With a closer look, you're almost certainly correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
82redleg
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
women in combat arms commission
Since this report came out http://www.mercurynews.com/natbreaki...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.
U.S. Marine Corps to Assign Women to Ground Combat Element Units
U.S. Marine Corps to Assign Women to Ground Combat Element Units
Entry Excerpt:
--------
Read the full post and make any comments at the SWJ Blog.
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.
Women in Military Service & Combat (not just USA)
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 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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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 of women in armies around the world, while this 2009 UK MoD report goes into more detail of the applicable literature up to that time. This article 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 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.
Women Worry Scandal Will Hurt Role as Advisers
Women Worry Scandal Will Hurt Role as Advisers
Entry Excerpt:
--------
Read the full post and make any comments at the SWJ Blog.
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.
Panetta Lifts Ban on Women in Combat
http://news.msn.com/politics/panetta...omen-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!
I'll tell you what is happening to you!
You have lost you're mind and become Politically Correct (PC)! I hope they welcome you on the dark side.:eek: