The Reality That Awaits Women in Combat

[Arctic55]

I did not write this article, but I wanted to hear your  guys' thoughts.

 

[spoiler=Article For Discussion]

America has been creeping closer and closer to allowing women in combat, so Wednesday's news that the decision has now been made is not a surprise. It appears that female soldiers will be allowed on the battlefield but not in the infantry. Yet it is a distinction without much difference: Infantry units serve side-by-side in combat with artillery, engineers, drivers, medics and others who will likely now include women. The Pentagon would do well to consider realities of life in combat as it pushes to mix men and women on the battlefield.

Many articles have been written regarding the relative strength of women and the possible effects on morale of introducing women into all-male units. Less attention has been paid to another aspect: the absolutely dreadful conditions under which grunts live during war.

Most people seem to believe that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have merely involved driving out of a forward operating base, patrolling the streets, maybe getting in a quick firefight, and then returning to the forward operating base and its separate shower facilities and chow hall. The reality of modern infantry combat, at least the portion I saw, bore little resemblance to this sanitized view.
U.S. Marines rest in an amphibious assault vehicle. ENLARGE
U.S. Marines rest in an amphibious assault vehicle. Reuters

I served in the 2003 invasion of Iraq as a Marine infantry squad leader. We rode into war crammed in the back of amphibious assault vehicles. They are designed to hold roughly 15 Marines snugly; due to maintenance issues, by the end of the invasion we had as many as 25 men stuffed into the back. Marines were forced to sit, in full gear, on each other's laps and in contorted positions for hours on end. That was the least of our problems.

The invasion was a blitzkrieg. The goal was to move as fast to Baghdad as possible. The column would not stop for a lance corporal, sergeant, lieutenant, or even a company commander to go to the restroom. Sometimes we spent over 48 hours on the move without exiting the vehicles. We were forced to urinate in empty water bottles inches from our comrades.

Many Marines developed dysentery from the complete lack of sanitary conditions. When an uncontrollable urge hit a Marine, he would be forced to stand, as best he could, hold an MRE bag up to his rear, and defecate inches from his seated comrade's face.

During the invasion, we wore chemical protective suits because of the fear of chemical or biological weapon attack. These are equivalent to a ski jumpsuit and hold in the heat. We also had to wear black rubber boots over our desert boots. On the occasions the column did stop, we would quickly peel off our rubber boots, desert boots and socks to let our feet air out.

Due to the heat and sweat, layers of our skin would peel off our feet. However, we rarely had time to remove our suits or perform even the most basic hygiene. We quickly developed sores on our bodies.

When we did reach Baghdad, we were in shambles. We had not showered in well over a month and our chemical protective suits were covered in a mixture of filth and dried blood. We were told to strip and place our suits in pits to be burned immediately. My unit stood there in a walled-in compound in Baghdad, naked, sores dotted all over our bodies, feet peeling, watching our suits burn. Later, they lined us up naked and washed us off with pressure washers.

Yes, a woman is as capable as a man of pulling a trigger. But the goal of our nation's military is to fight and win wars. Before taking the drastic step of allowing women to serve in combat units, has the government considered whether introducing women into the above-described situation would have made my unit more or less combat effective?

Societal norms are a reality, and their maintenance is important to most members of a society. It is humiliating enough to relieve yourself in front of your male comrades; one can only imagine the humiliation of being forced to relieve yourself in front of the opposite sex.

Despite the professionalism of Marines, it would be distracting and potentially traumatizing to be forced to be naked in front of the opposite sex, particularly when your body has been ravaged by lack of hygiene. In the reverse, it would be painful to witness a member of the opposite sex in such an uncomfortable and awkward position. Combat effectiveness is based in large part on unit cohesion. The relationships among members of a unit can be irreparably harmed by forcing them to violate societal norms.

Mr. Smith served as a Marine infantryman in Iraq. He is now an attorney.

[spoiler=Original Article Link]http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323539804578260132111473150

 

 

 

As of right now (and this may change) my opinion is that woman should be in combat, IF they can reach the already set standards.  Women are physically built differently, so the majority (majority = 50% +1) of them would bring down our military's fighting capability if they were ALL allowed to join.  But, I know a handful women in the military or who formally served.  If a woman can meet the standards, they should be allowed to join.  It's that simple.  Men already have this rule on them, and so should women.

 

Since some do not think Obama is trying to lower the standards: [spoiler=Additional Article for Discussion]
The rumors that Defense officials were opening up dangerous new positions to women have been swirling around the Pentagon for months. And yesterday, they became much more than rumors. In another triumph of political correctness over common sense, Defense Secretary Ash Carter announced the worst kept secret in the military: that all combat roles will be open to women in 2016.

For the Obama administration, which has spent the last seven years playing sexual politics with national security, this was another blow to the longstanding tradition and efficacy of our fighting force. No one is suggesting that women are not capable or have not served their country with distinction. They are and have. FRC's Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin (U.S. Army-Ret.) knows several of them. But much like the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (and soon, we're told, the ban on transgenderism), the risks of this integration (physical stamina and injury, emotional stress, sexual assault, pregnancy, adultery, unit readiness, family breakdown) seem secondary to the administration's radical agenda.

"There will be no exceptions," Carter said firmly. They'll be allowed to drive tanks, fire mortars, and lead infantry soldiers into combat. They'll be able to serve as Army Rangers and Green Berets, Navy SEALs, Marine Corps infantry, Air Force parajumpers, and everything else that was previously open only to men." How much national security is our President willing to forgo to promote this kind of progressive feminism?

A lot, according to veterans like Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.), who chairs the chamber's Armed Services Committee. "[This] decision to open all combat positions to women will have a consequential impact on our service members and military's warfighting capabilities," McCain warned.

That matters little to the Obama administration, where military readiness is already a distant second to this president's misguided notions of parity. And despite the very serious concerns from inside the ranks, the Defense Department is racing ahead anyway. After a year-long study showed that the integration would hurt its fighting ability, the Marines requested an exemption from some jobs. The political appointees at the DOD just shrugged, insisting that efficiency matters less than "equality."

Paul Davis, one of the scientists responsible for the study, could only shake his head. "The practical reality is that even though we want to knock down this last bastion of exclusion, the preponderance of women will not be able to do the job."

General Boykin, who knows the gravity of commanding Special Forces in battle, was clear about the consequences of this kind of social experimentation. "Some units, like infantry, Special Forces, SEALs and others, are not suitable for combining men and women. It has nothing to do with the courage or even capabilities of women. It is all about two things: the burden on small unit leaders, and the lack of privacy in these units," he explains.

"Leaders of these units must be focused like a laser on keeping their soldiers alive and defeating the enemy. It is unreasonable to encumber them with the additional burden of worrying about how they provide privacy for the few women under their command during stressful and very dangerous operations. It is not the same as being a combat pilot who returns to an operating base or an aircraft carrier after the fight, where separate facilities are available." It's the absolute wrong policy for America, Boykin went on, because it "ignores fundamental biological differences between the sexes, and the natural implications of those differences."

Isn't the goal be to have the most lethal fighting force in the world? The military isn't -- and should never be -- the great societal equalizer. Already, the effects of this decision are rippling through the courts, as groups challenge whether this would force women to register for selective service (read: the draft). When the DOD removes the barriers to women serving in all positions, it removes most barriers to drafting them as well. That's a frightening proposition -- not just for our homeland, but for our home fronts.

Families have already endured the loss of tens of thousands of brave Americans in one of the most prolonged wars in U.S. history. Will their daughters, sisters, and mothers be next? By now, the president should understand: the military isn't a level playing field. It's a battlefield. One that women should be protected from -- not ordered to.
[spoiler=Original Article Link]http://www.frc.org/updatearticle/20151204/gender-warfare

 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

If they're willing to die for their country, it's not up to you to tell them they don't have that honor and right

[IQuitDolphin]

If they're willing to die for their country, it's not up to you to tell them they don't have that honor and right

 

This is true, and the article does not completely phase out the idea of women in combat, but there's more to the story than just "women can fight". There are other variables involved, and you can't just use arguably feeling-invoking arguments like "you don't have the right to tell them they can't" when facts clearly show that women are built differently than men and have different psyches.

 

Of course, this article neglects the fact that not every women is going to join the army or marines, and those that do PROBABLY will have the mental fortitude to thrive in the system.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

This is true, and the article does not completely phase out the idea of women in combat, but there's more to the story than just "women can fight". There are other variables involved, and you can't just use arguably feeling-invoking arguments like "you don't have the right to tell them they can't" when facts clearly show that women are built differently than men and have different psyches.

>Me

>Feeling-involved Arguments

 

Maybe I do have a evil tumblr twin afterall

 

It's not that, I think while they might not be as optimal as males for combat, every human has a right to with their life as they will. I'm not even trying to get into the debate on gender roles here as much as I am human rights

[Maeriberii Haan]

There should be already a standard for both men and women to serve in the military. It's not like every shmuck that applies got in after all.

 

As for the difference in builds on men and women, in what way this mainly affect things? Once again, the military should already have a certain standard for physical capabilities that applies to both men and women for ones serving in the, and near the front lines. And past that point, the difference is negligible.

 

The prompt makes it sound like suddenly there's a huge influx of women in the military, tbh.

[Brinolovania]

This is true, and the article does not completely phase out the idea of women in combat, but there's more to the story than just "women can fight". There are other variables involved, and you can't just use arguably feeling-invoking arguments like "you don't have the right to tell them they can't" when facts clearly show that women are built differently than men and have different psyches.

Which is why, like OP said, woman would be held to the same physical and mental standards as male soldiers. Like, I'm a guy, and I'm absolutely certain there are a whole funking lot of women out there who would be much better than me in the army. The way I see, we have standards, and if someone can meet those standards, then there's no reason they shouldn't be allowed to fight. Doesn't matter what their gender is.

[IQuitDolphin]

>Me

>Feeling-involved Arguments

 

Maybe I do have a evil tumblr twin afterall

 

It's not that, I think while they might not be as optimal as males for combat, every human has a right to with their life as they will. I'm not even trying to get into the debate on gender roles here as much as I am human rights

 

True, people have the right to their life as they will, but only if it does not endanger other lives in the process. Your statement "might not be as optimal as males for combat" indirectly leads to the possibility of an inferior squadron compared to an all-male group (although not always guaranteed), which might lead to more casualties than intended. The army doesn't have time to accept "inferior" soldiers, regardless of gender, even if they "have the right to their life as they will."

 

Ability in combat is just one variable for accepting females, the article brings up a solid point of the day-to-day activities of a modern-day soldier, which is much more important than actual combat ability.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

It's gonna be a problem if anyone but Bernie or Trump gets elected, cause w're def going back to war in the ME if Hills or *gags* Cruz gets it...#Draftdrama2017

 

The debate needs to happen sooner or late

 

There should be already a standard for both men and women to serve in the military. 

 

 You nailed it on the head, the military has standards which should weed out the obv bad fits

[Arctic55]

If they're willing to die for their country, it's not up to you to tell them they don't have that honor and right

There should be already a standard for both men and women to serve in the military. It's not like every shmuck that applies got in after all.

I don't remember the article, but it has been argued a lot (headed by the Obama administration) that we should lower the standards to allow more women into the military, and that is what I was getting at.  If the woman in question can reach our current standards, then by all means, I do not have to right to stop them from putting their lives on the line.

 

So there's an inferior squad, and they'll die in larger numbers thanks to that.

 

They knew the risk when they signed up

It's the government's job to protect the idiots who think they are combat quality. This is why we have standards.  Even men who cannot reach this quality are booted out.  Like I said "If the woman in question can reach our current standards, then by all means, I do not have to right to stop them from putting their lives on the line."

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

True, people have the right to their life as they will, but only if it does not endanger other lives in the process. Your statement "might not be as optimal as males for combat" indirectly leads to the possibility of an inferior squadron compared to an all-male group (although not always guaranteed), which might lead to more casualties than intended. The army doesn't have time to accept "inferior" soldiers, regardless of gender, even if they "have the right to their life as they will."

So there's an inferior squad, and they'll die in larger numbers thanks to that.

