women in combat arms commission
Since this report came out http://www.mercurynews.com/natbreaki...nclick_check=1 I have been surprised by two things:
1- the total lack of background reporting by the media on the commission. If you look at the commission's charter and its membership- it should come as no surprise that they are recommending women serve in all jobs. Their charter is to increase diversity at the higher ranks. And their membership is made up of a majority of non-combat arms types, a heavy dose of diversity specialists, and many more Coast Guard, AF, Navy, and Guard/Reservists than Regular Army/Marines. I think the commission's establishment and background are as interesting, if not more, than their report- but I guess the media aren't interested in reporting the background.
2- most discussion in the media has been the oft-repeated fact that in today's conflicts CS and CSS soldiers (read: females) serve in combat; while most discussions on blogs revolve around women passing individual physical requirements.
On the first point: I would find it highly suspect to develop a policy for implementation in the realm of Conventional armor units by a commission that was made up mostly of Special Operations personnel. I'm not saying the commission has to be totally combat arms- but this one was so obviously stacked with those with no combat arms experience that I question their ability to make a valid recommendation in the combat arms realm.
On the second: I think that the ability to pass individual PT requirements has nothing to do with ones' ability to effectively function on a small team whose main mission is to close with and kill people up close. This is why everyone I talk to from our European armies tells me that most homosexuals don't serve openly in their armies- and especially in their combat arms branches: because they know to do so would make it very hard for them to effectively add to the cohesiveness of the unit. And even though it is politically incorrect- most service members from the U.S. and our allies will admit in private that women and men do not gell well on small teams.
Do I really care if men and women at headquarters and in support roles have a tough time forming a cohesive unit? Well, our politicians have decided it doesn't matter to them- so I guess it doesn't to me either. But, while they are debating making it tough for combat arms folks, I think taking into account the physiological differences between men and women and the effect it could have on small units dedicated to hunting down and killing folks shouldn't be dumbed down to "they are already in combat", "our allies do it", and "they made the same arguments about Blacks and homosexuals".
Lastly, comparing the U.S. armed forces to our allies should be taken with a HUGE grain of salt. Even though we like to romantisize that our European allies are more politically correct than the average New Englander- the truth is that they are- more than not- much more macho and male chauvanist than we are. They don't have diversity agendas, efforts, and pressures. They are much more politically incorrect in their speech, behavior, and culture (using the American PC definition). So- accepting homosexuals and females for them didn't bring with it all of the extra money, time, training, and attention that our other social changes have traditionally brought due to our political environment.
In terms of "small wars"- I think differently: a policy that is in place to guide conventional forces, garrison operations, training environments, and MOS assignment shouldn't guide counterinsurgency execution in-theater: which requires maximum flexibility. This is why empowering the lowest level is paramount in these types of operations. But this would take a massive change to our personnel system- which favors a centrally-controlled environment. In essence: if women are needed in a certain role in a certain environment for the betterment of the mission- by all means use them.
That is why we serve in the armed forces: not for ourselves and our "rights", but for the security of the nation. Likewise- the passing of individual requirements and concern for individual rights should not be the basis for assigning people to combat arms roles: the most effective functioning of small teams of combat arms (who close with and kill the enemy) should be. If they really just want more women general officers- then by all means change the requirements to be a general officer.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by What Sex Means for World Peace
Bookmarks