Women in Military Service & Combat (not just USA)

[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/

[AmericanPride]

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.

This is a problem of normative structures, not of the objective material impact of women participating in combat. The U.S. is introducing by piecemeal a foreign concept into a closed society. This is like dipping your hand into the cold pool water and waiting and hoping that the rest of your body will warm up to it. But the normative structures are changing - rapidly - not least because of the changing role of the military in U.S. society which has been brought to the forefront of our attention by war.

The recent changes in the military retirement system and other proposed personnel policies reflect a military entering into a new stage of modern professional and work ethic. This is a consequence of a host factors, among which is the underlying cultural and intellectual reliance on a 'volunteer force'. This is more about labor economics than culture because the culture will change as the economics change. The U.S. labor market is extremely competitive and the state no longer has the social capital or the political will to compel military service. Thus by consequence of economic restraints, the military needs more women to enter into service.

This is also about expectations of combat performance as well as attrition. The U.S. has the world's third largest population and could easily field a mass army capable of 'victory' in any conventional war. In this context, women are not necessary and so the luxury of domestic cultural norms regulating female roles can be maintained. However, we do not want mass casualties. We do not want to fight a large conventional war. We want a 'smart', technological, flexible military. This is reflected in our recruiting standards which make between a quarter and a third of applicants ineligible. These are aspects of the American military mind that dictate the economic necessity of women in combat.

There is also an underlying question tugging at all of this and that is: what wins wars? Is it the heroism and skill of the individual soldier and do women by their nature lack something necessary for victory on the battlefield? That sounds very romantic and certainly protects the pride of manhood. Or is it by cold calculation of a combination of technological prowess, material wealth, and the massing of combat power on a single target? I would venture to guess that if we were to replace all the men in the military with women, keeping all else equal, our military outcomes would be the same.

EDIT: One other thought. There was a study awhile ago (I'll try to find it if I can) that examined the differences in men and female athletes and found that a substantial difference in their abilities can be linked to the segregated upbringing of the sexes. Girls are simply not held to the same expectations of boys when it comes to athletics and this is reflected by the amount of time, resources, etc dedicated to their training and development as they grow up. This results in differentiated outcomes. The same is true for military service - though that is changing some. Unless there is a fundamental difference in the female temperament or nature, women and men being held to the same standards (this is different than saying women should be held to men's standards) should not affect anything.

[Granite_State]

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-w...mbat-positions

As anticipated.

[AmericanPride]

Have there been any research into the role(s) women have played in the Ukrainian Army in the on-going Russia-Ukraine conflict?

From a 2015 article:

“I always felt ashamed that I wasn’t in the war when some 18-year-old guys, even if they’re not patriots, have to go,” said Lera Burlakova, 29, who quit her job as a journalist last December to serve as a front-line soldier with the Karpatska Sich volunteer battalion in Pisky.

“If you want to look in the mirror and not turn away, you have to go,” she added. “But I don’t think all people have to do it. Some people are really scared, and that’s the way they are. And maybe they shouldn’t be there, in the war, and die without reason.”

Women are still officially barred from front-line service in Ukraine’s regular army, and most of the women who have served in combat have done so as members of civilian volunteer battalions.

So, as Ukraine continues to rein in the volunteer battalions by integrating them into the regular army or National Guard, new questions are emerging about the future role of female soldiers who have proven themselves in combat and are consequently reluctant to be relegated to support roles behind the lines.

“We have a war, and women are serving,” Burlakova said. “And if a woman wants to be in combat, if she passes the tests, doesn’t break, and has already taken part in the war … then yeah, of course she should be allowed—she shouldn’t have to be a cook.”

http://dailysignal.com/2015/08/11/me...omen-warriors/

[120mm]

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.

Then the light infantry can ditch their wheels for a short time and fight as infantry. Just like the insurgents do. The problem with "commuting to work" is that we load teams and squads up on trucks and armored vehicles like sardines. Instead of putting one soldier on one quad bike, or 2 to 3 soldiers on one pickup truck. The future dead bodies in the back of an APC are completely divorced from combat until they are kicked out or burned alive.

It's not hard to figure out. Unless you are US military, and then it's freaking unpossible.

I doubt this is true. I KNOW this is not true when it comes to FOBs, carriers, etc.

I will bet you any amount of money you care to name that more muscle headed men eliminated themselves from theater due to power lifting accidents, then women from pregnancy. And in a truly professional military (vice a welfare agency with green uniforms) pregnancy in combat zone would result in a ride back and one's ass kicked out.

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?:

A professional army doesn't require leadership/babysitting to the extent that a welfare agency/mass army needs. In a truly professional military, problem children get fired. Period. Quit recruiting idiots for college money. Every single recruit should enter with the idea of becoming a professional soldier and be asked to leave if it doesn't work out for them.

http://warontherocks.com/2014/11/her...is-a-bad-idea/

Unprofessionalism is not restricted to "Big Army". Many of our SF units have institutionalized a kind of ego-driven "frat boy" culture. See V Group.