 

They knew the risk when they signed up 

 

That being said, I do think Women should be on the Draft

 

[Maeriberii Haan]

I don't remember the article, but it has been argued a lot (headed by the Obama administration) that we should lower the standards to allow more women into the military, and that is what I was getting at.  If the woman in question can reach our current standards, then by all means, I do not have to right to stop them from putting their lives on the line.

 

 

There's also many other posts other than the front lines, and those posts would have different standards of acceptance required for the job.

 

The arguments here making it sound that the government is sending unfit soldiers into conflicts en-masse, which really doesn't feel like the case.

 

Frontlines have their standards, and past that standard it would matter little

 

Army support staff, and other posts exists.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I don't remember the article, but it has been argued a lot (headed by the Obama administration) that we should lower the standards to allow more women into the military, and that is what I was getting at.  If the woman in question can reach our current standards, then by all means, I do not have to right to stop them from putting their lives on the line.

 

It's the government's job to protect the idiots who think they are combat quality. This is why we have standards.

It's not. The government's job is to keep the country running...purging idiots could be seen a form of betterment anyway

[Arctic55]

It's not. The government's job is to keep the country running...purging idiots could be seen a form of betterment anyway

Though I agree, purging idiots is beneficial as a whole, losing battles, or possibly wars because of these idiots is not good.  Which is why we have standards.  I don't get your seemingly disagreement with standards that are already in place.  These standards should remain the same, and if a woman can reach them, let her in.  If not, as the majority will not be able to, keep them out, they will likely become a hindrance rather than a help.

 

We see this all over history, losing key battles because "green" (inexperienced) troops break formation and fall into chaos (though many times damage can be retrained).  Now imagine, green, idiotic, hindering troops increasing the damage many times over.  No.  That is bad on every level.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Though I agree, purging idiots is beneficial as a whole

 

Send em off to do other jobs then

[chairman ali]

Do people not know that the deadliest snipers in the world are women?

[Arctic55]

Do people not know that the deadliest snipers in the world are women?

There we go.  An example of women who can reach standards and excel in their given area.  Now, imagine a woman with not so good eye-sight applying to sniper division.  Requirement says you need to be able to see say, 100 meters, but this woman can only see 80 meters.  She will not be as useful on the battlefield, where they plan assuming she can see 100 meters.  Now, everyone 80-100 meters ahead of this woman is not be covered and will suffer more casualties.  This is where Obama's plan to lower standards and/or not allow the military to turn people away is bad.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Do people not know that the deadliest snipers in the world are women?

Most people only know about the one sniper who happened to get a movie made after him

[Maeriberii Haan]

There we go.  An example of women who can reach standards and excel in their given area.  Now, imagine a woman with not so good eye-sight applying to sniper division.  Requirement says you need to be able to see say, 100 meters, but this woman can only see 80 meters.  She will not be as useful on the battlefield, where they plan assuming she can see 100 meters.  Now, everyone 80-100 meters ahead of this woman is not be covered and will suffer more casualties.  This is where Obama's plan to lower standards and/or not allow the military to turn people away is bad.

 

today I learned that women can see less things than men do

 

this shouldn't really even be a discussion tbh. They won't just lower the standards so people that would just be fodder in the battlefield can enter.

 

the US doesn't even do mandatory drafts anymore. It's not like if you remove the ones with less capability, you'll get more of the capable soldiers.

[Arctic55]

today I learned that women can see less things than men do

I never said that.  I said "imagine" because I was giving an example/scenario.  DO NOT twist my words.

[Maeriberii Haan]

But that's a stupid example because it's not realistic by any means.

 

Once again, the implication of this discussion is they're getting women that are unfit to be in the battlefield to be in combat.

 

Which is pretty silly.

[Arctic55]

this shouldn't really even be a discussion tbh. They won't just lower the standards so people that would just be fodder in the battlefield can enter.

Tell this to the Obama Administration. --> [spoiler=Additional Article for Discussion]

The rumors that Defense officials were opening up dangerous new positions to women have been swirling around the Pentagon for months. And yesterday, they became much more than rumors. In another triumph of political correctness over common sense, Defense Secretary Ash Carter announced the worst kept secret in the military: that all combat roles will be open to women in 2016.

