Female vets cheer new combat era: “It’s about time!”
Women who rode into Iraq during the 2003 Coalition invasion or who withstood on-base mortar attacks that killed other U.S. troops raucously cheered news of the impending lift of the female-combat ban, shouting the same three spirited words.
“It’s about time!” said Laura Cannon, a 2001 West Point graduate who rolled into Iraq with the Army’s 3rd Infantry Division, spending seven months there. “Women have been on the ‘front lines,’ per se, for years. Now they’re getting credit and authorization that is long overdue. The landscape of combat has changed so much that front lines are ambiguous, and frankly, what I believe to be an obsolete concept.” …
“This decision means the military is finally removing that useless ‘attached, but not assigned’ verbiage that meant absolutely nothing on the field, with the boots on the ground,” she added. Weckerlein worked as an Air Force combat correspondent, traveling throughout Iraq and Afghanistan, documenting the missions of Air Force joint terminal air controllers and Army infantry soldiers at remote provincial reconstruction team locations and at forward operating bases. In other words, she shadowed military men who were doing “male only” jobs.
Women now compose about 15 percent of the U.S. armed forces.
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
We have become an absolutely sick nation, and we are paying for it.
Shump on January 24, 2013 at 8:20 AM
Ok sweetie, grab that mortar base plate and hump it up the mountain.
Dingbat63 on January 24, 2013 at 8:22 AM
Changing “useless ‘attached, but not assigned’ ” to just plain useless.
claudius on January 24, 2013 at 8:23 AM
REMF.
warren on January 24, 2013 at 8:26 AM
I get the feeling that this will not end well. A recipe for disaster is what me thinks.
tommy71 on January 24, 2013 at 8:27 AM
Of course, no word yet on why they still don’t have to meet the same basic requirements in boot camp. I left the Pentagon last year and as far as the Marine Corps was concerned there were going to be no changes made to PFT requirements. So what is the logic in allowing women to make the leap to Infantry when they they don’t have to meet the same basic standard just to join? I can tell you right now any Marine who was in the combat arms working at the service level fought this one hard, but alas we lost as we were not allowed to interject any common sense into the argument. Any studies there were done were a formality, the decision was made back in 2009. This being the United States, the only thing that will come of this is that standards will drop so the numbers will look good. The small percentage of “cross fit” hard body women who might volunteer for this duty is not enough to overcome most women who cannot match their male counterparts physically. It’s a lot easier to take a weak male and train him up, it’s much harder to get a female into the same shape or even in the ballpark.
Most laughable is this is the administration that always says to “look at the science”, but as usual in this case ignore the science of basic human anatomy and physiology.
gator70 on January 24, 2013 at 8:32 AM
That’s the same thing America’s enemies said.
Flange on January 24, 2013 at 8:32 AM
On the one hand, most warfare these days seem to be of the urban combat/policing variety, for which I think women would be ok. On the other, if ground troops are called on to storm a beach Normandy-style, I can see how this would be a major liability.
When it comes to sports, the physiological gender differences that always prevent men from participating in women’s leagues is never questioned, but when it comes to mixing it up in a front-line military death match, we must treat both genders equally.
Indeed.
crrr6 on January 24, 2013 at 8:41 AM
At least give them the chance to prove themselves before declaring it a lost cause. If a woman wants to fight and fully knows the risks going in, let her fight.
Bishop on January 24, 2013 at 8:41 AM
A phrase that needs to be retired immediately.
ddrintn on January 24, 2013 at 8:42 AM
If they can meet the same physical standards that are now in place, sure. But under those standards so few women would make it that their presence wouldn’t even be noticed. The standards will be
“adjusted” downwards for everybody. That’s the goal.
ddrintn on January 24, 2013 at 8:44 AM
Mixed feelings. 18 girls, women, what ever you want to call them, are much more bad ass than they were 20 years ago. Plenty of girls grow up hunting and fishing with dad, and are raised without any limitations as a result of their gender. Female high school athletes are into some of the types of strength and conditioning training that once upon a time were only reserved for boys.
I have no doubt that there are women that are capable of being effective in combat. My wife was a linguist in Iraq, and attached to a combat unit in Baghdad. She encountered more than her share of fire fights, and has a Bronze Star to show for it.
The problem won’t be whether or not their are some women with the mental and physical toughness to perform well in these roles. The problem will come when politicians get involved because the number of women serving in combat roles does not reflect the number of woman serving in the military, and then attempt to “level the playing field”.
HarryBackside on January 24, 2013 at 8:48 AM
When feminists accept the premise of mixed gender sports then and only then will I even start a conversation about mixed gender applicability to combat arms.
Oh wait, what’s that, no female can compete with men in the 100 meter dash? You mean there is actual scientific data showing that men and women are different?
This country is sick to its core.
Meat Fighter on January 24, 2013 at 8:48 AM
It’s not just about the women but the safety of the men serving beside them. If they can pass the same fitness tests as men, maybe this is ok. But, would you really be surprised if they set a different bar for women in order to meet the PC goal of having X percentage of women on the front lines? I wouldn’t.
crrr6 on January 24, 2013 at 8:49 AM
No it wouldn’t surprise me, but as I opined yesterday if the standards don’t become a laughable farce, and the women can pass them, then give them a shot. Women should be given a chance to defend their nation and loved ones too.
Bishop on January 24, 2013 at 8:57 AM
This is just a stupid idea. Read the following link:
http://outsidethewire.com/blog/war/elite-infantry-as-the-military-gets-smaller-it-needs-to-be-more-elite.html
SC.Charlie on January 24, 2013 at 8:59 AM
Unban warfare is some of the worse there is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0mTMIdrUtw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=us3jaFkJwAY
or read this to see how bad it could get
http://www.amazon.com/House-An-Epic-Memoir-War/dp/1416596607
warren on January 24, 2013 at 8:59 AM
I can tell you straight up, if a woman shows up to a unit not meeting the same standards, she has already lost credibility with her unit. It doesn’t matter how much she want’s to be there.
I guess it’s better stated this way for you non-military types. If you busted your butt to get your master’s degree and earned a great job, and then a few months later somebody else gets hired and placed at an equal position with the same pay with only an associates degree, wouldn’t you be a little ticked off? I bet you would regardless of how much they wanted to be there. So quit being a bunch of hypocrites.
Until it’s all equal, this means nothing and you are doing the women of this nation a disservice. Talk about setting them up for failure.
gator70 on January 24, 2013 at 8:59 AM
I think we are missing the point here. This shouldn’t be about the individual. I serve with a number of very good female officers who as individuals are better than some of their male counter parts. However, the armed forces needs to be looked at as a whole, and as a whole having females in certain billets degrades the combat readiness of a unit compared to an all male unit of equal ability.
As I said in the other thread. If the CVN billet vacancy rate prior to and during deployment due to females were applied to an all male CVN there would be a congressional investigation into the lack of naval operational readiness. But since this is due to women, it is swept under the rug.
There is no right to serve in the armed forces. It exists for the sole purpose of providing a national defense. The only question that should be asked at the beginning of any discussion such as this should be, “does this increase our decrese our combat readiness?” If the answer is that it decreases it then the conversation should be over.
The military rightly discriminates against a number of individuals for lacking certain qualities. A lot of those individuals are born with certain deficiencies such as poor eye sight or body size. They should CONTINUE to discriminate based on gender as well.
Meat Fighter on January 24, 2013 at 9:03 AM
This is THE question. Watch the Crossfit Games on ESPN, and it’s obvious that their are women who have the physicality to meet the same PT standards as men. What happens though if woman make up 14% of the Army population, but only 7% of the combat arms ranks due to PT standards?
HarryBackside on January 24, 2013 at 9:08 AM
Only if their participation clearly demonstrates that having a mixed gender force provides enhanced operational and combat readiness. It is my opinion from experience and study that an all male force provides more combat and operational readiness without all the variables of a mixed gender force.
The military is not a vessel for indivduals to serve their nation. It is an orginization that strips many liberties from individuals in order to provide a national defense force. Watering down that defense force for the sake of an individual is doing a diservice to the citiziens of this nation.
Meat Fighter on January 24, 2013 at 9:09 AM
Part of me says let them take on front line combat roles.
The other part of me knows that every single man under arms secretly thinks of himself as a knight in shining armor. Chivalry is not dead. And fark your feminist BS, seeing a woman get hurt affects a man differently from seeing a man get hurt. You’re not going to deprogram that. And if this turns out the way I think it will, it is going to affect combat effectiveness.
CorporatePiggy on January 24, 2013 at 9:17 AM
Wartime under Bush: “Bring all the troops home, now!”
Wartime under Obama: “Women are going to the front, WooHooo!”
Who ya rootin for NBC? Sheesh.
fogw on January 24, 2013 at 9:19 AM
This is a resoundingly and universally bad idea all the way around.
Be prepared sometime in the immediate future to see a captured female helicopter pilot or ground pounder on a video feed from Al Jazeera. Being used as a bargaining chip for the release of captured illegal combatants/terrorists at Guantanamo. Or ultimately, the Blind Sheik.
To say nothing about putting women in front lines operations will do to unit cohesion and morale.
Bottom line. Just as with Desert Storm. There are going to be a lot of pregnancies. And subsequent abortions performed at Rhein Main and Weisbaden.
Jack Deth on January 24, 2013 at 9:33 AM
The IDF doesn’t have women in front-line positions, but it does have women in combat jobs, particularly drone warfare. Turns out women are better at spotting the terrorists than men.
I’m all for removing the barrier to women rising in the ranks, but not for removing the physical requirements of battle, and frankly, not in favor of women in front-line combat at all.
Meryl Yourish on January 24, 2013 at 9:43 AM
Well glad to see you’re one of the sensible women on this matter, but FYI the Israelis have to use women in combat jobs because they are a postage-stamp nation surrounded by head-chopping barbarians. They do not have any choice whatsoever.
MelonCollie on January 24, 2013 at 9:52 AM
I don’t mind the media talking to female solders about the policy changes, but I think they should follow up with the question, “once the policy goes into effect, are you planning to branch transfer to the infantry?”
BohicaTwentyTwo on January 24, 2013 at 9:53 AM
In practice it will be much, much worse than that. If a woman trains to the extreme limits of her physiology just to meet the MINIMUM requirements of combat – hey, congratulations. But now what? She’s got nowhere left to go.
logis on January 24, 2013 at 10:14 AM
And the non-stop sexual harassment lawsuits begin in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1…
CrustyB on January 24, 2013 at 10:15 AM
Liberals seem all too excited about sending women into combat and it’s usually the ones who have never served or loathe the military. They are confusing getting shot at or blown up with “closing with and destroying the enemy by fire and maneuver” unless you have been a grunt you don’t know what that is really. Those libs have never been grunts.
major dad on January 24, 2013 at 10:22 AM
This.
People have this videogame fantasy of combat being like a video game, where it’s all shooting all the time.
They couldn’t be more wrong. Combat is maybe 1% shooting, and 99% backbreaking donkey work. Humping 100 lbs.+ rucks up mountains, digging holes in cement hard dirt, unloading trucks, etc. etc.
Women are physiologically incapable of such hard, sustained effort in generally filthy conditions. So the men will have to pick up their slack, and they will resent it greatly.
Rebar on January 24, 2013 at 10:25 AM
In my Fallout 3 role-play, I forbid myself to use the “fast travel” feature and instead manually walk everywhere. No “poof we’re there” shortcuts and having to dealing with whatever you run into on the way there really changed my perspective.
MelonCollie on January 24, 2013 at 10:31 AM
Next time you are in a high school gym, take a look at the track records board. The girls and boys records are usually side by side. Now, have you ever seen any record that is better on the girls side than on the boys side? I have not, and I have been to a lot of gyms in my day, and my dad likes to look at every record board we come across.
High school seniors during track season are 1-3 months away from military service, if they choose it.
cptacek on January 24, 2013 at 10:33 AM
The first thing I think about with women in front line positions is the POW/rape factor.
I don’t think any part of being a POW is pleasant, but being raped once or twice a day would surely be worse than many other forms of torture.
cptacek on January 24, 2013 at 10:37 AM
Yes, why isn’t the argument ever “we need women in those positions to help the military do _____ more effectively”? The perspective most people argue from is exactly bass ackwards.
cptacek on January 24, 2013 at 10:39 AM
“I worked twice as hard as the men, and I made it.” (with lower physical standards) should be a clue that the men didn’t have to work twice as hard. That means…if a bigger challenge comes up, they can up their effort and meet the harder challenge. The upside for the men is greater than the upside for women already working twice as hard.
cptacek on January 24, 2013 at 10:41 AM
The day I was issued an M-16, I was king of the world.
The day I had to carry it on a 20 miles route march, all I wanted was to throw the F’ing thing in a ditch.
Folks who haven’t done it, simply have no idea what’s involved. They’ve been raised on “women are just like men” propaganda, the hard truth is it’s 100% false. Hell, most folks haven’t done a hard day’s work, I mean a really hard day’s work, in their whole lives.
Rebar on January 24, 2013 at 10:47 AM
L.I.B.
This should be treated as another in the line of Let It Burn situations. Through all of history, the pendulum swings back and forth on various issues. Conservatives have been trying to push against the current swing toward a liberal environment, constantly warning of the ramifications.
We need to stop resisting and let them have their way. This doesn’t mean to accept given item on the agenda. Simply make it clear that we know this isn’t going to end well, explain why, make it clear that it shouldn’t be done, but say ok, go ahead, but we warned you.
Let this happen a few times and each time say to America, “Look, we warned of this. When you get tired of these bad results, let us know and we’ll be ready with some sensible ideas.”
It’s like grabbing a 5 yr old’s hand twenty times a day for pulling the dog’s tail. Finally, you get to a point and say to him, pull it and he’s gonna’ bite you. Let him do it and let nature be the one to educate him.
Stop trying to hold back the pendulum and let it swing to the left (with the warnings). Only then will we finally get to a point where we can begin to swing it back our way.
gregbert on January 24, 2013 at 10:47 AM
Heh. Little bit like me when dad gave me an ax. I was the MAN. I got my picture taken of me with that ax because I was using a Big Sharp Thing!
Then he told me to chop the pile of wood from our tree that had fallen over. An hour of that and I would’ve thrown the ax into Mount Doom.
MelonCollie on January 24, 2013 at 10:54 AM
I wouldn’t want to rely on someone protecting my six in a combat situation who couldn’t do 10 pull-ups. This eliminates over 95% of women.
tommyboy on January 24, 2013 at 11:20 AM
I just looked it up. It is even a contentious subject in Israel where all women must serve for three years and then stay in the reserves until they are 38. Only three precent of Israeli service women serve in combat positions.
SC.Charlie on January 24, 2013 at 11:33 AM
Doesn’t matter. Israel is far enough away that libtards can endlessly scream about the stupendous “success” of their Amazon Brigades.
And why shouldn’t they? Liberals “justified” advocating flamboyant homosexuality in the military with 3,000-year-old legends.
Whenever people completely ignore the concept of reality, even the craziest and stupidest liberal ideas always work just fine.
logis on January 24, 2013 at 12:24 PM