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?Originally Posted by Old Eagle
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?
"On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War
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.
women are veterans too!
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
Something I Used to Mull Over...
... 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...
Cultural roles
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?
Last edited by Tom Odom; 03-20-2007 at 12:42 PM.
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.
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.
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!
Women and War
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.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 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 , 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
Would more female Marines/Soldiers increase our chances for success in Iraq?
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?
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."
Well...
... 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?
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..
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.
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.
Last edited by neowolfe; 09-28-2007 at 03:36 PM.
Non-military woman butts in
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.
Kat-Missouri
You've pretty much summed it up, kehenry1. Thank you.
Maggie
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
Last edited by Rob Thornton; 10-09-2007 at 10:59 AM.
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.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
Cold and Clammy...The Navy Shake ?
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.
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):
Hmmm, I kinda like that just a smiginShake Hands With Women - 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).
Honestly, I have no idea what happened at the Naval Academy. Perhaps just graduates separating themselves from the pledges, male or female.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks