Quotes of the day

posted at 10:31 pm on January 24, 2013 by Allahpundit

Statement by the President on the Opening of Combat Units to Women

Today, by moving to open more military positions—including ground combat units—to women, our armed forces have taken another historic step toward harnessing the talents and skills of all our citizens. This milestone reflects the courageous and patriotic service of women through more than two centuries of American history and the indispensable role of women in today’s military. Many have made the ultimate sacrifice, including more than 150 women who have given their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan—patriots whose sacrifices show that valor knows no gender.

Earlier today I called Secretary of Defense Panetta to express my strong support for this decision, which will strengthen our military, enhance our readiness, and be another step toward fulfilling our nation’s founding ideals of fairness and equality.

***

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, in lifting a ban on women serving in combat, said women have become integral to the military’s success and have shown they are willing to fight and die alongside their male counterparts.

“The time has come for our policies to recognize that reality,” Panetta said Thursday at a Pentagon news conference with Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Panetta said that not all women will be able to meet the qualifications to be a combat soldier.

“But everyone is entitled to a chance,” he said.

***

If you want to know just how far the debate over women serving in combat situations has come, look no further than Sen. Marco Rubio, a top contender for the GOP’s 2016 presidential nomination and a leading voice in the modern conservative movement.

For Rubio, the question is a no-brainer. “Women already are in combat to begin with. We should be putting our best soldiers forward regardless of their gender,” Rubio spokesman Alex Conant said Thursday evening.

***

For the next several months, and particularly over the summer, the services will reevaluate the standards they have in place for these combat positions, particularly the physical-fitness standards. A host of Defense Department officials swore to reporters on Thursday morning at the Pentagon that they’ll neither lower physical-fitness standards nor establish different standards by gender, something they say would violate federal law, anyway.

So the likely outcome of those tests is to find which jobs will remain excluded to women. An example a senior Marine official cited involved a loader on a tank crew. Loading a tank round requires a certain degree of upper body strength. You need to hoist a 50-odd pound, 120-mm round, removing it from its rack and loading it into the breach — here’s a video demonstration — all in a space that doesn’t really allow a lot of lower body strength to supplement. When the Army and Marine Corps explore job openings for women, that’s what they’ll test — whether a soldier or marine can do that, repeatedly, in relevant and realistic conditions, regardless of gender. (Although Dempsey mentioned one of his tank gunners when he was a division commander in Iraq was named Amanda.)

“For us it comes down to, it’s the physical standard and can they do it,” the Marine official said.

***

There is a problem with fitness that affects the military, but it doesn’t reflect on women alone. It reflects on Americans in general, says Barnett, who as a member of a group called “Mission: Readiness” signed a report on the dangers posed by obesity to U.S. security.

“We are too unfit to fight, is the term. We are definitely an unfit society,” Archer added in a telephone interview. “They need basic training to get ready for basic training. This is true of both males and females,” Archer said…

“When we study history, we find that women have coped with every aspect of war. Women have demonstrated the emotional courage to withstand the brutality of war, including during lengthy imprisonment as POWs under very harsh conditions in the Pacific and in European work and death camps; in very dangerous and stressful resistance fighting; in the face of rape and mutilation; and at the moments of their deaths,” Fenner writes.

***

In the US military, a woman’s service is not recognized, professionally or financially, the same way as a man’s. Because women have not been eligible for “combat role” positions—even though they were shooting and being shot at—they were denied access to certain career opportunities. The plaintiffs in a lawsuit the American Civil Liberties Union filed against the Department of Defense over the exclusion of women from combat roles offer great examples of this discrimination. Two of the plaintiffs in that case have received Purple Hearts, and two have received combat medals. One of the plaintiffs, Air Force Major Mary Jennings Hegar, a helicopter pilot, was shot down in Afghanistan attempting to evacuate wounded US service members. She engaged in a firefight with enemy forces and was shot before escaping. Women are already “getting their limbs blown off in war.” Panetta’s announcement will ensure they are recognized for it…

Most men cannot meet the necessary mental and physical requirements for service in combat. Any woman who can meet those standards should not be denied the opportunity because of an arbitrary gender restriction. Moreover, removing the restriction is not about celebrating militarism. The military has long been a path for historically disfavored groups to claim the full benefits of citizenship. Justifying discrimination against blacks, gays and lesbians, or women becomes much more difficult when they’re giving their lives for their country.

***

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…

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…

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.

***

But is it a good thing? As a woman and a U.S. Marine Corps veteran, I’m not so sure. To those who have been agitating for this step, I say this: be careful what you wish for

Many women will find out in the long haul that combat entails unprecedented physical stress. As it is now, many women have greater duress on their bodies than men with the physical requirements and are discharged at higher rates from the duress on knees, hips, ankles, and joints. That reality will only be exacerbated in combat. Will physical performance standards be adjusted (that is, made less stringent) to accommodate women?…

It goes beyond physical limitations—the object of military culture is to defeat the enemy and kill anything that is a threat. There is a constant mode of aggression; I’ve seen too many women who enlisted and completed training, but soon learned they simply couldn’t face that dark reality on a daily basis.

***

Women have been in support roles. Driving supply trucks or flying helicopters, accompanying patrols as interpreters — some of them have come under fire, some of them have undoubtedly fired back, and a few may have engaged in fire-fights spurred by the need to defend themselves. But getting shot at is not “combat” — at least not the way the official military defines it. The Department of Defense defines a combat job as one in which a soldier’s primary duty is to seek out, engage and neutralize the enemy. This is a distinction that should be recognized. Special credit should be given. Operating in a combat zone requires bravery but seeking out and “engaging” an enemy requires even more bravery. Sorry, the U.S. military is — well, used to be — a meritocracy. It makes distinctions.

Now, (I think we can all stop pretending that there aren’t sex differences here) men like this seeking-out-the-enemy thing. Infantry jobs, jobs involving combat, have to be requested and young men will continue to enthusiastically request these positions. Will women? I doubt they will in great numbers. I think they will continue to swell the ranks of intelligence, management, medical, and logistical jobs, continue to do these jobs admirably, but avoid the combat roles. If so, the impact of this historic policy change may be insignificant. It may go down as more of Obama’s gestural politics.

***

Yet honoring sacrifice does not necessarily mean acceding to demands for social justice, and the real question should not be whether opening combat roles leads to greater job opportunities for women but whether placing women in infantry companies makes those units deadlier (or at least no less deadly) and more proficient in their core role — engaging and destroying the enemy in close combat.

Cemetery Ridge in Gettysburg, Pa., Bastogne in Belgium, and the Chosin Reservoir in Korea rank among the most hellish and brutal environments ever created by man. The idea that women in the ranks could have repelled Picket’s Charge, or the XLVII Panzer Corps, or the People’s Volunteer Army’s 9th Army just as well as men is more hope than anything else. I pray those hopes won’t ever be tested in equivalent environments, but if history is any guide, the test will come, and no amount of social justice can replace steely courage, superhuman endurance, and ironclad bonds of brotherhood.

Women and men are not interchangeable biological units. There will be consequences to this change, both expected and unexpected. Is “social justice” worth this very deadly risk?

***

Feminists routinely deny Eros — except when it suits them to exploit their sexual power. Only someone deliberately blind to human reality could maintain that putting men and women in close quarters 24 hours a day will not produce a proliferation of sex, thus introducing all the irrational passions (and resulting favoritism) of physical attraction into an organization that should be exclusively devoted to the mission of combat preparedness. Reported “sexual assaults” will skyrocket, and of course it will only be the men who are at fault. Any consensual behavior leading up to the “assault” — getting in bed with your fellow grunt drunk and taking off your clothes, for example — will be ignored, since in the realm of sexual responsibility, women remain perpetual victims, at the mercy of all-powerful men. Expect a windfall to the gender-sensitivity-training industry, which will be called in both before and after the entry of women into combat units to eradicate endemic male sexism.

Even if Leon Panetta intends to keep female fighting units sex-segregated, that distinction won’t last. Feminists will complain that female-only units stigmatize women.

Chivalry is one of the great civilizing forces, taming men and introducing social graces and nuance to what would otherwise be a brutish social world. It is already on life support, but sex-integrated combat units will provide the coup de grâce.

***

It’s predictable that members of Congress—including many who privately know better—will be intimidated by the forces of gender correctness from arguing against women in harness. It’s predictable that the media will unfairly attack critics of women in combat units as failing to respect the achievements and sacrifices of our servicewomen who have served and are serving in harm’s way. It’s predictable that few in our political and cultural elites will speak up for biology, for common sense, or for decency or honor.

This is therefore a moment of opportunity. The political leader who takes on this fight will be mocked and scorned–almost as much as was Ronald Reagan in 1977, when he challenged the bipartisan elite consensus on the Panama Canal Treaty. As it happens, I suspect this fight will prove more winnable in Congress than the fight against the Panama Canal Treaty. But whatever happens in Congress, will any political leader step up, as Reagan once did, to fight the good fight?

***

***



Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 6

Ken! I mean “Bishop!”

KCB on January 24, 2013 at 10:31 PM

Women who will will, women who won’t won’t…

Scrumpy on January 24, 2013 at 10:31 PM

FOX HOLE!

KOOLAID2 on January 24, 2013 at 10:31 PM

Ken!! I was first!!

Scrumpy on January 24, 2013 at 10:31 PM

And you…

KCB on January 24, 2013 at 10:32 PM

Jackie

KOOLAID2 on January 24, 2013 at 10:32 PM

B9

KOOLAID2 on January 24, 2013 at 10:32 PM

Scrumpy

KOOLAID2 on January 24, 2013 at 10:33 PM

Ken!! I was first!!

Scrumpy on January 24, 2013 at 10:31 PM

Yes! Yes you were! I call foul!

KCB on January 24, 2013 at 10:33 PM

The Associated Press ‏@AP

AP PHOTO GALLERY: A historical look back at women’s military service: http://apne.ws/11VeUKt -CJ
=====================================

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ap-photos-look-womens-military-service

canopfor on January 24, 2013 at 10:33 PM

RWM

KOOLAID2 on January 24, 2013 at 10:33 PM

Twerp

KOOLAID2 on January 24, 2013 at 10:33 PM

GG!!!

KCB on January 24, 2013 at 10:33 PM

4Grace

KOOLAID2 on January 24, 2013 at 10:34 PM

FOX HOLE!

KOOLAID2 on January 24, 2013 at 10:31 PM

Brings a whole new meaning to combat ready! :)

uncommon sense on January 24, 2013 at 10:34 PM

INC!

KCB on January 24, 2013 at 10:34 PM

KCB & Scrumpy!….are you done?

KOOLAID2 on January 24, 2013 at 10:34 PM

Marco Rubio Backs Women In Combat Decision

For Rubio, the question is a no-brainer. “Women already are in combat to begin with. We should be putting our best soldiers forward regardless of their gender,” Rubio spokesman Alex Conant said Thursday evening.

Why am I not surprised?

sharrukin on January 24, 2013 at 10:35 PM

FOX HOLE!

KOOLAID2 on January 24, 2013 at 10:31 PM

:)

But you were late and the hole is small…:)

Electrongod on January 24, 2013 at 10:35 PM

KCB & Scrumpy!….are you done?

KOOLAID2 on January 24, 2013 at 10:34 PM

Umm, I think so. You good Chrissy?

KCB on January 24, 2013 at 10:35 PM

FOX HOLE!

KOOLAID2 on January 24, 2013 at 10:31 PM

nor least we forget commando fridays! LOL!

uncommon sense on January 24, 2013 at 10:36 PM

I don’t agree with this decision at all.

gophergirl on January 24, 2013 at 10:37 PM

sharrukin on January 24, 2013 at 10:35 PM

Just keeps getting better and better doesn’t it? Wonder what Blue Buddha thinks about it?

Bmore on January 24, 2013 at 10:38 PM

K2 Ken Can RWM Bazil9 Sparky Bmore EG Arnie Fred Mike Marshfox Jackie INC Cindy Coffee Schad Axe A-C Cozmo ALT AZ SW Dr Zhiv Bishop KJ 22044 Predator 4Grace L2G!!!!

Good evening!!!! :-)

Scrumpy on January 24, 2013 at 10:38 PM

So lets talk about this..

When a woman news reporter was raped when reporting about Cairo last year..
This country was outraged..

Has this outrage changed?

