifications are based on a completely bull#### "SHTF" scenario that presupposes that some kind of superhuman effort by all members of a unit may be necessary.


And it will NOT be necessary, because let us be serious - American army will never fight a high intensity conflict against near-equal opponent. The possibility of heavy losses and even defeat absolutely precludes this from the political point of view in a war of choice. And since USA is situated in America, all its wars are wars of choice.

Therefore, all combat will be against desperately inferior enemy. Therefore it is not a problem to arrange the combat enviroment (eg by using air support, artillery, drones etc), so that any fight can be won comfortably, without any unecessary "superhuman" effort by all members of a unit.

In addition, since America increasingly relies on various mercenary units, all those tasks which for various reasons the regular forces find inconvenient can be performed by mercenaries.

Therefore, it seems to me that there are no reason not to accept women in combat units.

[82redleg]

And it will NOT be necessary, because let us be serious - American army will never fight a high intensity conflict against near-equal opponent. The possibility of heavy losses and even defeat absolutely precludes this from the political point of view in a war of choice. And since USA is situated in America, all its wars are wars of choice.

Therefore, all combat will be against desperately inferior enemy. Therefore it is not a problem to arrange the combat enviroment (eg by using air support, artillery, drones etc), so that any fight can be won comfortably, without any unecessary "superhuman" effort by all members of a unit.

I disagree with 120mm's initial points about physical standards, and your extrapolation of his comments. Despite combat against an "inferior enemy", battles like Fallujah, Blackhawk Down, etc, still happen, and are still the lot of the infantryman. Some interviews of infantry participants in the fight for Fallujah in Nov 04.
http://cgsc.cdmhost.com/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/p4013coll13&CISOPTR=264&CISOBOX=1&REC=13
http://cgsc.cdmhost.com/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/p4013coll13&CISOPTR=265&CISOBOX=1&REC=4
http://cgsc.cdmhost.com/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/p4013coll13&CISOPTR=368&CISOBOX=1&REC=9
http://cgsc.cdmhost.com/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/p4013coll13&CISOPTR=204&CISOBOX=1&REC=10
All these men were members of a single mechanized rifle company, in a single fight. Searching the other oral history interviews and the Sergeants Major Academy Personal Story papers available at CARL's digital library (http://www.cgsc.edu/carl/contentdm/home.htm) should show more examples.



In addition, since America increasingly relies on various mercenary units, all those tasks which for various reasons the regular forces find inconvenient can be performed by mercenaries.

Therefore, it seems to me that there are no reason not to accept women in combat units.

What mercenary units are you talking about? Security contractors? Most of these perform mundane duties (convoy escort and perimeter security) to free up regulars for more demanding missions. The more highly trained minority are employed for a special, limited skill set (VIP protection). Neither of these are particularly physically demanding, and pretty much irrelevant to this discussion

[120mm]

I'm not sure I understand where you are coming from on the matter of PT Standards. Are you saying there should be no minimum standards? I am not saying that the current PT Standards are the best to assess combat fitness (they are probably not) but I am saying that there is a standard necessary.

Why do we hear so much about the modern soldier being overloaded and unable to hump his battle kit? We discussed this issue in another thread and spoke about this fitness. See The Roles and Weapons with the Squad (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?p=97709) and start at about post #598

I would suggest that first off the load the infantryman is expected to carry should be reassessed. Surely it is this apparent load requirement that would remove 95% of females from contention for the infantry.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_H8KDKpNcbYo/S85xDhyeAKI/AAAAAAAAA5A/ncbcvZh3cpE/s400/blog+us+light+inf.jpg

I assume that this sort of load is deemed necessary by commanders so how would this load be divided up if there were some females in the squad? The guys carry more?

Then if a female could get upright with such a load can she do 20kms in a day or a week or at all?

Going back to PT (I was trained as a PT Instructor in 1973) the idea of the t-shirt, short pants and running shoes initial PT was to exercise the whole body as the army would not know what the overall physical condition of each recruit was. There was the 10 week build-up programme which covered 2,3 or 5 kms runs and pull-ups, sit-ups, push ups and the like. By the end of basic training one was able to see a difference in the physique of the youngsters and if they past that type of PT test they were deemed fit to move onto training which required them to apply exertion under load. By the end of their training (I think called the MOS in the US) the ability would be tested by a march and shoot exercise where they would march under load (48lbs - 21.7kgs) for maybe 5kms within a certain time and be required to score a minimum on a range shoot at the end.

I would (FWIW) support a review of battle strength/fitness standards if it were done based only on the operational demands of modern combat but not... if the hidden aim is to lower the bar to allow women entry... because with the women will come a whole bunch of male weaklings and that would be the real disaster.

I think there should be certain units with high physical standards, and those units will probably be male dominated. What I am saying that the so-called "load of the infantryman" is largely self-imposed by the cult of the "carry everything on your back" sub-dog IQ light infantry mafia. Seriously, they carry stuff that they have no business carrying on their backs, whether because Army MTOE sucks, or because they think they are "hard" or of uniformity/risk-aversion by commanders. There ARE places in the world that need Lightfighters, but somehow our opponents manage to fight there without wearing 200 pounds of kit.

Ironically, I just noticed the 173d patch. Is this the infamous "combat jump behind friendly lines so we can all get a mustard stain?" If so, it proves my point. That troop is carrying the world on his back because his leadership failed him.



In addition, all apparent instances when women underperfom in combat (I know of no such examples, of course, and consider only hypothetical accusations) will be and must be caused by misogyny in male soldiers. For that reason the fact there there will be no all-female units is against very advantageous.

Because of those considerations women must and will be part of all military specialities, including combat ones. In fact, in many Western European armies, which generally are not expected to fight often or against dangerous opponents, women are already allowed to serve in combat. American armed forces managed to avoid that natural development since they fight more frequently. It is, however, not a real obstacle.

And it will NOT be necessary, because let us be serious - American army will never fight a high intensity conflict against near-equal opponent. The possibility of heavy losses and even defeat absolutely precludes this from the political point of view in a war of choice. And since USA is situated in America, all its wars are wars of choice.

Therefore, all combat will be against desperately inferior enemy. Therefore it is not a problem to arrange the combat enviroment (eg by using air support, artillery, drones etc), so that any fight can be won comfortably, without any unecessary "superhuman" effort by all members of a unit.

In addition, since America increasingly relies on various mercenary units, all those tasks which for various reasons the regular forces find inconvenient can be performed by mercenaries.

Therefore, it seems to me that there are no reason not to accept women in combat units.

I am quite fluent in sarcasm. Having said that, it isn't that women don't underperform in combat, for some most certainly do, it is that men underperform in combat too. It is that the knuckledragging, Peter Pan syndrome women haters who sometimes hide out in the military between date-rape and homoerotic innuendo episodes manage to only fixate on those examples of when women are bad soldiers. And about 90+% of the time that women are bad soldiers, there is a male-dominated chain of command that is deeply involved enabling those bad female soldiers and facilitating their chicanery.


I disagree with 120mm's initial points about physical standards, and your extrapolation of his comments. Despite combat against an "inferior enemy", battles like Fallujah, Blackhawk Down, etc, still happen, and are still the lot of the infantryman. Some interviews of infantry participants in the fight for Fallujah in Nov 04.
http://cgsc.cdmhost.com/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/p4013coll13&CISOPTR=264&CISOBOX=1&REC=13
http://cgsc.cdmhost.com/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/p4013coll13&CISOPTR=265&CISOBOX=1&REC=4
http://cgsc.cdmhost.com/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/p4013coll13&CISOPTR=368&CISOBOX=1&REC=9
http://cgsc.cdmhost.com/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/p4013coll13&CISOPTR=204&CISOBOX=1&REC=10
All these men were members of a single mechanized rifle company, in a single fight. Searching the other oral history interviews and the Sergeants Major Academy Personal Story papers available at CARL's digital library (http://www.cgsc.edu/carl/contentdm/home.htm) should show more examples.

What mercenary units are you talking about? Security contractors? Most of these perform mundane duties (convoy escort and perimeter security) to free up regulars for more demanding missions. The more highly trained minority are employed for a special, limited skill set (VIP protection). Neither of these are particularly physically demanding, and pretty much irrelevant to this discussion

I don't think he is being serious.

But on the Rangers of "Blackhawk Down!", you make a good case for why certain elite units probably won't be a good fit for female soldiers. However... At least in Small Wars and COIN, most Infantry units would benefit from an strong feminine influence.

If nothing else, it might help break the myth that Infantry is a mono-tasker. Prior to WWII, Infantry units were supposed to be capable of more than attack or defend.

