Our women shouldn't be in harms way!!!


May 19, 2005

Republicans replace women-in-combat plan

By Dave Moniz and Andrea Stone
USA Today


House Republicans backed away Wednesday from a plan that could have limited the number of jobs female soldiers can hold in the Army, particularly on the chaotic battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Rep. Duncan Hunter, a California Republican and chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said he would replace a proposal to limit the exposure of female soldiers to potential combat with a plan that would instruct the Pentagon to study the role of female support troops with large ground combat units.

The Army opposed the initial amendment by Rep. John McHugh, R-N.Y., saying it would have closed almost 22,000 slots to women and limited the service’s fighting ability.

Several prominent military organizations, primarily the Association of the U.S. Army and the National Guard Association, and congressional Democrats also opposed the plan, which was approved by an Armed Services subcommittee last week.

McHugh and Hunter agreed to a compromise, saying the Pentagon needed to determine whether it was following a 1994 policy that bars women from ground combat units.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Wednesday that the Army is working with Congress to address concerns, but he acknowledged that the nature of the battlefield in Iraq has created a situation “where there are no clear lines.”

Thirty-four female soldiers and Army civilian employees have been killed in the war and insurgency in Iraq, and their deaths influenced Hunter and McHugh to make their initial proposal.

In a letter to Congress, the Army vice chief of staff, Gen. Richard Cody, said that plan would have sent “the wrong signal to the brave young men and women fighting the global war on terrorism.”

Others who have written letters opposing a change to policy are retired general Gordon Sullivan, president of the Association of the U.S. Army, and retired brigadier general Stephen Koper, president of the National Guard Association.

The issue of where and how women should serve in the military was fiercely debated in the 1990s after the Persian Gulf War. A presidential commission helped open fighter aircraft and surface warships to women, but direct ground combat in infantry, tanks and special operations remains off limits.

However, guerrilla wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have blurred traditional definitions of combat. There are few safe havens for American troops, who are vulnerable whether eating in rear-area chow halls or conducting routine foot patrols.

The policy fight was triggered by an Army reorganization of combat forces into smaller, interchangeable, or “modular,” brigades. The units include support troops, which often include female drivers and cooks.

Elaine Donnelly, head of the conservative Center for Military Readiness based in Michigan, said the Army has violated Pentagon policies by placing women in the new units. “What Congress is doing, and what I hope they will do, is say that the American people have a stake in this. The Army doesn’t get to make these decisions on their own,” Donnelly said.

Army spokesman Paul Boyce said the service has not violated the policy. He said female support soldiers do not accompany large Army units when they move into combat to attack enemy forces.

Rep. Heather Wilson, R-N.M., a former Air Force officer who recently left the Armed Services Committee, said “there is no safe place in the Army” and Congress should be helping troops win the war in Iraq.

if I may be allowed to mix metaphors and mangle imagery.. but this just reopens a can of worms and exposes an old canard.. women in the military.. stick 'em out where it hurts so they can have ' equal rights' [ including the right to get shot ] or say women aren't ' good enough' for all duties and relegate them to the back room [ in this case stateside as insurgents will target them if they think it will ' help' their cause ]..

Admit females are ' second class citizens , at least militarily, or let them do their part to ' fight for freedom ' which includes getting blowed up real good like the boys..

tough decisions which obviously requires a new mindset, one which Joe and Jane SixPack aren't ready to make in most cases...

welcome to the 21st century...

Does Elaine Donnelly think that women should wear dresses and white gloves while taking care of the 2.4 children as her husband drives his 1955 Chevrolet into his white collar bow tie job? This will leave man’s work to the men so the little ladies can be taken care of and bake their apple pies. What an insult to the women who have served.

It's a brand new day. We have to adopt the mindset that all Soldiers are combat Soldiers regardless of the MOS. The Army needs to take this page from the Marines and apply it to the real world situations we now face.

