PBS Independent Lens: Lioness
LIONESS profiles five women who saw action in Iraq’s Sunni Triangle during 2003 and 2004. As members of the U.S. Army’s 1st Engineer Battalion, Shannon Morgan, Rebecca Nava, Kate Pendry Guttormsen, Anastasia Breslow and Ranie Ruthig were sent to Iraq to provide supplies and logistical support to their male colleagues. Not trained for combat duty, the women unexpectedly became involved with fighting in the streets of Ramadi.
Told through interviews, journal excerpts and archival footage, LIONESS offers a portrait of five soldiers who are also wives, mothers and daughters, and who have long coped with the demands of military life, especially the sacrifices involved in leaving behind spouses and young children. These combat-tested women exemplify what it means to be a good soldier, and illustrate the complicated role that women play in direct war combat. Reflecting on their recent deployment, the Lionesses display strength and candor, bridging the gap between the perception and the reality of the essential role women are playing in Iraq.
I've not read the article yet, (but will, I promise) but the above quote deeply offends my sensibilities. I don't think post-2004, you can use this as an excuse anymore. Everyone, as far as I know, is trained for combat duty. Those that are not, are either not motivated to pay attention, or are suffering from epic poor leadership in their CoC.Not trained for combat duty, the women unexpectedly became involved with fighting in the streets of Ramadi.
Most of the problems with "not trained for combat" as I understand it, had little to do with combat training but failure to understand and be able to interoperate with the marines which they had been attached too. Many Army Infantry soldiers could have had the same problem. There is alot of sensationalism in the story that I take with a grain of salt, but I feel there is a point to saying that it is unfair to state that women are "not in combat roles" and expect them to take combat training with the same seriousness as the male soldiers. Heck, you should have seen the male medical support company soldiers I was trying to help train for the A-stanin 05-06. Pretty sorry bunch when it came to combat skills. This was because they convinced themselves they would never be under fire in a support battalion. They were wrong.
Reed
Originally Posted by sapperfitz82
Women at War
Kings of War posted a piece titled, "Women at War" from a NY Times op-ed. The gist of it...
I posted a couple responses, but then quickly saw where the comment section was going, so I called it a day. The gist of my responses...The U.S. ground combat exclusion policy is outdated. Women from many countries have shown themselves to be valuable contributors in our wars – from conventional warfare to countering insurgencies. At least twelve countries around the globe allow women to serve on the front lines. Why are the U.S. and the UK behind the times? Or, should our role remain limited on the battlefield?
In response to the article...
And then my response to a commenter who wanted to know the justification for opposing the policy change.The author takes a theater-specific, mission-specific anecdote and turns it into justification for a sweeping policy change. Among other issues that I have with this piece, I have a problem with the leading question that, at least twelve countries around the globe allow women to serve on the front lines. Why are the U.S. and the UK behind the times? That’s like asking, “some high school baseball team has a girl playing left field, so why doesn’t the Boston Red Sox start recruiting women softball players?”
The US military, in terms of its degree of lethality and the manner in which it is used, is very difficult to compare to any other military. Even if one could find some close matches, American culture is unique and the role of women in the the US military is as much a function of the way in which we use our forces as it is a function of the attitudes of our society about the role of women in combat. If our infantry units did little more than set up base camps in safe areas, like many other western military units, then our society might have a different opinion of combat and, by extension, the role of women in combat. If we were continually threatened – or at least perceived that we were – with existential threats, like the Israelis, then we might demand more of all of our citizens, including women. But neither of those are the case for the US.
I hope that policy makers will look at the example given and recognize how narrow this set of circumstances is, and that those policy makers will be hesitant to consider it as a justification for making sweeping policy changes.
Am I making any sense here or am I smoking crack?I don’t think the burden of persuasion in this case is on the party “opposing change.” I think the burden of persuasion is on the party proposing the change. Why is the current policy inadequate? We’ve been given a theater-specific, mission-specific anecdote and the story includes a summary of how we adapted to make the FET possible within the construct of our current personnel regulations. So why the need for a change? It seems that changing the policy would be a broad, long-term alteration for a very specific, short-term use.
I was particularly struck by commenters who assumed that our policy should be guided by equal opportunity.
After serving along side female MP's in poor living conditions and not seeing any of the many excuses I have often heard against women in combat come to reality, I disagree with you. That being said, your logic is sound and the burden is on us that disagree with current policy. The "pregnancy excuse" I always hear roled out due to the Navy's bad experience on ships, I have not seen in units w/ female soldiers that often go outside the wire, but I saw a ton of it in Kuwait and the larger FOBs. Probably something to that, but my face hurts due the dentist, so I am done for now.
Reed
Constant battle
My Soldiers were judged on individual merit regardless of sex by me and my direct chain of command. However we were constantly bombarded by senior combat arms and sister services who had ZERO experience with female Soldiers in combat or anything close. I would not propose that we shoot for a demographically representative Infantry on the front lines of Z-Day or the like but when a Soldier has a job (like MP) that they are train for and meet the mission and training requirements they should do the job. In many places they fail to train their female troops to boots on the ground reality and refuse to assign them below certain levels. My MP's told me they became that because it was the closest they could get to the fight. I was damn proud of them. They were not each the greatest but every Soldier on their individual merit.
Lioness
Guess I shoulda read the article. What a sham? Train the Troops. There is no front. "NUTS!"
Should Women Join the Combat Arms MOSs?
I have tried to search the blog to find this topic and see the arguments that have already been posted, only to find that this specific issues seems to have not been talked about. Therefore, I would like to discuss whether women should or should not be allowed to have a combat arms MOS.
I was educated this weekend on the fact that Canada and Germany both have Female Infantry Officers. I do not know if this is correct but I am coming here to find the facts and get others opinion.
GEN Chiarelli has a discussion about this topic in the CAC blogs
http://usacac.army.mil/blog/blogs/gu...-the-army.aspx
We've allowed women in all the combat trades for some years now, the arbiter being their ability to do the job rather than where where their bumpy bits might be. The only area in which women have yet to gain entry is into the badged SAS - there is no legislative barrier to this, just that none has attempted Selection yet. Women have successfully served in many SF support roles, flying roles including strike, and infantry and armour roles.
Once all the talk prior was over, the actual opening up of these roles was pretty painless and, to date, there have been no more or no less incidents with women in these roles than with women in more traditional support roles. IMHO, by offering to treat women differently for no good reason (as opposed to where such reason may apply) we are doing some very professional operators a disservice.
How about: "When will women have the same PT test standards?"
or
"When will women publish professional articles on combat service support functions in combat zones (e.g. counter ambush, small unit defense, etc)?
You know...stuff they are doing now.
What do you mean about PT tests?
Who's to say they don't now? I tend to be more interested in the content of the article than the sex of the author...
I know in the USMC women do a flex arm hang instead of pullups. This is a whole different topic but instead of doing dead hang pull ups (which your body isnt naturally built for) we should do kipping pull ups and raise the standard on the number that needs to be accomplished. I am from the crossfit community and there are PLENTY of women that can do plenty of pullups. Same thing for the run. The standards are set lower for the amount of time that it takes them in achieving a 100 pts for the run or for passing it in general. It does not just stop at the PFT either.
But why should it change in relation to them having a combat arms MOS? If they can pass the PT standard they should be combat arms? I know you did not directly say that but is that what you are implying?
Kipping pull ups are a nice trick, but more a test of technique than physical strength.
I believe what he is saying is that there should be ONE PFT standard for combat arms. For that matter, there should be one PFT scale for all service members regardless of age or sex.
Adam L
Well...no....The fitness scale should be relevant to the trade and employment group...those relevant for a pilot are not the same as those required in the infantry or armour and those may be different again from those necessary for SF or CSS or staff...
It's all very well to want a force all at the same high standard but I'd suggest that would be a very small force indeed...
Certainly my current requirement to navigate the Zimmerframe around the circuit in less than a week is less than the standards that had to met in my infantry days but the current requirement for me is certainly adequate for my (non-op) staff role...
Last edited by SJPONeill; 09-29-2010 at 11:15 PM. Reason: Added the very important words (non-op)!!
I'm with Adam. If we truly have an expeditionary army, then everyone must be capable of the minimum of physical exertion. Yeah, you're only a ...... (Patriot missile maintenance unit anyone?) but, push comes to shove, you need to be able to fight.
SPJONeill, your mindset is indicative of the mindset we had to get rid of from the US Army after 2003.
That isn't to say that individual units shouldn't set higher standards, based on the unit mission, but in the units I've been in, the unit standard was a single standard, regardless of age/gender, not age- and gender-normed, like the APFT is. An example is the XVIII ABN Corps 20km footmarch standard- the standard is 4 hours, with 35lb pack, weapon, helmet and LBE, regardless of age and/or gender. That said, IN (and other combat arms units) hold themselves to significantly higher standards.
What I am saying is that if EVERY Marine is a rifleman than there should be one rifleman standard. Once a student gets to their specific MOS producing school there should be another standard for PT that needs to be met. For instance when you go to IOC to become a Marine Infantry Officer you have to pass the Combat Endurance Test. That is not the standard for the Communications Officer that is going to his/her follow on school after TBS.
Not an entirely true statement. There is a technique, I do not disagree with that at all. But there is a techniques to climbing a tree as well and I guarantee you that it looks more like a kipping pullup that a dead hang pullup. And also I would doubt that on a consistent basis you would be capable of jumping through multiple windows and over multiple walls in country (full combat load) without executing some sort of kipping.Kipping pull ups are a nice trick, but more a test of technique than physical strength.
Which brings about the question WHY do we have a PT standard at all? Is it for promotion? Is qualify people to be a part of the service? Is it to separate the services? Why don't we look at that question as well. Regardless though going back to the original argument the reason I said kipping pullups is because it is functional and then you wouldn't have to scale that portion for women. Also it would tie into the concept that every Marine is a rifleman. The implied statement there is that you will be exercising the muscles that make it capable for you to be able to climb over walls and through windows amongst many other things a strong back and abs will do for you.
Which brings me back to if every Marine is a rifleman and we all need to be able to accomplish the same task, the standard needs to be that when I ask a female to get over a wall in country or she needs to get through a window she has the ability and has been held to the standard of exercising those muscles that will allow her to accomplish the mission. I do not believe that a flex arm hang mental prepares her for the challenges she may face.
But you are still only talking of a minimum standard. I'm sure that the standard you cite above from XVIII ABN Corps was the minimum , not the only, standard within that corps and that the various functional units within it had their own (higher) standards applicable to their roles. From an infantry perspective that standard is pretty light and I'm willing to bet that the infantry community in that corps would have been interested in longer distances, heavier loads AND, most importantly, being able to operate at the end of the foot march.
My point is that, if you insist on a single service fitness standard (as opposed to a practical (i.e. based on operational requirements) minimum standard), you will either have a standard based on the lowest common denominator or a service that is a lot smaller...
Should Women Join the Combat Arms MOSs?
As I read this thread and reflecting limited newsreel watching - what is practice in the Israeli Defence Forces? Who appear to have conscript women in some roles, although my limited memory cannot recall them being combat roles.
(Incidentally do we have an Israeli members?).
davidbfpo
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks