hot and cold calculations
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AmericanPride
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.
Eight myths about women on the military frontline – and why we shouldn’t believe them
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:Link:https://theconversation.com/eight-myths-about-women-on-the-military-frontline-and-why-we-shouldnt-believe-them-55594?
Calling All Women Who Serve or Served!
Calling All Women Who Serve or Served!
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.
Comment on Tom Ricks' blog
Quote:
singh.s
singh.s 2 days ago
Just had a division gender integration brief. Some SGM from SMA Dailey's office came in and tried to sell the Pentagon Kool-Aid on its efficacy. Two Company Commanders had the moral courage to stand up and ask under what circumstances they would be within their authority to deny a female entry into the combat arms. Short answer: If they pass the OPAT, rejecting a female applicant who has passed the OPAT is grounds for an IG visit.
Then the division retention folks gave a presentation on the OPAT itself. Platoon Sergeants sat with a stiff upper lips and Platoon Leaders barely contained their laughter. It is abundantly clear these standards are designed to pay lip service to the needs of specific MOS's and therefore give fake credence to non-combat Soldiers (male or female) who end up in the combat arms upon passing it
.
As those of us opposed to this lunacy have long claimed, lower standards were always going to be part of the deal.
For Guidance on Women in Combat Positions, Look to the U.S. Coast Guard
For Guidance on Women in Combat Positions, Look to the U.S. Coast Guard
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.