[Ken White]

If nothing else, it might help break the myth that Infantry is a mono-tasker. Prior to WWII, Infantry units were supposed to be capable of more than attack or defend.Only in the 70s did that delusion get planted. :mad:
Seriously, they carry stuff that they have no business carrying on their backs, whether because Army MTOE sucks, or because they think they are "hard" or of uniformity/risk-aversion by commanders. There ARE places in the world that need Lightfighters, but somehow our opponents manage to fight there without wearing 200 pounds of kit.True on all counts. I blame poor initial entry and follow on training for leaders at all levels. Those guys can affect the TOE problems, they are responsible for the uniformity fetish and while risk avearsion is now as American as Apple Pie and a societal problem, the Army can and should be in the business of breaking that particular chain and train of thought, not encouraging it.
Ironically, I just noticed the 173d patch. Is this the infamous "combat jump behind friendly lines so we can all get a mustard stain?" If so, it proves my point. That troop is carrying the world on his back because his leadership failed him. Partly true on the leadership failure, no on the jump. That picture is from Afghanistan. Easily determined from the gear he's wearing; most of it is post 2003 stuff and IIRC, that came out about a year or so ago and he's a USAF JTAC atchd to the 173d. Those guys are always heavily loaded, even in RVN when light (30-35 lb) loads were the Infantry norm. That may explain why the AF has trouble keeping JTACs in the service...:D.

There are some woman haters in uniform, male and female, all ranks. There are also some people in uniform, male and female, all ranks who are man haters. Fortunately, most people in uniform, male and female, all ranks, take a more balanced and measured view. Many of them also have serious questions about the advisability of women in direct combat roles. It's another question where pat answers don't provide a solution. As with most such issues, it'll work itself out. Most always does and, as usual with any even mildly contentious social issue, the end solution will be an uneasy compromise that'll leave some people unhappy on both sides of the question. :wry:

Re: the load he's carrying, not to make light of it (no pun) but as the first photo below of a Marine shows, it could be worse and as the second shows, we aren't the only Army with the problem. The PBI phrase has reason to exist...

[JMA]

At least in Small Wars and COIN, most Infantry units would benefit from an strong feminine influence.

How so?

[Pete]

Look, women are women and men are men, but that doesn't mean women don't have important contributions to make to the U.S. armed forces. When I was toward the end of my Army career in 7th Infantry Division at Fort Ord in '82-'84 I dated a woman who was a captain in Ordnance with a specialty in vehicle maintenance. When we met I was a Battalion Motor Officer and she was the staff officer for Division Support Command responsible for monitoring readiness rates of equipment. She and I became intimate and we had a lot of fun together.

Eventually we stopped seeing each other when the spark went out and our relationship became predictable and boring. She began dating a Major of Ordnance.

When her new boyfriend was away on temporary duty she phoned me with a problem -- her car had a flat tire, could I come over and fix it? Well I did, but I thought it was kind of strange, seeing as how she had been the Distinguished Honor Graduate of her U.S. Army Ordnance Officer Advanced Course, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, vehicle maintenance specialty, a couple of years earlier.

This brings me back to my first sentence, men are men ane women are women. Mary was a very competent officer, she had a successful company command, and the last time I saw her in '87 she was a Major and Secretary of the General Staff of Army Materiel Command, Alexandria, Virginia.

[jmm99]

Hi Pete,

This is my flat tire story - from 35+ years ago. My wife and I are in Houghton (city across the bridge) for Sunday breakfast; and got into a discussion re: equal rights and responsibilities for women. My wife has always taken the position that women should know how to taike care of their own vehicles - to the discomfort of mechanics who have the mindset of what 120mm calls "he-man woman haters".

The conversation then turned to flat tires - and God is good to thems that's good to Him. For behold, my new Found On Road Dead F-100 had a flat (front driver's side) - which I could see but she couldn't from where she sat. So, I set her up; and she responded that if there was a flat tire on the her car or on the truck, she would change it and with no help from you, Mister.

So, we finished breakfast and when outside facing the truck, I said, OMG, there's a flat front tire on the truck. Looks like you can prove your point. Of course, since you're wearing a white pants suit and a truck is bigger than a car, I'll volunteer to change the tire if you're not able and willing. Which of course totally pi$$es her off and she changes the tire (after finding out that the Ford jack, etc., ain't worth squat; but that I do have a good hydraulic jack and tire wrenches behind the seat) - and her white suit was no longer white. So, women are different re: flat tires.

Of course, she would have some other points re: women vice men. She happens to be about 5'1"", 105#, but can lift and carry 80-100# cement and sand bags. If the two of us were at a theoretical shoot off at 100m with rifles, I'm a little more accurate; but if we both fired at the same time, it would end in a draw - a bad draw. On the other hand, she says it wouldn't be fair for me to hit her hand to hand because I'm bigger and stronger than she is - which is also true.

The point from my little dataset of 1 is that women have different capabiilities depending on the situation, and their own mental and physical strengths and weaknesses. My wife always shot in men's competitions (not many lady shooters up here back then - more now). She usually beat most of them - but always came in behind me - which really ticked her off.

I do buy JMA's requirement that all in a unit have to meet a standard for the missions that unit is "likely" (that's a loaded word) to undertake; but I don't buy his comment (may be ironic or sarcastic) that we should suck up with the PC re: women and just do the best that can be done under that circumstances.

Nice to see 120mm back into the fray. :) We need somebody who "looks hot in heels and a little cocktail dress." :D

Regards to all - a bit off topic for me, but I had to reply to the flat tire story. Now, excuse me while I go off to slug my wife. :eek: Reality is that I have to fix one of her chairs. ;)

Mike

[82redleg]

Partly true on the leadership failure, no on the jump. That picture is from Afghanistan. Easily determined from the gear he's wearing; most of it is post 2003 stuff and IIRC, that came out about a year or so ago and he's a USAF JTAC atchd to the 173d. Those guys are always heavily loaded, even in RVN when light (30-35 lb) loads were the Infantry norm. That may explain why the AF has trouble keeping JTACs in the service...:D.

Ken, I think you're wrong on this one. I believe the is a photo from after the jump into Iraq. He's still wearing the LBE, not the new MOLLE stuff. He's wearing an OD patch on the DCU, and he doesn't have pockets sewn on his sleaves. All of which were NOT true by 173d's first Afghan rotation, 05-06 (OEF 6). I also seem to remember seeing that picture in (IIRC) Time, before I left Korea in Jun 03.

[Pete]

Men need women, even though we're often reluctant to admit it. Even though we don't like it when they nag and complain, sometimes they point out things that make a lot of sense. They focus on the practical matters of life, and whether we want to hear it or not, they'll tell us that drinking a six-pack a day, eating a poor diet, and never cleaning up the house put a guy on the fast line downhill. God bless 'em, we need 'em. In addition to that they have some fascinating attributes.

[Kiwigrunt]

Men need women, even though we're often reluctant to admit it. Even though we don't like it when they nag and complain, sometimes they point out things that make a lot of sense. They focus on the practical matters of life, and whether we want to hear it or not, they'll tell us that drinking a six-pack a day, eating a poor diet, and never cleaning up the house put a guy on the fast line downhill. God bless 'em, we need 'em. In addition to that they have some fascinating attributes.

Sure, but outside the wire there are no six packs, we do not control the diet, there is no house to clean and the fascinating attributes are out of bounds because they get both the boys and the girls in trouble. And the latter I can attest to going by the countless times that our MPs and RPs came across the discarded peels of the fruits of love. Good thing they were issued in our medpacks.

Seriously now, my concerns with females in and beyond FOBs has nothing to do with their abilities and capabilities. From what I’ve seen, most that pass the relevant tests are more than capable and like to prove it. Sure, some are not, but that goes for boys just as well. It has to do with the effect that their mere presence has on the boys. Now we can say that it is about time the boys grow up and get over it but a large proportion of the boys we are likely to find in an FOB simply haven’t grown up yet (that includes many of the older ones). So when there is too much at stake have we not perhaps passed a tipping point where political correctness and equality may need to take second place?

[JMA]

I do buy JMA's requirement that all in a unit have to meet a standard for the missions that unit is "likely" (that's a loaded word) to undertake; but I don't buy his comment (may be ironic or sarcastic) that we should suck up with the PC re: women and just do the best that can be done under that circumstances.

OK on the first point, on the second my point was that most armies will just have to get on with integrating females (for better of for worse) for the sake of imposed PC. I don't agree with the PC approach but suggest everyone will just have to learn to live with it.

[Ken White]

Ken, I think you're wrong on this one... I also seem to remember seeing that picture in (IIRC) Time, before I left Korea in Jun 03.What I thought was a large Molle bag is in fact a pocket on an old Ruck. That and confusing it with another picture I'd seen in an Air Force pub earlier this year.

Or maybe thought I'd seen. That IIRC caveat gets more true every day. Ah, the perils of old age; senility is not its own reward. :o

Thanks for the catch and correction. I owe 120mm an apology for even speculating he may have reached an erroneous airbornius cornclusion... :D

[Pete]

This is off-topic, for Kiwigrunt.

A branch of my family emmigrated from Cork, Ireland to New Zealand circa 1850. They were from an old prominent Anglo-Norman Catholic family that had been stripped of its lands by Cromwell. In 1855 they emmigrated to San Francisco. The first Prendergast there in my line was said to have been the strongest man in San Francisco and he did steel work building the dome of the state capitol building in Sacramento. His son, my great-grandfather, joined a cavalry unit in the California National Guard during the Spanish-American war. He never made it closer to the Spanish than the old Camp Lewis, Washington. Grandma told me he'd scare her mother half to death when he'd get out his Army Colt .45 revolver and fool around with it when he was half-way through a bottle of whisky. "Garry Owen" and all that.

[Rifleman]

http://gfx.aftonbladet-cdn.se/multimedia/dynamic/01309/10_1309651t.jpg

What does this photo prove? Maybe nothing at all.....but I still liked it. :D

[Adam L]

Men need women, even though we're often reluctant to admit it. Even though we don't like it when they nag and complain, sometimes they point out things that make a lot of sense. They focus on the practical matters of life, and whether we want to hear it or not, they'll tell us that drinking a six-pack a day, eating a poor diet, and never cleaning up the house put a guy on the fast line downhill. God bless 'em, we need 'em. In addition to that they have some fascinating attributes.

Hey, men need women for many reasons but I object to your stereotyping men as impractical, dirty and unhealthy is improper. :D


What does this photo prove? Maybe nothing at all.....but I still liked it. :D

I like it too!

Mike: After reading all of that, I believe you to be a very lucky man.

Adam L

[Tukhachevskii]

http://gfx.aftonbladet-cdn.se/multimedia/dynamic/01309/10_1309651t.jpg

What does this photo prove? Maybe nothing at all.....but I still liked it. :D

I second the motion (and you beat me to posting it too). On a more serious note I have read somewhere of a woman (I think she was asingned to an MP or Truck coy) who, along with only one man, managed to assault and clear an insurgent trench during an abmush in Iraq (I'll try and find the reference). As far as I'm concerned there should be ONE physicall standard for all combat arms. If a woman passes it then no problem (I've met women who are physically more capable than men, me included, although that was in the Balkans!:D). All the other shenanigans that may occur when men and women mix, a volatile mix I know, should be manageable under military rules. If they can't behave well, that goes for men and women, then they're out. Throwing the weight issue at them isn't fair to a lot of men either as commentators have already mentioned. The issue of mixed units is a different matter altogether and is as much a discipline issue as it is psychological.

[Tom Odom]

I second the motion (and you beat me to posting it too). On a more serious note I have read somewhere of a woman (I think she was asingned to an MP or Truck coy) who, along with only one man, managed to assault and clear an insurgent trench during an abmush in Iraq (I'll try and find the reference). As far as I'm concerned there should be ONE physicall standard for all combat arms. If a woman passes it then no problem (I've met women who are physically more capable than men, me included, although that was in the Balkans!:D). All the other shenanigans that may occur when men and women mix, a volatile mix I know, should be manageable under military rules. If they can't behave well, that goes for men and women, then they're out. Throwing the weight issue at them isn't fair to a lot of men either as commentators have already mentioned. The issue of mixed units is a different matter altogether and is as much a discipline issue as it is psychological.

That story is on the CSI Press web page as part of In Contact (http://carl.army.mil/download/csipubs/robertson_contact.pdf). the Chapter is Palm Sunday Ambush 20 March 2005.

[Tukhachevskii]

That story is on the CSI Press web page as part of In Contact (http://carl.army.mil/download/csipubs/robertson_contact.pdf). the Chapter is Palm Sunday Ambush 20 March 2005.

Sir, thank you. That's the one I was looking for.

[jtan163]

I have a problem with women in combat units because of what I see as uncontrollable, unenforceable problems with discipline and the biological urge to reproduce and to protect your spouse/partner/parent of your child, especially when you think you (or your partner) might not live until next Tuesday.

But given that it is likely gonna happen, I'd like to know if the nations/services that do this are going to do it with an equal rights agenda, or a women have more choices that men (affirmative action) agenda?

The sorts of questions I'd like answers to are:

Will women be compelled to serve in combat units against their will, like men are?

Will men be given the options to decline postings to combat units if women are not compelled to serve combat units?

Assuming women are NOT compelled to serve in arms corps, will those who volunteer to do so be allowed to un-volunteer if they find it doest not suit them.

Will there be affirmative action programs? E.g. increased posting of women to combat units until their representation there is equal to men's representation and vica versa (e.g. if 15% of men in the services are in risky, dirty, uncomfortable, combat units, will there be an increase in female postings until 15% of women in the services are in risky, dirty, uncomfortable combat units)?

In countries where abortion is legal, will women who get pregnant after they are posted to combat units be liable to enforced abortion?
If I recall correctly the Defense Force Discipline Act (the Aust equivalent to the UCMJ) makes it an offense for you to render yourself unfit for service, and an offense to refuse treatment and an offence to not comply with medical orders (like any other legal order - you don't get a say just because it's your body - you signed that away when you enlist).

Will women be required to register for selective service in the US and register for conscription in countries that have it (or introduce it in the future)?

Until men are given the same rights as women (e.g. the right of refusal of combat jobs) then there will not be equality between men and women. Instead there will be a group who has privileges that other people don't have.

Whilst its all very well to talk about equality and human rights of women, I think we ALSO need to think about the human rights and equality of men as well, and that with rights (for one gender) come responsibilities (for that gender).

These are I suspect areas that have probably been considered and quietly ignored at the legislature, executive and senior military leadership levels as they are too hard to deal with in the current political (-ly correct) climate.

If the services and legislatures don't think about this when they introduce these measures, then the courts will inevitably have to and I don't have confidence that the courts will settle such questions in a way that will satisfy any of the parties and in particular may cost the services and the nations a whole lot more than they gain by allowing women to server in combat roles.

Of course the governments who introduce such measures will invariably be well served by their decisions, but they only have to live with their decisions for one election at a time.

[G Martin]

Since this report came out http://www.mercurynews.com/natbreakingnews/ci_17105501?nclick_check=1 I have been surprised by two things:

1- the total lack of background reporting by the media on the commission. If you look at the commission's charter and its membership- it should come as no surprise that they are recommending women serve in all jobs. Their charter is to increase diversity at the higher ranks. And their membership is made up of a majority of non-combat arms types, a heavy dose of diversity specialists, and many more Coast Guard, AF, Navy, and Guard/Reservists than Regular Army/Marines. I think the commission's establishment and background are as interesting, if not more, than their report- but I guess the media aren't interested in reporting the background.

2- most discussion in the media has been the oft-repeated fact that in today's conflicts CS and CSS soldiers (read: females) serve in combat; while most discussions on blogs revolve around women passing individual physical requirements.

On the first point: I would find it highly suspect to develop a policy for implementation in the realm of Conventional armor units by a commission that was made up mostly of Special Operations personnel. I'm not saying the commission has to be totally combat arms- but this one was so obviously stacked with those with no combat arms experience that I question their ability to make a valid recommendation in the combat arms realm.

On the second: I think that the ability to pass individual PT requirements has nothing to do with ones' ability to effectively function on a small team whose main mission is to close with and kill people up close. This is why everyone I talk to from our European armies tells me that most homosexuals don't serve openly in their armies- and especially in their combat arms branches: because they know to do so would make it very hard for them to effectively add to the cohesiveness of the unit. And even though it is politically incorrect- most service members from the U.S. and our allies will admit in private that women and men do not gell well on small teams.

Do I really care if men and women at headquarters and in support roles have a tough time forming a cohesive unit? Well, our politicians have decided it doesn't matter to them- so I guess it doesn't to me either. But, while they are debating making it tough for combat arms folks, I think taking into account the physiological differences between men and women and the effect it could have on small units dedicated to hunting down and killing folks shouldn't be dumbed down to "they are already in combat", "our allies do it", and "they made the same arguments about Blacks and homosexuals".

Lastly, comparing the U.S. armed forces to our allies should be taken with a HUGE grain of salt. Even though we like to romantisize that our European allies are more politically correct than the average New Englander- the truth is that they are- more than not- much more macho and male chauvanist than we are. They don't have diversity agendas, efforts, and pressures. They are much more politically incorrect in their speech, behavior, and culture (using the American PC definition). So- accepting homosexuals and females for them didn't bring with it all of the extra money, time, training, and attention that our other social changes have traditionally brought due to our political environment.

In terms of "small wars"- I think differently: a policy that is in place to guide conventional forces, garrison operations, training environments, and MOS assignment shouldn't guide counterinsurgency execution in-theater: which requires maximum flexibility. This is why empowering the lowest level is paramount in these types of operations. But this would take a massive change to our personnel system- which favors a centrally-controlled environment. In essence: if women are needed in a certain role in a certain environment for the betterment of the mission- by all means use them.

