Women in Military Service & Combat (not just USA)

[JMA]

Its all pretty hypocritical really...

I am told that in the US this is the standard to be used:

... This they do by means of an ethos that stresses discipline, morale, good order and unit cohesion. Anything that threatens the nonsexual bonding that lies at the heart of unit cohesion adversely affects morale, disciple and good order, generating friction and undermining this ethos.

Does the introduction of females into combat units and the military in general comply with the above?

Sorry... forgot to say that that quote relates to gays in the military.

So I ask again... does the introduction of females into combat units and the military in general comply with the above?

Surely there needs a look into this following situation?

Pregnancy during Operation Iraqi Freedom/Operation Enduring Freedom

Hang on a minute with 75% became pregnant after arrival in theater what ever happened to this nonsexual bonding ?

Then we have this one:

Serving U.S troops could face prison if they fall pregnant while active

And then we look at this:

US military sex attack reports up

Among the report's findings:

* There were 2,923 reported sexual assaults in the 2008 fiscal year, up from 2,688 in 2007

* There 251 incidents in combat areas, including 141 in Iraq and 22 in Afghanistan

* Investigations took place in 2,763 cases. In 832 cases, action was taken, including 317 courts-martial, a rise of 38%

* Of the 6.8% of women and 1.8% of men who indicated they had experienced unwanted sexual contact, the majority - 79% of women and 78% of men - chose not to report it.

Perhaps the following website /book will provide a point of departure for this discussion?

[Pete]

The Field Artillery Officer Basic Course after mine at Fort Sill in 1978 had its first female student. To prevent the anticipated snide remarks and rumors she was made the student class leader. If I recall correctly some years later when she was coming close to the end of her service obligation she gave an interview in which she said she was disappointed that female FA officers were then limited to missile-type systems, Lance and Pershing, and excluded from tube artillery units.

[Traveling Man]

Marines, especially grunts, have no difficulty finding trouble as it is. Realistically, women in the combat arms fields would yield more problems than benefits, physical fitness aside. Junior officers/Staff NCOs have enough discipline problems to deal with. Trying to maintain and improve a victor unit's combat effectiveness would be almost untenable with females in the picture. Just my two cents.

[JMA]

The Field Artillery Officer Basic Course after mine at Fort Sill in 1978 had its first female student. To prevent the anticipated snide remarks and rumors she was made the student class leader. If I recall correctly some years later when she was coming close to the end of her service obligation she gave an interview in which she said she was disappointed that female FA officers were then limited to missile-type systems, Lance and Pershing, and excluded from tube artillery units.

Were they... and if so why?

[Ken White]

combat roles really revolves around fear of their capture -- and, today, for the potential of rape and the resultant publicity / IO aspects. The rationale was that those in rocket and missile units would be further in the rear in a linear war and thus less subject to potential capture while the tube Arty folks were right up front. Same principle held for the aviators; initially they were restricted to transports and such, theoretically less subject to enemy downing -- despite the fact that the average female has some advantages over average males in aerial combat.

We still put a lot of stock in 1917...

[Pete]

We still put a lot of stock in 1917...

When Pershing was Chief of Staff in the 1920s the basic and advanced branch officer courses were instituted to put company-grade officer training on a more solid footing.

[Perpetual_Student]

I can understand and wrap my head around the idea that being in combat arms (Infantry) puts you more on the front line and "in the action." Although we should not forget and absolutely must appreciate specifically the logistical trains that go out EVERYDAY that are in just as much danger if not more than Infantry units. I have never been to Afghanistan but I can only imagine since they dont have much of a "road" network that the log trains would be traveling a lot of the same routes.

All this said there are women that are motor-t drivers and logisticians. Should we be removing them as well.

I am only playing devils advocate. Not agreeing at all that women should be in Combat Arms, but we need to have a strong argument in the future because the time may come sooner than we think.

[Pete]

The integration of racial minorities and women into the U.S. armed forces are done deals. The gay thing will eventually happen. My impression is that people younger than I don't have the same predjudices that we did in the old days -- the kids today are more comfortable than my generation was about having openly gay people around them. In any event, the U.S. armed forces will survive, and weirdos, misfits, and those who can't hack it will be sent packing, as they always have been.

[Uboat509]

Although we should not forget and absolutely must appreciate specifically the logistical trains that go out EVERYDAY that are in just as much danger if not more than Infantry units.

This is another argument that invariably gets made in the debate. It really does not hold true. There is a world of difference between a CSS unit where the primary goal will be to avoid contact and break contact if they cannot avoid it and a Combat Arms unit where the goal is to seek contact and then close with and destroy the enemy.