However, I think the gender normalization gambit truely sucks. Determine what skills and abilitites are needed for an MOS and make it stick. Yes, women do have a place in the military but I don't want to see women in Infantry or Armour. Having said that, I realize there are women MP's and drivers who face the same obstacles as the males and I want to see them trained in a manner that will inspire confidence.

Women have proven they can pull their weight when properly trained and equipped.

My niece, who looks like a normal young woman, is am MP and manned (crewed?) a 50 caliber while guarding convoys in Iraq. She had to use her legs to charge the damned thing but did what she did with pride. The only people who showed any disrespect were the Rangers for some reason.

@Thud & Harry.....our women should be taken out of jobs that would have them on the frontline, although they aren't in the combat arms field. But they are in Logistics like 88M Wheel Vehicle Operator which cause them to be put in the hot zone. We know there's alot of women that can hold their own, but I don't see a need to have our women in harms way. As far as the Rangers, it is a pride thing I guess but that is no excuse to disrespect any female.

I absolutely agree with fwilli52. no disrespect toward women but, I feel they are a distraction and most ( not all ) don't have the mental capability to kill. And as far as hygene they are not built for the field.

It sounds like you guys grew up in the 1950s.

Ol' school 24 Jun 52, HOOAH!!!

fmrjarhed wrote:

quote:

don't have the mental capability to kill.

That's BS dude. You oughtta meet my 'ex'!

Wasn't going to comment on this thread 'cause its old hat and just retreads arguments that have been going on for years..but... putting bias up front { got a wife and two daughters who serve[d]} I got to say 1] women can kill when they have to and are just as 'nasty', if not more so, than men in the circumstance...
2] women and society have accepted that there is equality of gender [ ignoring physical limitations arguments for now ] and that women can aspire to any role they deem valid - including President of the US - so to deny them the right to fight and die for their country seems retrograde, and, at a time when the military is experiencing a shortfall in recruiting to turn away or limit the use of potentially 50% of the population and a significant portion of it that wants to be ' active military ' is counter productive.

What is the hang -up.?. the concept that women getting blowed up and dismembered by an intransigent enemy is somehow more horrific than a young man being blasted to sh*t in a desert hell hole?

If you ask ALL your citizens to protect their country and its ideals, then you can't tell part of them they are no good to go out and do just that...

my devalued 2 cents [ and the wife and girls don't have a ' gun ' to my head - even though they know how to use one ]

As I said not all women but the majoity, and besides that we as men have it breed into us to be the protector of women and children so just out of instinct we are much more likely to go out of our way to protect the women instead of our male counterparts, and that can be costly in some situations. I don't want you guys to think that I'm a sexist pig I have no problem woking with women but just like Rocketeer said "the concept of women getting blowed up and dismembered by an intransigent enemy is somehow more horrific than a youn man being blasted to sh*t in a desert hell hole" That just proves my point all things are not equal.

A perfect example is the Jessica Lynch incident. She never even fired a round, got captured then rescued and she became a national hero. Why? You never even heard anything about the Marines that rescued her. Then she get's a friggen TV show about her. What did she do that was so special besides being a female? If it had been a male you would have just heard a little ten second report about it on the news. There are a bunch of guys that had their leg blown off and are doing every thing they can to go back to active duty, but how often do here about them?

first off im not in the miltary so take 50 cent as what are

first i have problem with females in combat MOS's as long as they are held to same standards as males.

two "men have it breed into us to be the protector of women and children so just out of instinct we are much more likely to go out of our way to protect the women instead of our male counterparts" pg1 post12 fmrjarhed. as far this matter it trew but i think if from time basic and therw all training it taught the females are equal and they can take care of the selves as well as men can. it would ease the problem.

as far as female no being kill as easyly that should be looked at on a case by case bases as shuold men. this dosnt men more time just when go ther basic and all other train they looked for this issue as well as men.

quote:

Originally posted by fmrjarhed:
A perfect example is the Jessica Lynch incident. She never even fired a round, got captured then rescued and she became a national hero. Why? You never even heard anything about the Marines that rescued her. Then she get's a friggen TV show about her. What did she do that was so special besides being a female? If it had been a male you would have just heard a little ten second report about it on the news. There are a bunch of guys that had their leg blown off and are doing every thing they can to go back to active duty, but how often do here about them?

Uhm, it was US Army troops who rescued Jessica Lynch...actually it was a joint effort, Marines were heavily involved in the planning and surveillance of the attack, and provided a distraction on the other side of the city while the Army troops went in for the rescue.
I'm remaining on the fence on the women in combat issue...There are the pros and cons. Woman have proved themselves as just as capable, however, they can be a valuable and exploitable tool to the enemy.

pass the MIDOL....

The Jessica thing was an Army PR adventure (the news aspect of it) to get women to enlist. We all know about the news and blonde white women (she was not the only woman).

There are 275 documented cases of women fighting (as men) during the Civil War and they feel that the number is low.

Since women are not drafted, maybe it is just a matter of ability.

That is such a battle, women in combat, Grrrr I do not think women should be in combat.
I hate to say it, but all those hear me roar type women are definiately in dream land, and have watched to much of GI Jane.

I don't think there is anything wrong with women in the military, I just do not feel it is right for them to be in combat/on the front lines there are to many issues, as well as rearrangments of the military that just disrupts how the military is run.

For example, these women who want in special ops, I really don't think they have a clue as to the in depth hard core training that goes into that. So many women seem to think that they are stronger than some men. My theory is Women can not drag nor carry a man who might be 6'1 back to safety especially if she is only 5'4 herself.

There were big arguments on this issue on the other site, the women over there are definately womens libbers who just don't get it.

Half of them do not even know what " ROBINS SAGE " nor ever heard of it.

Women are built to differently for one. Some are very strong don't get me wrong, but are they strong because the Standards have been lowered, or are they actually physically stronger, are they able to run the PT test and beat out the men, or is it because the standards are lowered?

That is a huge debate. My feelings are this

I can not imagine a women being taken captive, and having done to them as what was done to Johnson, Berg, and the other one. No matter how strong a woman thinks she is the builds of their bodies next to a man are incredibly different, what to would happen if that woman was a mother, and their child had witnessed on TV the beheading of his or her mother....

I dunno these women in this combat trip really need to step back and STEP OFF the train.

quote:

Originally posted by Rocketeer:
if I may be allowed to mix metaphors and mangle imagery.. but this just reopens a can of worms and exposes an old canard.. women in the military.. stick 'em out where it hurts so they can have ' equal rights' [ including the right to get shot ] or say women aren't ' good enough' for all duties and relegate them to the back room [ in this case stateside as insurgents will target them if they think it will ' help' their cause ]..

Admit females are ' second class citizens , at least militarily, or let them do their part to ' fight for freedom ' which includes getting blowed up real good like the boys..

tough decisions which obviously requires a new mindset, one which Joe and Jane SixPack aren't ready to make in most cases...

welcome to the 21st century...

I do not think women are second class citizens.

But I at point inspite of my recent post, feel like saying to them as well, IF you want equal rights we'll give it to you, Put them up there at the front lines, let them be taken captive, let them get shot, let them get beat...

That would make many women fume, as I say if you want equal give emmm equal.

The messed up part is how much would you want to bet that should that happen, some women, some womans family, would make the biggest up roar over it, So many women of today " NOT ALL WOMEN" but many, want their cake and eat it to.

They don't know what they want, then once they get it aren't happy with it.

I mean honestly guys can you see an SF guy out on a three month mission in the middle of the jungle withe some woman tagging along who just so happens to get her AUNT FLOW, I mean the jungle just has plenty of walmarts around to stop and pick up tampons, and of course if the insurgents happen to have sniffer dogs around SHE'd BUST THEM ALL with that rank smell.

You want ' rank smell' ? Nothing worse than a guy who has ' lived' in his issue green skivvies in a hot zone for two weeks and only changes them by reversing them every second day...