Panel To Recommend Allowing Women In Military Combat Roles
01-13-2011, 01:10 PM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Jax, FL
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vehicle: 01 Tibster
Panel To Recommend Allowing Women In Military Combat Roles
http://www.npr.org/2011/01/13/132882...omen-In-Combat
While I think some women will do fine with that, I think a majority will not cope with it the same way that men do. I have nothing against women and am completely for equality but I do not put them at the same capability as a man on the front line.
The long standing statement of not seeing a woman stare an enemy in the eyes and then shoot them close range I think still holds true for MOST women, obviously not all would have the issue.
A high-level military commission is set to recommend that the Pentagon reverse its long-standing policy that bars women from being in combat.
Hundreds of thousands of women are currently serving in the U.S. military, and many of them are in Iraq and Afghanistan. According to the Pentagon's policy, women are, and always have been, barred from taking part in any ground combat operations.
But in reality, women are already in the thick of the fight — and an upcoming report will recommend that the Pentagon acknowledge the reality on the ground and allow women to be assigned to combat units.
The Military Leadership Diversity Commission was established by Congress in 2009 to look at ways to diversify the force and boost recruiting. The commission includes high-ranking retired and active-duty military officers who, for the past year, have been debating whether to overturn the current combat exclusion policy. This policy bans women from being assigned to artillery, infantry and other combat units; it says women can be attached to these units in support roles but that they are not explicitly allowed to be part of combat groups.
The commission examined several key questions; chief among them is the issue of promotion. The quickest, most direct way to rise through the ranks in the military is to succeed in a combat-related assignment. Because women can't get those jobs, the commission concluded that the policy ends up limiting their promotion opportunities.
Those who support changing the policy also point to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, where it can be difficult to distinguish between combat and noncombat positions. In a meeting last September, commission members questioned a panel of military women about their experiences.
"Here is my problem," said Ret. Marine Lt. Gen. Frank Petersen. "We're talking about ground combat, nose-to-nose with the bad guys, living in the mud, eating what's on your back, no hygiene and no TV. How many of you have seen how infantrymen, the ground troopers, live, and how many of you would volunteer to live like that?"
Tammy Duckworth, a former helicopter pilot who lost both of her legs in Iraq and is now the second in charge at the Department of Veterans Affairs, replied.
"I've lived like that. I have lived out there. ... I would do it in a minute for the honor of being able to serve next to some of the greatest folks that I've ever been able to serve next to," she said. "It's about the job. Women are doing that right now."
But there are other concerns with lifting the ban on women serving in combat, including recruitment. Some say changing the policy will deter women from signing up to serve, while others say it will boost recruitment numbers at a time when the military is stretched thin between two wars.
There are also questions about retention. If the Pentagon opens combat jobs up to women, how long will they stay in them? What if they get pregnant and can't deploy? And there are the perennial concerns about unit cohesion. Will allowing women into intense fighting situations undermine the morale of all-male combat units?
Hundreds of thousands of women are currently serving in the U.S. military, and many of them are in Iraq and Afghanistan. According to the Pentagon's policy, women are, and always have been, barred from taking part in any ground combat operations.
But in reality, women are already in the thick of the fight — and an upcoming report will recommend that the Pentagon acknowledge the reality on the ground and allow women to be assigned to combat units.
The Military Leadership Diversity Commission was established by Congress in 2009 to look at ways to diversify the force and boost recruiting. The commission includes high-ranking retired and active-duty military officers who, for the past year, have been debating whether to overturn the current combat exclusion policy. This policy bans women from being assigned to artillery, infantry and other combat units; it says women can be attached to these units in support roles but that they are not explicitly allowed to be part of combat groups.
The commission examined several key questions; chief among them is the issue of promotion. The quickest, most direct way to rise through the ranks in the military is to succeed in a combat-related assignment. Because women can't get those jobs, the commission concluded that the policy ends up limiting their promotion opportunities.
Those who support changing the policy also point to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, where it can be difficult to distinguish between combat and noncombat positions. In a meeting last September, commission members questioned a panel of military women about their experiences.
"Here is my problem," said Ret. Marine Lt. Gen. Frank Petersen. "We're talking about ground combat, nose-to-nose with the bad guys, living in the mud, eating what's on your back, no hygiene and no TV. How many of you have seen how infantrymen, the ground troopers, live, and how many of you would volunteer to live like that?"
Tammy Duckworth, a former helicopter pilot who lost both of her legs in Iraq and is now the second in charge at the Department of Veterans Affairs, replied.
"I've lived like that. I have lived out there. ... I would do it in a minute for the honor of being able to serve next to some of the greatest folks that I've ever been able to serve next to," she said. "It's about the job. Women are doing that right now."
But there are other concerns with lifting the ban on women serving in combat, including recruitment. Some say changing the policy will deter women from signing up to serve, while others say it will boost recruitment numbers at a time when the military is stretched thin between two wars.
There are also questions about retention. If the Pentagon opens combat jobs up to women, how long will they stay in them? What if they get pregnant and can't deploy? And there are the perennial concerns about unit cohesion. Will allowing women into intense fighting situations undermine the morale of all-male combat units?
The long standing statement of not seeing a woman stare an enemy in the eyes and then shoot them close range I think still holds true for MOST women, obviously not all would have the issue.
01-13-2011, 08:27 PM
#2
Super Moderator
Promotion? Seriously? We want the future mothers of our children to have the opportunity to be raped to death so they get PROMOTED faster? What democrat thought that up?
And hygiene? EW!. A guy just stinks when he doesn't bathe for a week. Let a woman spend the 'wrong' week without so much as taking her trousers off and see what happens.
Women in that particular week, by the way, can you imagine them having to show restraint against a MAN! Women, let's face it, may be too vicious. Some could stand and deliver in a pitched gun battle, no doubt. I know exactly two women who could stand toe to toe with a man in CQB and not be torn to shreds; the rest would be dragged off and god-knows-what in half a moment. Then the men would get killed trying to recover their sisters in-arms who should never have been there in the first place.
Flying a jet and dropping bombs from 4 miles up, or driving a deuce-and-a-half in hairy situations is one thing. Putting females in the trenches is quite another. This is something that should be obvious to any clear-headed man. Elections have consequences, however, and idiot ideas like this are one.