That is why we serve in the armed forces: not for ourselves and our "rights", but for the security of the nation. Likewise- the passing of individual requirements and concern for individual rights should not be the basis for assigning people to combat arms roles: the most effective functioning of small teams of combat arms (who close with and kill the enemy) should be. If they really just want more women general officers- then by all means change the requirements to be a general officer.

[troy2k]

"EVERY Marine is a rifleman" - Just ask a Marine. As long as it's not a Marine Rifleman. That young rifleman will break the mantra in half and throw it back at you.

Are women in combat? No question. Should they be? That's really their business I suppose, if you want to bring your girly bits to a war zone, enjoy.

Pass the law if you will, but I submit that it will have a counter-intuitive effect. Once there is nothing but an even playing field for an 11B/0311 Squad Leader to work upon, I believe that PT standards and such job-specific skills as the "Buddy Carry" CASEVAC technique will be the final recourse for determining who is or is not Infantry.

Lotsa folks claim they can do what the Infantry do. Funny thing is, they simply don't do it. Fill in Airborne, Marines, Ranger, SOF, whatever hardcore title you want in that previous line. Once it is down to getting off your ass and humping a ruck 20 miles, you're gonna find that very little will really change as to who shows up for employment.

Gimme a female who can hump a mission ruck, shoot Expert, score 300 on the APFT... execute MDMP in a tent in a sandstorm for a COIN element on 2 hrs sleep, then infil over the next 30 hours... she can serve with me anyday and twice on Sunday.

[William F. Owen]

The IDF was recently afflicted with yet another "women in combat" debate, as it is every 10 years for the last 60.

The issue is not weather women can fight - they clearly can - It is he negative effects of women in predominantly male units. This is why the IDF formed the Caracal Battalion, and ...to quote the IDF's official position,


Women represent a significant portion of manpower in the combat units that they serve in; in the Anti-Aircraft Division and in the Artillery Corps, women represent 20 percent of soldiers, 25 percent of soldiers in Search and Rescue units, 10 percent of the Border Police, and the Caracal Battalion - a combat battalion - is made up of 70 percent female soldiers. In addition, this year marked the first year in which women are eligible to serve in the Field Intelligence Corps.

....but fact is, almost no men want to serve in Caracal, and the unit has a very mixed reputation amongst infantry officers.

[Ted Rush]

In a nutshell: combat units are closely-knit groups. Introducing sex into the equation is a bad idea.

No fire team leader needs to be adding "did sgt A diddle private B" into his equation when he makes a decision. It's silliness and will only get people killed. There is no up side.

[SWJ Blog]

U.S. Marine Corps to Assign Women to Ground Combat Element Units (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/us-marine-corps-to-assign-women-to-ground-combat-element-units)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/us-marine-corps-to-assign-women-to-ground-combat-element-units) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

[AmericanPride]

Moderator at work

The title of this thread was Women, Military Readiness, and Int'l Security until today, 23rd October 2013 and has been changed to Women in Military Service & Combat (not just USA). Seven other threads, mainly SWJ Blog, have been merged in too. All prompted by a BBC News report on a Canadian women infantry officer, which will be the added soon (ends).



This appeared (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/25/us/marines-moving-women-toward-the-front-lines.html) in the New York Times yesterday as the Marine Corps looks to study the impact of women in front-line units. Not a new debate really. More interesting is the conversation about gender relationships, security, and military effectiveness.

First, gender equality (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/04/24/what_sex_means_for_world_peace):


In fact, the very best predictor of a state's peacefulness is not its level of wealth, its level of democracy, or its ethno-religious identity; the best predictor of a state's peacefulness is how well its women are treated. What's more, democracies with higher levels of violence against women are as insecure and unstable as nondemocracies.

....

The evidence of violence against women is clear. So what does it mean for world peace? Consider the effects of sex-selective abortion and polygyny: Both help create an underclass of young adult men with no stake in society because they will never become heads of households, the marker for manhood in their cultures. It's unsurprising that we see a rise in violent crime, theft, and smuggling, whereby these young men seek to become contenders in the marriage market. But the prevalence of these volatile young males may also contribute to greater success in terrorist recruiting, or even state interest in wars of attrition that will attenuate the ranks of these men. For instance, the sole surviving terrorist from the 2008 Mumbai attacks testified that he was persuaded by his own father to participate in order to raise money for the dower that he and his siblings needed in order to marry.

We also know through experimental studies that post-conflict agreements that are negotiated without women break down faster than those that do include women, and that all-male groups take riskier, more aggressive, and less empathetic decisions than mixed groups -- two phenomena that may lead to higher levels of interstate conflict.

So, basically, gender security is a legitimate concern when predicting or resolving conflict. However, is female participation in the armed forces or in combat a substantial factor in a country's ability to favorably prosecute conflict? Is there a distinct female temperament, and what impact will it have as women enter into combat and strategic leadership roles in the armed forces?

This article provides a once-over-the-world review (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/dec/08/women-in-military-around-world) of women in armies around the world, while this 2009 UK MoD report goes into more detail (http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/7A18C2A3-C25B-4FA1-B8CB-49204A109105/0/women_combat_experiences_literature.pdf) of the applicable literature up to that time. This article (http://www.hrsa.gov/healthit/images/mchb_obesity_pub.pdf) points out that female youth obesity has grown slower than male youth obesity; so while both genders have shrinking eligible recruits for military service, females are less likely to be ineligible on the basis of weight (it also linked obesity with region and education, which is another conversation about military recruiting demographics and recruit eligibility).

Of course, there are objections about female temperaments, male temperament towards women, and female physical make-up and capacity but I have not seen a study yet linking female participation in combat with a unit's inability to conduct a combat mission or a country's ability to win a war. This article (http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/demystifying-%E2%80%98feminine-mythtique%E2%80%99-or-women-and-combat-can-mix) references US, Canadian, and Danish military reports that indicate the presence of women do not undermine unit effectiveness (and presumably, the overall war effort). That article was written in 2003, so I am curious what new evidence is out there, given the GWoT experiences, against the practicality and effectiveness of women in combat.This would seem to be the standard of proof, given that in war, only victory matters.

[SWJ Blog]

Women Worry Scandal Will Hurt Role as Advisers (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/women-worry-scandal-will-hurt-role-as-advisers)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/women-worry-scandal-will-hurt-role-as-advisers) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

[gute]

http://news.msn.com/politics/panetta-removes-military-ban-on-women-in-combat

Call me a sexist, old fashioned or whatever, but personally I don't like decision and believe due to political correctness and "gender norming" will degrade the force overall. But, if my daughter suddenly decided she wanted to be a riflman in the Marine Corps I would support her 100%. WTF is happening!

[TD]

You have lost you're mind and become Politically Correct (PC)! I hope they welcome you on the dark side.:eek:

[Wyatt]

Even if the standards were to be the same, I still wouldn't like it. Yet, knowing the army, they will not be the same. Men will die when they are too heavy in kit to be drug to cover by a female in their fire team, or she herself will get shot. How is the average female going to affect the load plan for a 3 day operation? Can she, on average, bear the 40kg load with enough juice in the tank to sprint to cover or bound? Is the average female the one you want in front of you in a stack?

I dont see the fascination civilian committees have with all manner of changes to the military that have nothing to do with increasing our lethality on the battle field. If the changes wont make you more lethal/effective, why even consider it?

[gute]

Fortunately, I don't have to worry about it - she is 100% girl and has no interest in that stuff. So, I get to remain old fashioned and not PC.

[gute]

Even if the standards were to be the same, I still wouldn't like it. Yet, knowing the army, they will not be the same. Men will die when they are too heavy in kit to be drug to cover by a female in their fire team, or she herself will get shot. How is the average female going to affect the load plan for a 3 day operation? Can she, on average, bear the 40kg load with enough juice in the tank to sprint to cover or bound? Is the average female the one you want in front of you in a stack?

I dont see the fascination civilian committees have with all manner of changes to the military that have nothing to do with increasing our lethality on the battle field. If the changes wont make you more lethal/effective, why even consider it?

yep, I agree with you. There will be different standards - this is only the beginning. I want to puke.

[SWJ Blog]

Combat Women and Congress’s Wimps (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/combat-women-and-congress%E2%80%99s-wimps)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/combat-women-and-congress%E2%80%99s-wimps) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

[SWJ Blog]

Know Your Enemy: Lessons for the U.S. Military from Women in Armed Rebel Groups (http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/know-your-enemy-lessons-for-the-us-military-from-women-in-armed-rebel-groups)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/know-your-enemy-lessons-for-the-us-military-from-women-in-armed-rebel-groups) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

[SWJ Blog]

Military Culture Still Refuses to Include Women (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/military-culture-still-refuses-to-include-women)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/military-culture-still-refuses-to-include-women) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

[SWJ Blog]

Pentagon Mulling Separate Combat Training for Men, Women (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/pentagon-mulling-separate-combat-training-for-men-women)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/pentagon-mulling-separate-combat-training-for-men-women) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

[SWJ Blog]

Double Standard: Pentagon Hints at Changes to Allow More Women in Ground Combat (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/double-standard-pentagon-hints-at-changes-to-allow-more-women-in-ground-combat)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/double-standard-pentagon-hints-at-changes-to-allow-more-women-in-ground-combat) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

[SWJ Blog]

Women and the Audie Murphy Model (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/women-and-the-audie-murphy-model)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/women-and-the-audie-murphy-model) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

[davidbfpo]

A BBC News report:
Capt Ashley Collette was the only woman in her platoon of soldiers on the Afghan front line. In the Canadian armed forces, unusually, every job is open to women - and both sexes live together and fight together.

(At the end citing the Captain) In my experience there's no reason why a band of brothers cannot be a band of brothers and sisters.

Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24622762

[rome]

knowing the army, they will not be the same. Men will die when they are too heavy in kit to be drug to cover by a female in their fire team, or she herself will get shot.

[davidbfpo]

A short interview with Canadian General John de Chastelain, who retired in 1995: Reflections on the introduction of women into combat roles in the Canadian military:http://strifeblog.org/2014/06/25/general-john-de-chastelain-reflections-on-the-introduction-of-women-into-combat-roles-in-the-canadian-military/

[davidbfpo]

Six threads where the theme was Women in Military Service and Combat, not just the American experience and viewpoint have been merged here.

[JMA]

Study Finds Women Don't Belong in Combat (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/181604#.U7WaNRZRf1o)


New book shows women in combat suffer much more serious non-combat injuries, alleges IDF cover-up...

...The book describes ludicrous measures by which women's lesser suitabilty for combat roles is masked. These include lowering the bar of requirements for women wishing to enter combat units, placing benches next to walls that trainees jump over (only for the women to use), running laps in circles (instead of straight-line runs from point A to point B) to make it less obvious that the women are lagging behind the men, and more.


and predictably:


The IDF told Maariv/NRG that Sagi's claims are “completely baseless” and that women's integration into combat units has been a success. “Female combat soldiers are dealt with in a supervised manner, which takes into account their medical, physiological and social needs,” the army said.

[davidbfpo]

As if by magic the UK MoD has announced a review of women in combat:
The aim of the review will be to assess the current exclusion of women from ground closecombat roles, to identify the benefits and risks of changing this policy and to make recommendations. The review is to be open and evidence based, building on theconsiderable work undertaken in support ofthe 2002 and 2010 reviews. The assessmentof benefits is to include the impact of a change in policy on the recruitment of women into the wider Armed Forces. It is to cover all three Services, with the Army acting as the lead Service working in close cooperation with the Navy, the Air Force and the Chief of Defence Personnel. It is to be based on the premise that all roles should be open to women unless this would undermine combat effectiveness. Armed Forces’ effectiveness is not, however, to be prejudiced by lowering operationally necessary standards.

Link:https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/326654/20140703-review-exclusion-woman-close-combat-roles-clean.pdf

[carl]

Forcing women into combat roles despite all is going to happen. There is no stopping it short of disastrous results when a big fight comes. Which is a certainty on both counts in my view.

From strictly an observer's standpoint, how it all plays out will be extremely interesting. A social experiment conducted on such a large scale has never really been done before. I don't count the WWII Red Army because they haven't fully opened their archives so we don't actually know what happened.

It is just so damn sad that all those people will have to die and suffer who wouldn't have had to die and suffer otherwise.

I hope there are some secret studies being done by staff officers somewhere that deal with having to reverse all this in the middle of a big fight.

[AmericanPride]

I don't count the WWII Red Army because they haven't fully opened their archives so we don't actually know what happened.

In other words: "I don't believe women should be in combat and I'm going to ignore historical examples that do not prove this point."

There is plenty of literature about the experience of Soviet women in combat. You claim that "I hope there are some secret studies being done by staff officers somewhere that deal with having to reverse all this in the middle of a big fight."

The Soviets, who experienced the "[biggest] fight" in history, concluded the opposite and realized that the exigencies of conflict necessitated the destruction of social norms that prevented women from performing combat roles as varied as attack aviation, armored warfare, snipers, and partisans. The norms that regulate women to the sidelines are luxuries enjoyed in a patriarchial society at peace.

[davidbfpo]

An Australian TV report from Finnmark, Norway's northern province and the border with Russia. It starts with:
When the young women of the Norwegian Border Guard turn in after a long day patrolling along a stretch of their nation's northern border with Russia, chances are there will be men in the room.

They're the fellow soldiers they've been working with, training with and sometimes ordering around in the field. Despite the seamless sleeping arrangements, the conflicting habits of males and females, it all seems to work. Harassment and sexual assault, already comparatively low in Norway's armed forces, is on the wane.

Link, includes a twenty-eight minute TV documentary (with some nice scenery):http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/content/2014/s4061340.htm

Note Norway has universal male conscription, women are all volunteers; next year conscription will be extended to women. The Navy has a different policy on sharing accomodation; whilst the first SF platoon has been created.

[Granite_State]

The three female officers who completed the Marine Infantry Officer Course's indoc are dropped after hikes:

http://m.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2014/1024/Three-pioneering-women-in-Marine-infantry-course-are-asked-to-leave.-Why

Anyone care to predict how this is going to end in 2016?

[former_0302]

The three female officers who completed the Marine Infantry Officer Course's indoc are dropped after hikes:

http://m.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2014/1024/Three-pioneering-women-in-Marine-infantry-course-are-asked-to-leave.-Why

Anyone care to predict how this is going to end in 2016?

A guy I know at Quantico (retired colonel who's very friendly with a lot of people who wear stars) told me last month that female integration WILL be successful. Take that for what it's worth... it lines up pretty well with what I've heard other generals say.

[OldyButGoodie]

Women all over the world serve in direct combat roles. Review those Pesh Merga pictures or the female divisions ransacking Berlin. The problem we have is that some of our leadership want female warriors to be plug-in replacements for males. The error here is the preconception that all male warriors are plug-in replacements for each other. They are not.

Any squad or platoon level leader knows that each member of their command has different strengths and weaknesses. Some can carry heavier packs longer distances, some can run faster or farther, some are better marksmen, some are better or more willing with a knife, some are just better warriors.

Leadership skill includes the ability consider these differences when establishing expectations and making task assignments. There is nothing new needed as women agree to risk all to serve.

[davidbfpo]

In June 2014 BBC Radio 4 broadcast a half hour documentary looking at the Canadian experience. Today the reporter has an article, with the sub-title, in expectation that UK policy is about to change:
As the UK decides whether to allow female soldiers to fight on the front line, Emma Barnett explains what's really driving the fear at the heart of the armed forces about women bearing armsI think her argument is best summed up here:
Women, as they have proved in all other specialisms in our Armed Forces, do not degrade operational capability – they maintain it, alongside their male colleagues. Link:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11249823/Front-line-females-We-can-train-women-to-kill-but-men-wont-like-it.html

The BBC podcast is available on:http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03c3dx1

[davidbfpo]

Hat tip to Red Rat for this:
The question at hand is whether women should serve in the infantry, and as I lay out above, I think it’s a bad idea.

(Beforehand) I make the argument that women should not serve in the infantry due to the impact on standards and cohesion (in addition to a couple of higher order drawbacks). Note that I’m not making the argument that women shouldn’t serve on the front line (a conflation many commentators make), but more narrowly that they shouldn’t serve in the job that exists to close with the enemy and stick a bayonet in his chest.
Link:https://medium.com/fall-when-hit/allowing-women-into-the-infantry-is-a-mistake-379e73b9250b

[SWJ Blog]

A Few Good Women (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/a-few-good-women)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/a-few-good-women) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

[SWJ Blog]

Women in Combat (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/women-in-combat)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/women-in-combat) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

[SWJ Blog]

Curb Your Enthusiasm/Skepticism Over Women In SOF (http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/curb-your-enthusiasmskepticism-over-women-in-sof)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/curb-your-enthusiasmskepticism-over-women-in-sof) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

[SWJ Blog]

DoD Finally Gets the Point of Women, Peace, and Security (http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/dod-finally-gets-the-point-of-women-peace-and-security)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/dod-finally-gets-the-point-of-women-peace-and-security) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

[120mm]

After a substantial hiatus from SWC, during which time I spent over 3 years in Afghanistan and 6 additional months in Iraq, living and working mainly outside the wire, and always with females, I am absolutely committed to the concept of ending the exclusion policy.

1. The exclusion policy violates civil rights: I don't care if women cannot qualify, it is frankly anti-American to exclude ONLY on gender.

2. Physical size and strength is hugely over-rated. Our adversaries are tiny people with low strength, but somehow they have kept inside our OODA loop.

https://hotmilkforbreakfast.wordpress.com/2015/03/08/women-in-the-military-is-physical-size-and-strength-really-necessary-for-military-success/

3. Our enemies have figured out that there is a revolution in personal mobility. We've known for decades that light infantry and airborne infantry are pretty worthless on a modern battlefield. As a result, we should be more focused on providing ways to deliver guys with guns and their gear to where they need to go rapidly, not on who can hump 100 pounds 10 miles or not. The net effect of this is that the ability to out think the enemy becomes much more important than the size of one's bicep. Relative female incapability would act as a forcing function in this.

4. Professionalism: Our military suffers most of all from unprofessionalism. MIxed gender cohesive communities and teams have existed throughout history. The reason why SHARP is such a big deal with the US military is that we are still stuck in mass conscripted army mode; what we really need is a smaller, switched on military without "up and out" and the rampant careerism and stupid rotational policies that accompany it. Soldiers too unprofessional to co-exist in a mixed gender unit can be fired or imprisoned, as is appropriate.

[Granite_State]

After a substantial hiatus from SWC, during which time I spent over 3 years in Afghanistan and 6 additional months in Iraq, living and working mainly outside the wire, and always with females, I am absolutely committed to the concept of ending the exclusion policy.

1. The exclusion policy violates civil rights: I don't care if women cannot qualify, it is frankly anti-American to exclude ONLY on gender.

2. Physical size and strength is hugely over-rated. Our adversaries are tiny people with low strength, but somehow they have kept inside our OODA loop.

https://hotmilkforbreakfast.wordpress.com/2015/03/08/women-in-the-military-is-physical-size-and-strength-really-necessary-for-military-success/

3. Our enemies have figured out that there is a revolution in personal mobility. We've known for decades that light infantry and airborne infantry are pretty worthless on a modern battlefield. As a result, we should be more focused on providing ways to deliver guys with guns and their gear to where they need to go rapidly, not on who can hump 100 pounds 10 miles or not. The net effect of this is that the ability to out think the enemy becomes much more important than the size of one's bicep. Relative female incapability would act as a forcing function in this.

4. Professionalism: Our military suffers most of all from unprofessionalism. MIxed gender cohesive communities and teams have existed throughout history. The reason why SHARP is such a big deal with the US military is that we are still stuck in mass conscripted army mode; what we really need is a smaller, switched on military without "up and out" and the rampant careerism and stupid rotational policies that accompany it. Soldiers too unprofessional to co-exist in a mixed gender unit can be fired or imprisoned, as is appropriate.

Great to have you back. Couldn't disagree more though. Putting "rights" before the mission is one of the many reasons we're 0-2 since Desert Storm.

Good link above, one of the better pro-female integration arguments I've seen. The author makes great points on PPE and endurance over strength. But the whole debate is backwards, because we (or, more likely, the "infantrywomen" advocates) have laid out individual physical ability as the be-all and end-all of the debate. It should really be third, behind cohesion and attrition (injury, pregnancy, and everything in between).

All else aside, I personally don't know how anyone who has led teenaged soldiers/Marines/sailors/airmen from this sex-saturated generation, or even someone who has lived in a college dorm in the last couple decades, could think women in combat arms units is a good idea.

[120mm]

Great to have you back. Couldn't disagree more though. Putting "rights" before the mission is one of the many reasons we're 0-2 since Desert Storm.

And that's because we value strength and stupidity. In fact, we're 0 - whatever since WWII. Which was the last war we allowed women to fight. We don't lose war because we allow women in the military, we lose war because the MEN that lead our military (and government) are idiots.


Good link above, one of the better pro-female integration arguments I've seen. The author makes great points on PPE and endurance over strength. But the whole debate is backwards, because we (or, more likely, the "infantrywomen" advocates) have laid out individual physical ability as the be-all and end-all of the debate. It should really be third, behind cohesion and attrition (injury, pregnancy, and everything in between).

Thanks. I wrote it.

Injury is caused by excessive PPE and wrong-sized gear. And our stupidity in embracing Light Infantry. BTW, the guys who are kicking our asses are weaker and smaller than western women, and do NOT deploy as light infantry, but intelligently use motorcycles, four wheelers and light pickups to get to where they kill us. While we waddle around in michelin man gear, with our engorged biceps, and supplement fed bodies which are fundamentally worthless in modern combat. Oh, and our airborne/light infantry fetish.

BTW, the pregnancy thing ended post Gulf War I. Females who go outside the wire just do not get pregnant.


All else aside, I personally don't know how anyone who has led teenaged soldiers/Marines/sailors/airmen from this sex-saturated generation, or even someone who has lived in a college dorm in the last couple decades, could think women in combat arms units is a good idea.

That's because the teenaged, cannon fodder army of yesterday is born to lose. Get rid of "up or out", stop treating soldiers like children and start expecting them to do their jobs, and all the other b.s. falls away. We don't have an integration problem; we have a professionalism problem.

[Granite_State]

And that's because we value strength and stupidity. In fact, we're 0 - whatever since WWII. Which was the last war we allowed women to fight. We don't lose war because we allow women in the military, we lose war because the MEN that lead our military (and government) are idiots.



Thanks. I wrote it.

Injury is caused by excessive PPE and wrong-sized gear. And our stupidity in embracing Light Infantry. BTW, the guys who are kicking our asses are weaker and smaller than western women, and do NOT deploy as light infantry, but intelligently use motorcycles, four wheelers and light pickups to get to where they kill us. While we waddle around in michelin man gear, with our engorged biceps, and supplement fed bodies which are fundamentally worthless in modern combat. Oh, and our airborne/light infantry fetish.


I think your cav bias is showing. Agree on the PPE, agree on the biceps and supplements. But there are places only light infantry can go. If anything, our insistence on "commuting to work" has been the problem. And I say this as a guy with a USMC LAR background.



BTW, the pregnancy thing ended post Gulf War I. Females who go outside the wire just do not get pregnant.


I doubt this is true. I KNOW this is not true when it comes to FOBs, carriers, etc.



That's because the teenaged, cannon fodder army of yesterday is born to lose. Get rid of "up or out", stop treating soldiers like children and start expecting them to do their jobs, and all the other b.s. falls away. We don't have an integration problem; we have a professionalism problem.

That's the mentality where any problem, no matter how intractable or self-inflicted, is simply "a leadership challenge." We've got enough of those as it is. If the problem is professionalism, why do those closest to Army SF say the problem will be even worse there?:

http://warontherocks.com/2014/11/heres-why-women-in-combat-units-is-a-bad-idea/

[AmericanPride]

All else aside, I personally don't know how anyone who has led teenaged soldiers/Marines/sailors/airmen from this sex-saturated generation, or even someone who has lived in a college dorm in the last couple decades, could think women in combat arms units is a good idea.

This is a problem of normative structures, not of the objective material impact of women participating in combat. The U.S. is introducing by piecemeal a foreign concept into a closed society. This is like dipping your hand into the cold pool water and waiting and hoping that the rest of your body will warm up to it. But the normative structures are changing - rapidly - not least because of the changing role of the military in U.S. society which has been brought to the forefront of our attention by war.

The recent changes in the military retirement system and other proposed personnel policies reflect a military entering into a new stage of modern professional and work ethic. This is a consequence of a host factors, among which is the underlying cultural and intellectual reliance on a 'volunteer force'. This is more about labor economics than culture because the culture will change as the economics change. The U.S. labor market is extremely competitive and the state no longer has the social capital or the political will to compel military service. Thus by consequence of economic restraints, the military needs more women to enter into service.

This is also about expectations of combat performance as well as attrition. The U.S. has the world's third largest population and could easily field a mass army capable of 'victory' in any conventional war. In this context, women are not necessary and so the luxury of domestic cultural norms regulating female roles can be maintained. However, we do not want mass casualties. We do not want to fight a large conventional war. We want a 'smart', technological, flexible military. This is reflected in our recruiting standards which make between a quarter and a third of applicants ineligible. These are aspects of the American military mind that dictate the economic necessity of women in combat.

There is also an underlying question tugging at all of this and that is: what wins wars? Is it the heroism and skill of the individual soldier and do women by their nature lack something necessary for victory on the battlefield? That sounds very romantic and certainly protects the pride of manhood. Or is it by cold calculation of a combination of technological prowess, material wealth, and the massing of combat power on a single target? I would venture to guess that if we were to replace all the men in the military with women, keeping all else equal, our military outcomes would be the same.

EDIT: One other thought. There was a study awhile ago (I'll try to find it if I can) that examined the differences in men and female athletes and found that a substantial difference in their abilities can be linked to the segregated upbringing of the sexes. Girls are simply not held to the same expectations of boys when it comes to athletics and this is reflected by the amount of time, resources, etc dedicated to their training and development as they grow up. This results in differentiated outcomes. The same is true for military service - though that is changing some. Unless there is a fundamental difference in the female temperament or nature, women and men being held to the same standards (this is different than saying women should be held to men's standards) should not affect anything.

[SWJ Blog]

Pentagon Will Open All Combat Roles to Women (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/pentagon-will-open-all-combat-roles-to-women)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/pentagon-will-open-all-combat-roles-to-women) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

[Granite_State]

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/12/03/458319524/pentagon-will-allow-women-in-frontline-ground-combat-positions

As anticipated.

[SWJ Blog]

Statement from USSOCOM on SECDEF’s Women in Service Review Decision (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/statement-from-ussocom-on-secdef%E2%80%99s-women-in-service-review-decision)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/statement-from-ussocom-on-secdef%E2%80%99s-women-in-service-review-decision) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

[SWJ Blog]

Carter Opens All Military Occupations, Positions to Women (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/carter-opens-all-military-occupations-positions-to-women)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/carter-opens-all-military-occupations-positions-to-women) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

[SWJ Blog]

As Pentagon Opens Combat Roles to Women, What are Special Forces' Concerns? (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/as-pentagon-opens-combat-roles-to-women-what-are-special-forces-concerns)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/as-pentagon-opens-combat-roles-to-women-what-are-special-forces-concerns) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

[SWJ Blog]

Report: Opposition to Women in Combat Units Among Marines (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/report-opposition-to-women-in-combat-units-among-marines)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/report-opposition-to-women-in-combat-units-among-marines) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

[AmericanPride]

Have there been any research into the role(s) women have played in the Ukrainian Army in the on-going Russia-Ukraine conflict?

From a 2015 article:


“I always felt ashamed that I wasn’t in the war when some 18-year-old guys, even if they’re not patriots, have to go,” said Lera Burlakova, 29, who quit her job as a journalist last December to serve as a front-line soldier with the Karpatska Sich volunteer battalion in Pisky.

“If you want to look in the mirror and not turn away, you have to go,” she added. “But I don’t think all people have to do it. Some people are really scared, and that’s the way they are. And maybe they shouldn’t be there, in the war, and die without reason.”

Women are still officially barred from front-line service in Ukraine’s regular army, and most of the women who have served in combat have done so as members of civilian volunteer battalions.

So, as Ukraine continues to rein in the volunteer battalions by integrating them into the regular army or National Guard, new questions are emerging about the future role of female soldiers who have proven themselves in combat and are consequently reluctant to be relegated to support roles behind the lines.

“We have a war, and women are serving,” Burlakova said. “And if a woman wants to be in combat, if she passes the tests, doesn’t break, and has already taken part in the war … then yeah, of course she should be allowed—she shouldn’t have to be a cook.”

http://dailysignal.com/2015/08/11/meet-ukraines-women-warriors/

[Compost]

It is interesting that those proposing women as suitable for service throughout the military and especially in combat elements such as infantry are not also proposing women compete against men in gridiron and ice hockey.

Women are certainly capable of learning and employing the infantry skills needed for short duration security and clearing patrols in the vicinity of basecamps. But operations outside the wire in front-line infantry units include periods of fatique, hardship and rugged labour that are just as demanding and brutishly intense as contact sport. The typical workloads in armour, artillery and engineers are less in the face but pulling tracks, humping shells and earth moving are – despite what politicians may suppose – sufficiently heavy and sustained to stretch the 95 percentile of women beyond their capacity and endurance.

However, political correctness is one hell of a weapon and its advocates are keen to change camouflage cream to pink. One current campaign is to renovate US Army and USMC training into a modern syllabus for touch football and cheerleading where many women could succeed. Of course the PC advocates are not game to suggest contact sports or armed conflict can be gentled down. But that is their basic and fatally incorrect assumption.

[AmericanPride]

It is interesting that those proposing women as suitable for service throughout the military and especially in combat elements such as infantry are not also proposing women compete against men in gridiron and ice hockey.

The assumption here is that women, if given equal training and resourcing, could not compete with men in gridiron and hockey. From a very young age, boys and girls are segregated in athletics, and this has compounding effects over the years as boys on the whole receive more training than girls. This is also true for the military.

There is also another assumption in your comment: that whatever abstract level of proficiency required for 'combat' is somehow inherently gendered. There exists somewhere and by some measurement a minimum standard necessary for 'combat', however defined, regardless of one's sex. There are many men who fail to meet this standard and by your arbitrary formulation here, men should be as equally disqualified as women from combat arms. Military standards are not looking for "the best" like in profit-driven professional sports, but for 'good enough' among those who volunteer for service.


But operations outside the wire in front-line infantry units include periods of fatique, hardship and rugged labour that are just as demanding and brutishly intense as contact sport

What does this have to do with anyone's gender? Were Soviet women less capable of killing German invaders than their male comrades? Did women not share with men the hardship of the Indian frontier? How about the hard labor in factories or mines?

The opposition to women in combat arms is based on an antiquated, patriarchal, and romantic view of the 'right place' for the sexes - a view that is quickly being dismantled by the necessities of the modern era's demands on society. Wars are no longer won by personal courage and individual strength (ah blasphemy!) but by the cold calculation of the massing of combat power on the enemy. What about the genders makes one better than the other at pulling the trigger of an assault right, flying a drone, or driving a tank? And as technology continues to find new means of automation and miniaturization, like exoskeletons, the 'justifications' for excluding women from combat arms become increasingly irrelevant to modern warfare. The military - given its importance for the national security - is no place to stake the last stand of dying male machismo in American society.

[Red Rat]

The opposition to women in combat arms is based on an antiquated, patriarchal, and romantic view of the 'right place' for the sexes - a view that is quickly being dismantled by the necessities of the modern era's demands on society.

That's one hell of an assertion. Would you like to back that up with evidence? I have not seen any significant moral or philosophical contributions to the debate, nor have I seen any serious sociological or anthropological studies of the wide-ranging implications of this move. This is bemusing as primarily this debate should not be about combat effectiveness, but about the wider ramifications of treating men and women as not just equal, but the same.

[Granite_State]

The opposition to women in combat arms is based on an antiquated, patriarchal, and romantic view of the 'right place' for the sexes - a view that is quickly being dismantled by the necessities of the modern era's demands on society. Wars are no longer won by personal courage and individual strength (ah blasphemy!) but by the cold calculation of the massing of combat power on the enemy. What about the genders makes one better than the other at pulling the trigger of an assault right, flying a drone, or driving a tank? And as technology continues to find new means of automation and miniaturization, like exoskeletons, the 'justifications' for excluding women from combat arms become increasingly irrelevant to modern warfare. The military - given its importance for the national security - is no place to stake the last stand of dying male machismo in American society.

Never mind that the physical concerns with integration pale in comparison to those of cohesion, fraternization, pregnancy, and injury. Tell your tale of exoskeletons and miniaturization to:
-A soldier from the 101st Airborne in the Korengal.
-A Marine from 3/1 in Fallujah.
-Any soldier or Marine jumping or climbing up a canal with a 25 pound ECM on his back.

This revolt against reality will end about one week in to a real war.

[Compost]

The opposition to women in combat arms is based on an antiquated, patriarchal, and romantic view of the 'right place' for the sexes - a view that is quickly being dismantled by the necessities of the modern era's demands on society. Wars are no longer won by personal courage and individual strength (ah blasphemy!) but by the cold calculation of the massing of combat power on the enemy. What about the genders makes one better than the other at pulling the trigger of an assault right, flying a drone, or driving a tank? And as technology continues to find new means of automation and miniaturization, like exoskeletons, the 'justifications' for excluding women from combat arms become increasingly irrelevant to modern warfare. The military - given its importance for the national security - is no place to stake the last stand of dying male machismo in American society.
Evangelism can be emotionally and socially rewarding and the current politically correct view is that US infantry units should be promptly changed from all-male to mixed male-and-female. That would yield a lot of empirical data when those light infantry platoons and companies are inevitably committed to close quarter combat against adversary platoons and companies that are likely to be all-male. But if the empirical data is unfavourable, what costs will have been incurred and how long will it take to save face and then revert to ‘all-male’ light infantry ?

The proven path for military force development is to test before implementing. Statistical gaming is an alternative but in this case there is already so much PC and anti-PC opinion that computer models and their results would be suspect. In my opinion the viability of having females in light infantry units - operating without or with niceties such as exoskeletons - could be cheaply and appropriately tested in several series of ‘round-robin’ gridiron or ice hockey matches: each matching an all-male team against a male-female team with all teams in a ‘round-robin’ composed of all members from a pool of goodmale light infantry and all members of a somewhat smaller pool of pool of comprehensively trained females. For example, four series with six teams in each would require 60 matches which played at the rate of two per week would usefully test powers of endurance and recovery.