Electrongod on January 24, 2013 at 10:38 PM

Scrumpy on January 24, 2013 at 10:38 PM

Starting to look a little like Fiensteins ban list. Lol! First glance anyhow. ; )

Bmore on January 24, 2013 at 10:39 PM

GG Uncommon sharukkin :-)

Scrumpy on January 24, 2013 at 10:39 PM

I don’t agree with this decision at all.

gophergirl on January 24, 2013 at 10:37 PM

I have never met you..

But I want you to be safe..

Electrongod on January 24, 2013 at 10:39 PM

KOOLAID2 on January 24, 2013 at 10:34 PM

Speaking of 4Grace, she threw this one out after I, and most everyone else retired last night. Worth a listen.

KCB on January 24, 2013 at 10:39 PM

Women in combat, on the front lines. I say Hell Yeah, in fact, know a couple of them I’d like to see in the sandbox right now.

TXUS on January 24, 2013 at 10:39 PM

Has this outrage changed?

Electrongod on January 24, 2013 at 10:38 PM

No, this is Forward. That would be reverse.

Bmore on January 24, 2013 at 10:40 PM

Just keeps getting better and better doesn’t it? Wonder what Blue Buddha thinks about it?

Bmore on January 24, 2013 at 10:38 PM

Rubio is a fake. Seems most Republicans these days are. Rand Paul might be different, however I am losing my religion.

sharrukin on January 24, 2013 at 10:41 PM

TXUS on January 24, 2013 at 10:39 PM

Hillary’s age would exempt her.

KCB on January 24, 2013 at 10:41 PM

KCB on January 24, 2013 at 10:35 PM

Working on it, am on a total liquid diet :-( Water Gatorade and jello…

Got meds!!

I’ll give it a few days…

Still don’t know what has caused my ailment, will know by next week, I hope…

Scrumpy on January 24, 2013 at 10:41 PM

You can bet that any problems this causes will be swept under the rug by the LSM at the request of the Pentagon.

Women do not belong on the battlefield in a combat position for many reasons, but then there is no reasoning with political correctness.

Jvette on January 24, 2013 at 10:41 PM

So far out of three threads on this topic I have not seen one good reason for this decision to be taken. So help me out a wee bit. Why?

Bmore on January 24, 2013 at 10:41 PM

Has this outrage changed?

Electrongod on January 24, 2013 at 10:38 PM

No, this is Forward. That would be reverse.

Bmore on January 24, 2013 at 10:40 PM

makes you wonder how most beta males can look in the mirror, knowing that there are women that will do the job they can’t :)

uncommon sense on January 24, 2013 at 10:42 PM

Its a baaaaad idea. But I bet the men will love it.

tommy71 on January 24, 2013 at 10:42 PM

I have never met you..

But I want you to be safe..

Electrongod on January 24, 2013 at 10:39 PM

Ahhhhhh :)

Can you imagine when an enemy captures an American woman solider what they will do to her? The thought of it just makes my skin crawl.

Make them snipers, make them tank drivers, make them intelligence gatherers, etc. I just don’t think women belong on the front line.

gophergirl on January 24, 2013 at 10:42 PM

Bmore on January 24, 2013 at 10:39 PM

Lol!!… I was gonna name names individually, but someone beat me to the punch!!

Scrumpy on January 24, 2013 at 10:42 PM

No, this is Forward. That would be reverse.

Bmore on January 24, 2013 at 10:40 PM

Forward…

We need a new name for this country..

Forward fits…

Electrongod on January 24, 2013 at 10:43 PM

Women In Combat: 80% Does NOT Equal 100%.

M2RB: Goo Goo Dolls

Resist We Much on January 24, 2013 at 10:43 PM

gophergirl on January 24, 2013 at 10:42 PM

With you on that thought hon.

It will come down to individual choice, I am pretty sure they will take all that into consideraton before placing themselves on the front line…

Scrumpy on January 24, 2013 at 10:44 PM

Lol!

sharrukin….past your bed time?

dmann on January 24, 2013 at 10:27 PM

Still waiting. ; )

Bmore on January 24, 2013 at 10:44 PM

I just don’t think women belong on the front line.

gophergirl on January 24, 2013 at 10:42 PM

You and me both…

Electrongod on January 24, 2013 at 10:44 PM

Bmore on January 24, 2013 at 10:41 PM

It is so patently stupid…it has to be a diversion. Out-bound Defense Secretaries don’t make big controversial changes for their successors to deal with. Not within the same administration.

KCB on January 24, 2013 at 10:45 PM

Old & Busted:

“It is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put a single innocent one to death.”

New Hotness:

“It is far better and satisfactory that 100+ million law-abiding citizens lose their Second Amendment rights than for one criminal to get his hands on a gun.”

Resist We Much on January 24, 2013 at 10:45 PM

uncommon sense on January 24, 2013 at 10:42 PM

No doubt, but its not our betas I’m worried about with this nonsense.

Bmore on January 24, 2013 at 10:45 PM

Can you imagine when an enemy captures an American woman solider what they will do to her? The thought of it just makes my skin crawl.

gophergirl on January 24, 2013 at 10:42 PM

I too have had this thought, or even a women killed in combat. I am not concerned that they can’t do the job, as I have know some women that are better soldiers than men, but your concern is something that I too am worried about.

uncommon sense on January 24, 2013 at 10:45 PM

I wouldn’t have any problem with this if the current and future “Rules of Engagement” in all wars was to

“Kill As Many of the Enemy and Do Whatever it Takes To Save American Lives and Win!”…

… but that’s not the case, is it?

Seven Percent Solution on January 24, 2013 at 10:46 PM

Its a baaaaad idea. But I bet the men will love it.

tommy71 on January 24, 2013 at 10:42 PM

I bet you are very, very wrong.

KCB on January 24, 2013 at 10:46 PM

If only for arguments sake, I believe the US is the only nation whose military women are not right along the men in combat?

How do, for instance, the Israeli women do it?

Scrumpy on January 24, 2013 at 10:46 PM

Electrongod on January 24, 2013 at 10:43 PM

Hows the tune go? forward he cried from the rear and the front rank died , yes I think thats it.

Bmore on January 24, 2013 at 10:47 PM

Hi 7%!!

Scrumpy on January 24, 2013 at 10:47 PM

So far out of three threads on this topic I have not seen one good reason for this decision to be taken. So help me out a wee bit. Why?

Bmore on January 24, 2013 at 10:41 PM

…so they can start affirmative action in combat situations?

KOOLAID2 on January 24, 2013 at 10:47 PM

Nancy Pelosi was in combat in Iraq!

PELOSI quot I WAS FIGHTING A WAR IN IRAQquot
*******************************************

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZX0gC_eHSiU

canopfor on January 24, 2013 at 10:47 PM

If only for arguments sake, I believe the US is the only nation whose military women are not right along the men in combat?

How do, for instance, the Israeli women do it?

Scrumpy on January 24, 2013 at 10:46 PM

Scrumpy, this is true, but I don’t think the Israeli’s are involved in as many operations as the US, nor any of the European countries either.

uncommon sense on January 24, 2013 at 10:48 PM

In a high stress environment, the gubmint has come up with a new destress technique. Gonna be quite a few orgy videos up on youtube soon. And skyrocketing rape and sexual assault charges.

tommy71 on January 24, 2013 at 10:48 PM

Today, by moving to open more military positions—including ground combat units—to women, our armed forces have taken another historic step toward harnessing the talents and skills …

That’s as far as I got. This man is insane. How the hell is he the president of the United States?

Cleombrotus on January 24, 2013 at 10:48 PM

… but that’s not the case, is it?

Seven Percent Solution on January 24, 2013 at 10:46 PM

Well said..

This is the problem..

With libs in charge..

Our women and men…..
Are targets…

But…

Obama is prez..

The world loves us..

Just ask Ambassador Stevens…

Electrongod on January 24, 2013 at 10:49 PM

I too have had this thought, or even a women killed in combat. I am not concerned that they can’t do the job, as I have know some women that are better soldiers than men, but your concern is something that I too am worried about.

uncommon sense on January 24, 2013 at 10:45 PM

Of course women can do the job but there a lot of unfriendly countries that do not look at women the same as we do here. That’s the problem. Of course these idiots won’t realize that until it’s too late.

gophergirl on January 24, 2013 at 10:49 PM

B9 is divine.
I would not want to be on the front line..

Kool..you would capture my heart win..but Jackie first and me always second! Why Sparky is my man..I am always #1 ;)

Good point scrump..I would like an answer..pondering.

bazil9 on January 24, 2013 at 10:50 PM

Forward…

We need a new name for this country..

Forward fits…

Electrongod on January 24, 2013 at 10:43 PM

…you have to make your f‘s clearer…I thought it was a t….

KOOLAID2 on January 24, 2013 at 10:50 PM

My take on women in combat (after passing all of the existing standards set for the males): put them in sniper positions, away from both the distracted males and enemy hands.

nobar on January 24, 2013 at 10:51 PM

If only for arguments sake, I believe the US is the only nation whose military women are not right along the men in combat?

How do, for instance, the Israeli women do it?

Scrumpy on January 24, 2013 at 10:46 PM

This is an excellent question.

I guess I just don’t trust our enemies.

gophergirl on January 24, 2013 at 10:51 PM

KOOLAID2 on January 24, 2013 at 10:47 PM

Like I said. Still haven’t seen a good reason.

Bmore on January 24, 2013 at 10:52 PM

tommy71 on January 24, 2013 at 10:48 PM

My thoughts exactly.

bazil9 on January 24, 2013 at 10:52 PM

KOOLAID2 on January 24, 2013 at 10:50 PM

LOL…

Electrongod on January 24, 2013 at 10:52 PM

January 21, 2011
Sarah Palin, Combat Veteran
***************************
***************************

Apparently, America’s next big scheduled argument is whether women soldiers should be allowed in combat. Mark your calendars now to begin screaming your preferred talking points, yea or nay. Politics Daily:

A study commission chartered by Congress is poised to send up to Capitol Hill a recommendation that the last remaining barriers to women – those that formally exclude them from infantry, armor and special forces — be removed.

As far as I’m concerned, we already have our first female combat soldier, a breathtakingly brave warrior who suffers the slings and arrows of outrageous misfortune for the sake of our freedom, every day.

Sarah Palin stands alone in America and the world. Name one other public figure anywhere on the globe today who symbolizes the uncompromising fight for liberty….Waiting…Waiting…
(More….)
===========

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/01/sarah_palin_combat_veteran.html

canopfor on January 24, 2013 at 10:52 PM

B9 is divine.

Absolutely!

KCB on January 24, 2013 at 10:52 PM

uncommon sense on January 24, 2013 at 10:48 PM

True.

I heard they are some tough cookies tho when it’s needed…

I believe it would need to be a personal choice should a woman wish to fight on the frontlines…

I can only imagine the shenanigans that may evolve from this, I mean of a sexual nature…

I don’t think Pannetta thought this thru very well, and the consequences of this action, will be felt in the near future.

Scrumpy on January 24, 2013 at 10:53 PM

There have been American women captured in Gulf War I and II every one was sexually assaulted.

Not a problem though, Democrats support Al-Qaeda’s war on women

halfbaked on January 24, 2013 at 10:53 PM

KOOLAID2 on January 24, 2013 at 10:47 PM

Like I said. Still haven’t seen a good reason.

Bmore on January 24, 2013 at 10:52 PM

Oh God..just what we need. Mr B is right..:)

bazil9 on January 24, 2013 at 10:53 PM

gophergirl on January 24, 2013 at 10:49 PM

I’m not sure that is correct gg. Without lowering the current standards evidence demonstrates clearly a number of reasons why women in fact cannot do it.

Bmore on January 24, 2013 at 10:54 PM

b!!!

Bmore on January 24, 2013 at 10:54 PM

My take on women in combat (after passing all of the existing standards set for the males): put them in sniper positions, away from both the distracted males and enemy hands.

nobar on January 24, 2013 at 10:51 PM

ONLY IN EXTREME CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD WE ALLOW WOMEN TO BECOME KILLERS!

Damn, you people are obtuse.

Cleombrotus on January 24, 2013 at 10:54 PM

I agree with Rubio. Everything should be a meritocracy. If you are the best qualified, have at it.

John the Libertarian on January 24, 2013 at 10:55 PM

Of course women can do the job but there a lot of unfriendly countries that do not look at women the same as we do here. That’s the problem. Of course these idiots won’t realize that until it’s too late.

gophergirl on January 24, 2013 at 10:49 PM

Exactly, look how they treated our ambassador to Libya, is this the next video we wish to see of women on the front lines or in a position of harms way? I personally don’t want that.

uncommon sense on January 24, 2013 at 10:55 PM

How do, for instance, the Israeli women do it?

Scrumpy on January 24, 2013 at 10:46 PM

1. Their culture is not rotten to the core by liberal-induced sexual irresponsibility.
2. They have the minor performance incentive of being literally surrounded on three sides by Arab barbarians.
3. I highly suspect Israeli officers have harsher incentives for idiots and are not afraid to use them, because their national survival could really be endangered by too many “Private SNAFUs” in the ranks.

MelonCollie on January 24, 2013 at 10:55 PM

How do, for instance, the Israeli women do it?

Scrumpy on January 24, 2013 at 10:46 PM

…they don’t shave their legs or armpits?

KOOLAID2 on January 24, 2013 at 10:55 PM

If only for arguments sake, I believe the US is the only nation whose military women are not right along the men in combat?

How do, for instance, the Israeli women do it?

Scrumpy on January 24, 2013 at 10:46 PM

They don’t.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/146001

General Who Supported Women in Combat Says: ‘No More!’

In an interview with Voice of Israel government-run radio, Ron-Tal said that “It turns out that the amount of stress fractures suffered by soldiers is dozens of percentage points higher among women than among men. As a result, the female soldiers are not required to carry as much weight.”

“I think that women’s service in combat roles in the IDF should not be widened,” he said. “I cannot even imagine a female soldier serving inside a tank or in elite infantry units, mostly because of operational considerations. The army must not allow this thing to interfere with its operational ability.”

Laws that mandate the inclusion of women in combat units “place the military in a nearly impossible situation,” he said. “Expanding female service will be a grave mistake that will damage the prowess of the army.

sharrukin on January 24, 2013 at 10:56 PM

Female Pilots Apache Helicopter!!

Uploaded on Nov 20, 2008

Package about a female Apache helicopter pilot supporting ground troops in a combat environment. Produced by Sen. Airman Scott Johnson. If you like this one try this one on an all female combat crew! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGult1u1DbE
================================================

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pfDzyvGwb0

canopfor on January 24, 2013 at 10:56 PM

Don’t worry, the service will do as every other government dept. has that requires heavy lifting and dangerous conditions, the example of which are state fire agencies.

The females will be promoted ahead of males so they drive the trucks and the males carry the heavy stuff, and being higher in rank they’re automatically protected.

Sorry that’s just how it works. Cool huh?

Speakup on January 24, 2013 at 10:56 PM

Bmore, its all about ‘fairness’. The consequences of this decision has not been thought out fully. They’ll learn soon enough.

tommy71 on January 24, 2013 at 10:56 PM

True.

I heard they are some tough cookies tho when it’s needed…

I believe it would need to be a personal choice should a woman wish to fight on the frontlines…

I can only imagine the shenanigans that may evolve from this, I mean of a sexual nature…

I don’t think Pannetta thought this thru very well, and the consequences of this action, will be felt in the near future.

Scrumpy on January 24, 2013 at 10:53 PM

I agree, it isn’t the actual combat that concerns me, it is the time between combat that nobody is looking at.

uncommon sense on January 24, 2013 at 10:57 PM

I don’t think Pannetta thought this thru very well…

Scrumpy on January 24, 2013 at 10:53 PM

“Thought” had little to do with it.

Cleombrotus on January 24, 2013 at 10:57 PM

In my younger days I tried out for both the British Army and Royal Navy, I rejected both as I could not have the type of position I wanted, all they offered was clerical and kitchen and nursing… ugh.

I wanted to be an MP or a Driver… no go…

So I didn’t join up…

Would I want to be on the frontline? Only as a last resort…

I like the idea of being a sniper tho…

Scrumpy on January 24, 2013 at 10:57 PM

When they did this in the Navy my fellow squids on those ships hated it. The said you couldn’t say good morning with a smile on your face for fear of sexual harrassment allegations.

They were miserable and definitely off thier game. It was politics 24/7.

wolly4321 on January 24, 2013 at 10:57 PM

I’m sure if we could just even out the field to be fair, say, maybe we can ask the enemy to go with women too. Yeah that should fix it up and make things fair.

