Women in Military Service & Combat (not just USA)

[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/...-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/...-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 arms

I 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/wom...t-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/all...e-379e73b9250b

[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.wordpres...itary-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.