Women in Military Service & Combat (not just USA)

[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.

[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.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.

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/her...is-a-bad-idea/