Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 61

Thread: Military Commission Says: Put women in combat units

  1. #1
    Regular Member rotorhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    862

    Military Commission Says: Put women in combat units

    While the debate rages on concerning the lifting of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell ban, another long-held military rule is about to be changed, as well.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41083172/ns/us_news-life/

    While it will be a less public debate that will surely draw less fire from radicals from either side, the long-standing rules governing women in combat units will soon be changed to allow for such things as women serving on submarines and women being assigned (as in fully integrated) to artillery, armor, and infantry units.

    While I commend the women who serve in the military and certainly hold all of our veterans in high regard, I oppose this disturbing recent trend within the ranks by the civilian leadership of the military of turning our nation's forces into nothing more than a hot-bed for social programs and "diversity" at the cost of lives and combat effectiveness.

    The main argument is that women do not have the same chance for advancement as men in the military. With that much, I agree. There is huge division between promotions among men and women in the military. But, has anyone really sat down to figure out just why this is?

    The answer is, sorta.

    It's a natural occurrence due to the challenges of combat. Naturally, and simply because the military is designed to attack and close on an enemy force using the maximum amount of violence needed to achieve that objective, we have had our men doing the grunt work. Over time, this has not been questioned, mostly because it makes sense, seeing as how most of the combat forces we will encounter will be sending out their big strong men against us.

    More men in the fight, more men in top positions where they were needed. Obviously, this created a force where more men than woman were getting the higher paid jobs within the military. It's a no-brainer.

    In recent years, there came a call for balance, and in my opinion, a legitimate look at how women could better be integrated into the fighting force. I think in some cases it was justified, but in certain cases, a boundary was crossed where the impact of simply having women in certain environments could and would potentially cause serious issues relating to the combat effectiveness of the units affected by the integration of women into it's ranks.

    In the past, the debate surrounded around the physical make up of the average woman soldier, the emotional trials of a combat role, and other legitimate issues which needed to be studied before making sweeping changes. Like it or not, there had to be some kind of indication that women could handle some of the roles which men have handled since the inception of our military.

    Over the past 9 years or so, it's been good to see that, for the most part, the women who have served in these expanded military specialties have preformed brilliantly and beyond all expectations, further legitimizing their inclusion into the newer roles. With that, there have also been serious indications where the presence of women in certain units have also caused problems, less reported, but seriously impeding some units from accomplishing their missions. One example would be unexpected pregnancies which then created a hole in the ranks that had to either be filled or left open indefinitely.

    But up until January 14th, the debate has usually centered around the ability of women to preform the duties assigned to them in newer roles. For the most part, they have passed this test with flying colors.

    Now, a whole new argument is now at hand. No longer is it "can they preform in these roles", now it has become "we need to get them into these combat roles so they can get promoted"

    Yes, promotion and diversity concerns are the main arguments for the newly proposed expansions, which send women deeper and closer to the front lines. Yes, I know women have been on the front lines since the Revolutionary War, but they have been used in limited capacities and only on the front lines when that front line happened to be moved right to that unit's door. Other than that, it's been this nation's policy not to have women intentionally serving on the front lines.

    This new direction taken by the military's chief "diversity" panel is what concerns me. No longer are people taking on the responsibility of actually studying the impact of their decisions. Diversity has now become the number one priority, thereby trumping all others in it's wake. This is what worries me the worst. The military no longer cares about what is most effective on the battlefield, it only cares that whatever is out there is diverse enough to keep them from having to face the media in a negative light.

    Silly and ignorant isn't enough anymore. Now this fantasy of creating an effective military force that mirrors a corporate board from Bath and Body Works is outright dangerous.

    When "diversity" becomes the number one priority when it comes to studying what makes up the most effective fighting force on the modern battlefield, we have truly given up any chance of ever winning another war again. Personally, I feel that if an all black army, or an all female army, or an all gay army were the absolute best we could put into a fight, I would go with that, so please save the accusations of racism and sexism I'm sure will come my way.