Is there an alternative way of testing human suitability for the basic all-purpose combat arm which has been on the winning and loosing sides throughout human history ? And seriously is it even necessary ? Recent history has shown that technological advances continue to be a sometime substitute for the aggressive, other instinctive and physiological capabilities of human light infantry. That history indicates also that females continue to coldly calculate that it is adviseable to avoid face-to-face combat against males. Females also somewhat similarly avoid integration into intensely male units.

[AmericanPride]

That's one hell of an assertion. Would you like to back that up with evidence? I have not seen any significant moral or philosophical contributions to the debate, nor have I seen any serious sociological or anthropological studies of the wide-ranging implications of this move. This is bemusing as primarily this debate should not be about combat effectiveness, but about the wider ramifications of treating men and women as not just equal, but the same.

It's not only the change character of modern warfare, but also the ways in which society has changed the relationship between genders. The old views about genders are increasingly irrelevant - and, to some extent, destructive and obstructionist. The underlying structures of capitalism and democracy - as they exist today, and which, ultimately, inform the construction of the security apparatus around them - do not require any sort of differentiation. In fact, given the trends in finance, labor, public health, technology, and trade, they are positively harmed by any kind of exclusionary policies which reduce one segment's participation in this system. The last few decades have witnessed this dismantling with a few holdouts in the 'cultural wars'. Likewise, the all-volunteer military, with its high demands for an educated and moral work-force, is also harmed by policies of exclusion, given the ever-decreasing pool of viable candidates and the increasing per-servicemember cost of maintaining them.

So this isn't just about combat effectiveness, which really is only an indicator of the state of things underneath, or just equality, which is also important, but instead the continued evolution of our political-economic system which requires an all-volunteer service. With a country of 300+ million people, we could easily find enough men to fill our requirements - but only if we removed barriers like social stigma of the draft and physical/moral requirements. But we can't - and the national security cannot afford to exclude ~150+ million people from the potential labor pool because some men hold sexist views about women.


Never mind that the physical concerns with integration pale in comparison to those of cohesion, fraternization, pregnancy, and injury.

When faced with the common threat of death and serious injury, I'm confident that men and women will be just fine working together.


This revolt against reality will end about one week in to a real war.

The reality is that the only political correctness occurring here is futilely defending the last bastion of masochism in American society against its inevitable destruction in the face of a changing world. Here's a thought: if you were to replace all of the men in the armed forces with women, how would the outcomes of our wars be any different? Has the U.S. lost any conflict on the basis of the physical prowess or personal courage of its members?


But if the empirical data is unfavourable, what costs will have been incurred and how long will it take to save face and then revert to ‘all-male’ light infantry ?

This assumes that the 'unfavorable' data is because women's presence is detrimental to unit integrity rather than that male machisoism is detrimental to unit integrity in mixed units.

[Compost]

Never mind that the physical concerns with integration pale in comparison to those of cohesion, fraternization, pregnancy, and injury.

This revolt against reality will end about one week in to a real war.


Would be pleased to have made these delightfully concise remarks,
but the credit belongs to Granite State.

[Granite_State]

The US services' implementation plans are out:

http://weaponsman.com/?p=30437

[Red Rat]

It's not only the change character of modern warfare, but also the ways in which society has changed the relationship between genders. The old views about genders are increasingly irrelevant - and, to some extent, destructive and obstructionist. The underlying structures of capitalism and democracy - as they exist today, and which, ultimately, inform the construction of the security apparatus around them - do not require any sort of differentiation. In fact, given the trends in finance, labor, public health, technology, and trade, they are positively harmed by any kind of exclusionary policies which reduce one segment's participation in this system. The last few decades have witnessed this dismantling with a few holdouts in the 'cultural wars'.

So this isn't just about combat effectiveness...

I quite agree that this is not just about combat effectiveness. The way a military fights reflects the society it comes from and what that society aspires to be. I just see no hard evidence that the change is for the better. It seems to be both inconsistent in application, inefficient in costs and ill-considered in thinking through the second and third order consequences. In saying this I am looking across society as a whole, but the military is a good microcosm of this.

I remain bemused by the modern insistence that men and women are not just equal but should be regarded as the same, when patently they are not.

[120mm]

I think your cav bias is showing. Agree on the PPE, agree on the biceps and supplements. But there are places only light infantry can go. If anything, our insistence on "commuting to work" has been the problem. And I say this as a guy with a USMC LAR background.

Then the light infantry can ditch their wheels for a short time and fight as infantry. Just like the insurgents do. The problem with "commuting to work" is that we load teams and squads up on trucks and armored vehicles like sardines. Instead of putting one soldier on one quad bike, or 2 to 3 soldiers on one pickup truck. The future dead bodies in the back of an APC are completely divorced from combat until they are kicked out or burned alive.

It's not hard to figure out. Unless you are US military, and then it's freaking unpossible.


I doubt this is true. I KNOW this is not true when it comes to FOBs, carriers, etc.

I will bet you any amount of money you care to name that more muscle headed men eliminated themselves from theater due to power lifting accidents, then women from pregnancy. And in a truly professional military (vice a welfare agency with green uniforms) pregnancy in combat zone would result in a ride back and one's ass kicked out.


That's the mentality where any problem, no matter how intractable or self-inflicted, is simply "a leadership challenge." We've got enough of those as it is. If the problem is professionalism, why do those closest to Army SF say the problem will be even worse there?:

A professional army doesn't require leadership/babysitting to the extent that a welfare agency/mass army needs. In a truly professional military, problem children get fired. Period. Quit recruiting idiots for college money. Every single recruit should enter with the idea of becoming a professional soldier and be asked to leave if it doesn't work out for them.


http://warontherocks.com/2014/11/heres-why-women-in-combat-units-is-a-bad-idea/

Unprofessionalism is not restricted to "Big Army". Many of our SF units have institutionalized a kind of ego-driven "frat boy" culture. See V Group.

[120mm]

Never mind that the physical concerns with integration pale in comparison to those of cohesion, fraternization, pregnancy, and injury. Tell your tale of exoskeletons and miniaturization to:
-A soldier from the 101st Airborne in the Korengal.
-A Marine from 3/1 in Fallujah.
-Any soldier or Marine jumping or climbing up a canal with a 25 pound ECM on his back.

This revolt against reality will end about one week in to a real war.

You mean, a "real war" like the Eastern Front in WWII?

Yeah. Gotta have a dick to kill Germans with an 11 pound rifle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyudmila_Pavlichenko

Your apocryphal soldier and Marine were handicapped by a system where their physical size and strength were more important than their war fighting ability. It astonishes me how people who've served can work up the motivation to oppose females being "allowed" to serve in combat units, yet cannot get worked up about the chain of leadership failures that led to the above mentioned scenarios.

Note that the NVA didn't burden it's infantry with crap. Neither did the Japanese in WWII. Nor do the guys killing our guys in Korengal or in Fallujah.

[Red Rat]

Note that the NVA didn't burden it's infantry with crap. Neither did the Japanese in WWII. Nor do the guys killing our guys in Korengal or in Fallujah.

Because societies go to war in a manner which reflects both the society and their aims in the conflict. You cannot expect a society to fight in a way that is foreign to that society. At the very least the former delineates in part what they regard as risk, the latter how much risk they are prepared to accept. Comparing apples and Volkswagens therefore seems a strange way to make a point about supposed leadership failures.

[davidbfpo]

Found this on an email round-up from 'The Conversation', a commentary blogsite based on UK university writers and the article maybe of interest. I have no position on the issues.

It starts with:
Many myths, based on stereotype and perpetuated by a minority of “old and bold” military personnel, are historically unfounded (http://www.jstor.org/stable/3173736?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents). However, the findings do not seem to be filtering though – and popular opinion still believes that women are incapable of serving in ground close combat roles (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/03/10/survey-details-depth-of-opposition-in-marine-corps-to-allowing-women-in-combat-jobs/). It is time to put these myths to bed once and for all:
Link:https://theconversation.com/eight-myths-about-women-on-the-military-frontline-and-why-we-shouldnt-believe-them-55594? (https://theconversation.com/eight-myths-about-women-on-the-military-frontline-and-why-we-shouldnt-believe-them-55594?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=The%20Weekend%20Conversation%20-%204601&utm_content=The%20Weekend%20Conversation%20-%204601+CID_4a77ecdc2c7ed7869ed03c44740b8df5&utm_source=campaign_monitor_uk&utm_term=Eight%20myths%20about%20women%20on%20the% 20military%20frontline%20%20and%20why%20we%20shoul dnt%20believe%20them)