Bmore on January 24, 2013 at 10:57 PM

My take on women in combat (after passing all of the existing standards set for the males): put them in sniper positions, away from both the distracted males and enemy hands.

nobar on January 24, 2013 at 10:51 PM

So you’re saying make them all Dr. Ruths.

RickB on January 24, 2013 at 10:58 PM

I don’t think Pannetta thought this thru very well, and the consequences of this action, will be felt in the near future.

Scrumpy on January 24, 2013 at 10:53 PM

…I think Pannetta lost a mud wrestling contest to Candy Crowley and got mud in his brain!

KOOLAID2 on January 24, 2013 at 10:59 PM

For Rubio, the question is a no-brainer. “Women already are in combat to begin with. We should be putting our best soldiers forward regardless of their gender,”

Rubio’s a no-brainer. That idiot should just shut his mouth, already. Every time he opens it, something incredibly stupid falls out.

Rubio, go away.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 24, 2013 at 11:00 PM

I just can’t wait to see those ladies going up against, oh I don’t know, those NFL types in the Superbowl. Yeah that will be a great game.

Bmore on January 24, 2013 at 11:00 PM

I like the idea of being a sniper tho…

Scrumpy on January 24, 2013 at 10:57 PM

Have to admit that would be fun :)

gophergirl on January 24, 2013 at 11:00 PM

sharrukin on January 24, 2013 at 10:56 PM

That’s an almost 2 yr old article…lots of shoulds’ n coulds’ in it… thanks!! Bookmarked.

Scrumpy on January 24, 2013 at 11:01 PM

Hi 7%!!

Scrumpy on January 24, 2013 at 10:47 PM

Hey Scrumpy and all my other friends…

… My apologies for not adding anything to the conversation lately.

Having to explain to Little 7% what a +$16 Trillion dollar debt soon to be $20 will mean to us and his future has left me a little jaded…

Seven Percent Solution on January 24, 2013 at 11:01 PM

Or how about this we send Rubio over to the line. Does he have daughters? Maybe they would accompany daddy.

Bmore on January 24, 2013 at 11:01 PM

Seven Percent Solution on January 24, 2013 at 11:01 PM

How is little 7%, 7%?

Bmore on January 24, 2013 at 11:02 PM

************************ Badass of the Week. ********************

Kim Campbell

April 7, 2003. The fourth day of the nine-day Battle of Baghdad.

Fighting rages across the fire-swept Iraqi capital as American and Allied soldiers and Marines storm through the rubble-strewn streets, taking heavy fire from the deeply-entrenched, ultra-hardcore, fanatically-dedicated warriors of President Saddam Hussein’s Republican Guard – battle-hardened troops committed to fighting a desperate last stand, dying where they stand with their fingers still on the trigger in a badass blaze of glory. Gunfire and explosions rip through deserted skyscrapers and apartment buildings as the toughest troops Iraq has to offer desperately cling to the last vestiges of their crumbling empire.

A little north of downtown proper stood the North Baghdad Bridge – a critical crossing over the mighty Tigris River that absolutely had to be taken and held if the Allies wanted to have any chance of cutting off enemy reinforcements and capturing the city.

The task was given to the U.S. 3rd Infantry Division – hardcore, boots-on-the-ground asskickers who’s marched across the country and were now finally getting the chance to kick a little ass.
(More….)

http://www.badassoftheweek.com/kimcampbell.html
================================================

Gulf War 2 Battle Damaged A-10

Pilot brings battle-damaged A-10 home safely

By Staff Sgt. Jason Haag
332nd Air Expeditionary Wing Public Affairs

OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM (ACCNS) — An A-10 Thunderbolt II pilot deployed with the 332nd Air Expeditionary Wing safely landed her “Warthog” at her forward operating base after it sustained significant damage from enemy fire during a close air support mission over Baghdad April 7.

Capt. Kim Campbell, deployed from the 75th Fighter Squadron at Pope Air Force Base, N.C., and her flight leader had just finished supporting ground troops and were on their way out of the area when her aircraft was hit with enemy fire.
(More…..Images)
=================

http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Stories1/001-100/0016_A-10-battle-damage/story0016.htm

canopfor on January 24, 2013 at 11:02 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 6