 

For the Obama administration, which has spent the last seven years playing sexual politics with national security, this was another blow to the longstanding tradition and efficacy of our fighting force. No one is suggesting that women are not capable or have not served their country with distinction. They are and have. FRC's Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin (U.S. Army-Ret.) knows several of them. But much like the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (and soon, we're told, the ban on transgenderism), the risks of this integration (physical stamina and injury, emotional stress, sexual assault, pregnancy, adultery, unit readiness, family breakdown) seem secondary to the administration's radical agenda.

 

"There will be no exceptions," Carter said firmly. They'll be allowed to drive tanks, fire mortars, and lead infantry soldiers into combat. They'll be able to serve as Army Rangers and Green Berets, Navy SEALs, Marine Corps infantry, Air Force parajumpers, and everything else that was previously open only to men." How much national security is our President willing to forgo to promote this kind of progressive feminism?

 

A lot, according to veterans like Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.), who chairs the chamber's Armed Services Committee. "[This] decision to open all combat positions to women will have a consequential impact on our service members and military's warfighting capabilities," McCain warned.

 

That matters little to the Obama administration, where military readiness is already a distant second to this president's misguided notions of parity. And despite the very serious concerns from inside the ranks, the Defense Department is racing ahead anyway. After a year-long study showed that the integration would hurt its fighting ability, the Marines requested an exemption from some jobs. The political appointees at the DOD just shrugged, insisting that efficiency matters less than "equality."

 

Paul Davis, one of the scientists responsible for the study, could only shake his head. "The practical reality is that even though we want to knock down this last bastion of exclusion, the preponderance of women will not be able to do the job."

 

General Boykin, who knows the gravity of commanding Special Forces in battle, was clear about the consequences of this kind of social experimentation. "Some units, like infantry, Special Forces, SEALs and others, are not suitable for combining men and women. It has nothing to do with the courage or even capabilities of women. It is all about two things: the burden on small unit leaders, and the lack of privacy in these units," he explains.

 

"Leaders of these units must be focused like a laser on keeping their soldiers alive and defeating the enemy. It is unreasonable to encumber them with the additional burden of worrying about how they provide privacy for the few women under their command during stressful and very dangerous operations. It is not the same as being a combat pilot who returns to an operating base or an aircraft carrier after the fight, where separate facilities are available." It's the absolute wrong policy for America, Boykin went on, because it "ignores fundamental biological differences between the sexes, and the natural implications of those differences."

 

Isn't the goal be to have the most lethal fighting force in the world? The military isn't -- and should never be -- the great societal equalizer. Already, the effects of this decision are rippling through the courts, as groups challenge whether this would force women to register for selective service (read: the draft). When the DOD removes the barriers to women serving in all positions, it removes most barriers to drafting them as well. That's a frightening proposition -- not just for our homeland, but for our home fronts.

 

Families have already endured the loss of tens of thousands of brave Americans in one of the most prolonged wars in U.S. history. Will their daughters, sisters, and mothers be next? By now, the president should understand: the military isn't a level playing field. It's a battlefield. One that women should be protected from -- not ordered to.

[spoiler=Original Article Link]http://www.frc.org/updatearticle/20151204/gender-warfare

 

 

[ENMaker]

But that's a stupid example because it's not realistic by any means.

 

Once again, the implication of this discussion is they're getting women that are unfit to be in the battlefield to be in combat.

 

Which is pretty silly.

 

It's not realistic by any means for someone whose capabilities fall below the military's standards to attempt to join...?

[Maeriberii Haan]

I'm just shooting at the example he's giving of women not being able to see as much as men.

 

Also, even the statement itself say that "all combat position will be open to women"

 

Does it say anything about lowering the standards? No.

Does it say anything about letting women just enter those combat situations? No.

 

The discussion is creating a boogeyman over nothing.

[Arctic55]

I'm just shooting at the example he's giving of women not being able to see as much as men.

It was a fictional example to make a point about Obama trying to lower the standards/not allow people to be turned away.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Willing to bet they won't turn away a guy with the same level of "inferior" vision

 

Guys can't stand being equated with women, especially not the top brass