    If me being an Italian-German-Japanese-Islander American had in any way became the deciding factor in my future consideration for promotion and placement in a military role rather than my individual combat effectiveness, I would be highly insulted and would seriously be concerned as to the military's leadership's ability to effectively make the right decisions in any case.

    It's not about race or gender or sexual preference- it's about combat effectiveness!

    Sadly, combat effectiveness has now become an after thought, regulated to the back row in any meeting while diversity considerations now take up the gavel and decide military policy virtually on it's own.

    Again, I'm no racist or sexist, nor hold any bigotry toward gay people. If white American males were the cause of our nation's losing wars, I would take them off of teh battlefield so that we could drive on and win the fight. My concerns are not that someone happens to be a different color, nor a different sexual persuasion. My concerns are that the military has now tossed out any semblance of showing signs of being competent and stable enough to make the decisions needed to win the wars we engage in.

    Instead, our nation's military leaders only care about how things look, not how they fight. In my career, I've never had any issue with taking orders from people different than me. You learn to rise above that kind of thing early on. What I do have a problem with, however, is that when the people who are giving me orders are only there as a result of some idiotic social programming designed to promote based on diversity rather than competence, you have no choice but to question the legitimacy of such a commander.

    Again, I'm so glad I'm retired now and don't have to deal with this stuff on a personal basis. I've witnessed people being placed in positions who were not qualified enough to tie their shoes, yet had to deal with their incompetence none the less. Today, that exception is now the rule. It won't matter who someone is. As long as placing them there balances out some diversity check list kept up in the PAC office, all other considerations will be swept away.

  2. #2
    Regular Member rotorhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    862
    Uggh, let me get this in before I'm bombarded with false accusations...

    1. I am for, not against, women serving in any role they can handle. If that's all of them, then so be it.

    2. I am not against gays in the military, although I do feel that it may cause some problems.

    3. I am not against any policy which is designed to insure equal pay for equal service.

    4. I am completely against any policy which makes combat effectiveness considerations less important than any other social consideration. I believe it should be the deciding factor in all considerations, no matter what they are.

    Hopefully that covers it all

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,558
    Bad idea for a number of reason, I am late for work. I will post my reasons in length when i return.
    -I come in peace, I didn't bring artillery. But I am pleading with you with tears in my eyes: If you screw with me, I'll kill you all.
    -Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.
    Marine General James Mattis,

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Anywhere but here.
    Posts
    523
    I agree, combat effectiveness should be priority one. However the diversity police would rather sacrifice lives in order to make themselves feel better. While I agree that if a woman is capeable of performing combat duties in every way she should be allowed, it will cause issues.Whether the issues are caused by the men or the women is irrelevant. If there is ANY issue which impedes combat effectiveness, it must be removed.

    Granted most of those issues will come from the men. We have a hardwired instinct to protect women at all costs, this could lead to serious problems and lapses in judgement in a firefight. Also, men tend to "show off" when women are around, also emotional attatchments, jealousy, posessiveness could also become factors. Our Military is comprised of truly professional and dedicated individuals ( for the most part), but they are human, and in combat, often young. This is another example of playing the PC game with young men and women's lives to make a point. The military exists to destroy our enemies, not be PC and sing kumbaya.

    There are ugly realities in combat, and however distasteful they may be, they must be accepted in order to win.
    This site has been hijacked by leftists who attack opposition to further their own ends. Those who have never served this country and attack those who do are no longer worthy of my time or attention.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    1,415
    There is a distinct biological reason that women are not in primary combat roles. It is linked to the reason they also create logistical concerns.

    #1. Field Latrines:
    The proper digging of latrines in the field changes from male to female. A female soldier, because of the abundance of potential feminine products, requires what is known as a "trench latrine". These leave a larger mark for opfor to locate and use in tracking, in contrast with a "pit latrine" (used for males), which is much smaller, and leaves a less of a footprint.

    #2. Biological scents:
    Female soldiers, although certainly the type of motivated, calculated killer I want behind a .50 during certain periods (is that a pun?) of the month, unfortunately leave a strong trail of odor, be it perfume from pads/tampons, or biological excretion, that a tracking unit equipped with dogs, could easily pursue. This endangers operatives, and infantrymen alike during critical maneuvers. The Taliban for example, have been known to use tracking dogs to pursue field ops or patrolling squads.

    #3. Logistics:
    Packing kotex pads or tampons in an already excessive loadout is not my description of traveling light, specifically when the FOB or other base in the AO might not be seen again for 2-3 weeks.

    #4. Airlifted supply drops:
    Ok, so it falls under logistics, but it needs specific mention because it would be a huge problem. Personally, I want more dope, than soap and tampons. I know some women who are expressly for female 11B's are going to try and say "Wah wah, throw em on the pallet!", but every airload that goes out is a precise measurement on what can be carried and/or balanced in transport. Ask any loadmaster who just loaded up a CH-46 to throw in this box of tampons, and he is going to say, "You want me to ditch some water, or ammo?". He is being serious by the way.

    #5. Medical Requirements:
    It's already dicey in combatland, without having to also assure that an OBGYN is present and accounted for, in case a female soldier gets shot in the pelvis. Medically, this presents a can of worms for current combat support hospitals.


    Looks ladies, I know you're probably going to be pissed that I am bringing this up, and believe me I have served with some female soldiers who would chew glass and **** me out cupcakes (Also met some who wanted to do their nails, and sit on their Humvees, thinking about which soldier to jump on next), but these ARE legitimate concerns.

    Just sayin...

    If you can think of a way to mitigate these things, then ok, whatever.
    Last edited by slowfiveoh; 01-15-2011 at 01:12 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Personal responsibility is a facade created by religious people in particular...
    On "Personal Responsibility just after the previous, in the same exact thread.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Religion uses is as a tool, they did not create it.
    The wheels on the bus go round and round...round and round.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    You think that I am ill-equipped...hit me with your best shot Einstein, I am calling you out.


    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Free will is only slightly a conscious exercise...

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Anywhere but here.
    Posts
    523
    All valid points also. If all things were equal, I have no problem with women in combat. I personally know a USMC chopper pilot who would jump out of her chopper in a hot lz, an M4 blazing in one hand and grabbing a 200lb man by the ass and chucking him onboard. She was definetely born again hard. However, other issues would have prevented her from being an effective ground soldier. Not everyone is cut out for every job in the service. I couldn't do submarines if my life depended on it. Not all men are cut out for combat either, that's just life.
    Last edited by NRAMARINE; 01-17-2011 at 03:43 PM.
    This site has been hijacked by leftists who attack opposition to further their own ends. Those who have never served this country and attack those who do are no longer worthy of my time or attention.

  7. #7
    Regular Member DontTreadOnMeVa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    132
    Quote Originally Posted by rotorhead View Post
    Uggh, let me get this in before I'm bombarded with false accusations...

    1. I am for, not against, women serving in any role they can handle. If that's all of them, then so be it.

    2. I am not against gays in the military, although I do feel that it may cause some problems.

    3. I am not against any policy which is designed to insure equal pay for equal service.

    4. I am completely against any policy which makes combat effectiveness considerations less important than any other social consideration. I believe it should be the deciding factor in all considerations, no matter what they are.

    Hopefully that covers it all
    +10000000000000000

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,558
    Quote Originally Posted by slowfiveoh View Post
    There is a distinct biological reason that women are not in primary combat roles. It is linked to the reason they also create logistical concerns.

    #1. Field Latrines:
    The proper digging of latrines in the field changes from male to female. A female soldier, because of the abundance of potential feminine products, requires what is known as a "trench latrine". These leave a larger mark for opfor to locate and use in tracking, in contrast with a "pit latrine" (used for males), which is much smaller, and leaves a less of a footprint.

    #2. Biological scents:
    Female soldiers, although certainly the type of motivated, calculated killer I want behind a .50 during certain periods (is that a pun?) of the month, unfortunately leave a strong trail of odor, be it perfume from pads/tampons, or biological excretion, that a tracking unit equipped with dogs, could easily pursue. This endangers operatives, and infantrymen alike during critical maneuvers. The Taliban for example, have been known to use tracking dogs to pursue field ops or patrolling squads.

    #3. Logistics:
    Packing kotex pads or tampons in an already excessive loadout is not my description of traveling light, specifically when the FOB or other base in the AO might not be seen again for 2-3 weeks.

    #4. Airlifted supply drops:
    Ok, so it falls under logistics, but it needs specific mention because it would be a huge problem. Personally, I want more dope, than soap and tampons. I know some women who are expressly for female 11B's are going to try and say "Wah wah, throw em on the pallet!", but every airload that goes out is a precise measurement on what can be carried and/or balanced in transport. Ask any loadmaster who just loaded up a CH-46 to throw in this box of tampons, and he is going to say, "You want me to ditch some water, or ammo?". He is being serious by the way.

    #5. Medical Requirements:
    It's already dicey in combatland, without having to also assure that an OBGYN is present and accounted for, in case a female soldier gets shot in the pelvis. Medically, this presents a can of worms for current combat support hospitals.


    Looks ladies, I know you're probably going to be pissed that I am bringing this up, and believe me I have served with some female soldiers who would chew glass and **** me out cupcakes (Also met some who wanted to do their nails, and sit on their Humvees, thinking about which soldier to jump on next), but these ARE legitimate concerns.

    Just sayin...

    If you can think of a way to mitigate these things, then ok, whatever.
    Agreed and

    Your average women will not push herself in training the way almost all grunts will. I personally had a good friend die from heat exhaustion during our unit's 18 mile road march with a 50 pound ruck and all our combat gear. We had guys who collapsed during several APFTs and some died of various reasons trying to max their runs out, we have guys who collapsed from a heat stroke and ended up with severe brain damage. I had friends who completed extremely difficult training with broken bones, dislocated joints and torn muscles because we have been told to always complete the mission first and to never give up. Getting hurt in training is stupid but it is a great testament to what your combat soldiers are willing to push themselves too, so they can kick down those doors and face death in the face for year plus. When my unit would do brigade runs we would do 4-8 mile runs and we would lap a good 30 plus women from the support unit who had fallen out of the run and this is not the only unit i have seen this. Women simply give up every time it got a little challenging, now is this every women no. You may have 1 in 500 who might be able to keep up with the men, but it still does not even take into account heath issue men don't have to worry about.

    I have noticed women have a " the um NO gene" where it is just insane and I have seen them refuse training. I seen a support unit have issues where the women refuse to give their all in training and either give up all together or blows off the training as nonsense. I have not even gotten to the fact that men are genitally built so much strong than any women could ever be. Men are able to handle the extra abuse that otherwise would destroy a women body, I have seen a fellow grunt pick up a 180 pound man who was wounded with well over 60 pounds of gear on and fireman carry him to cover more than a three blocks away to a be cared for. You won’t ever see a women carry over 200 pounds even a block.

    Another thing is sexual assault, not all grunts are angles and there WILL BE CASES of rape. I have seen where guys who have not been around women for over a year and a half messed around with women not even a blind man would even touch. When our unit leaves the FOB to work in COB's that don't have any running water at all and we don't shower or do any laundry for weeks to months on end. We can’t afford to ship women back to the rear to get cleaned up for real health related issues.

    We have always been raised to protect women and to come to their aid, we are trained to keep fighting no matter if a man goes down till the threat is stop. We are taught self aid, and if a women goes down instinctively to come to her aid. If she is captured you think what was done to our guys was bad, you have not seen anything. It’s hard enough to have husbands and sons come back in caskets and it is a political nightmare if the war does not end soon. it’s a whole other mess to have daughters and mothers come back who have died in the same huge numbers that our men Do.

    For those who say I am making it out to be more than it is have either never served or have never been in a combat MOS and have witnessed it first hand.
    Last edited by zack991; 01-15-2011 at 05:30 PM.
    -I come in peace, I didn't bring artillery. But I am pleading with you with tears in my eyes: If you screw with me, I'll kill you all.
    -Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.
    Marine General James Mattis,

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Man, am I glad I had already served 18 of my twenty years before the insanity started 18 years ago.

    I would not be a career military person today. The military is not a social proving ground. It exists solely to facilitate killing people and breaking things to protect the security of our nation. Sometimes that means not being all touch-feely and not being "fair." Folks need to grab some fistfuls of reality--before this nation has a military that cannot defend us.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Anywhere but here.
    Posts
    523
    Zack, Eyes, well said. There is nothing more I can add, you both hit the nail on the head. If only people could see the same kind of reason with the whole repeal of DADT. This PC multiculturalism crap will be the ruin of us all. Think about what this nonesense will do to recruiting, and the retention of experienced officers and combat troops.
    Last edited by NRAMARINE; 01-15-2011 at 10:49 PM.
    This site has been hijacked by leftists who attack opposition to further their own ends. Those who have never served this country and attack those who do are no longer worthy of my time or attention.

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by rotorhead View Post
    4. I am completely against any policy which makes combat effectiveness considerations less important than any other social consideration. I believe it should be the deciding factor in all considerations, no matter what they are.
    Same. We come in all sorts of shapes and sizes. There is no "one size fits all." Many jobs in the military are perfectly handled by women, but some are not. The flip side is true, as well, as some women have talents some men do not. By and large, there's a ton of overlap and either sex are suitable for most jobs.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Nevada carrier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    The Epicenter of Freedom
    Posts
    1,297
    As for the issues surrounding menstruation, my Girlfriend takes birth control. when the "off" week comes up, that's when the period comes. Her doctor has informed her that she it is perfectly safe to skip the placebo week. According to her doctor, there is no medical necessity to for a woman to menstruate to be healthy.

    I was in a gender integrated combat arms unit while I served, and yes there were female sh!t bags who didn't take training seriously, malingered and refused to perform assigned tasks to standard. An the other side of the coin, there were plenty of male soldiers that did the same things.

    The military has a system set up just for people who do not follow orders, and it doesn't have a chapter just for female soldiers; It's called UCMJ. If a female soldier can meet the PULHES requirements of a forward operating combat unit, she should be allowed to serve in that capacity. failure to abide by General orders, special orders and the military code of conduct would result in discipline according to UCMJ. If you're rucking through a combat zone, there isn't going to be a five-ton to police up the fall outs, you would be surprised what the human body, male or female is capable and willing to do when no easy way out is available. This is also why the "Train as you fight," mentality should be in place, and why every unit should extensively train before deployments, so non hackers can be identified before they put their battle buddies life in jeopardy. Even a mentally week soldier will often grow a pair when not doing so means dieing.

    That being said, Jesica Lynch is a prime example of what happens when sh!t bag soldiers don't take training seriously. There is a reason why in Basic Training when you are learning how to field strip your rifle the drill instructors will insist that you pay attention because "you don't want to be the next Jessica Lynch." When Jessica Lynch is who you think of when you recite the soldiers creed "I will always maintain My arms, my equipment, and myself. She did not do those and contrary to why the rest of the sheeple were told on CNN, she didn't fire her weapon until it was empty, she didn't even get a round off because she and those in her unit like her hadn't cleaned their rifles in days, or even weeks. In Land Navigation, You get "Jesica Lynched" when you can't find your way without a PLGR. Or when your PLGR dies and you cant remember how to read a map because you didn't pay attention during training. I mean who really needs to know how to land nav, that's what your NCO is for, certainly he will always be there to tell you what the right direction is. As we all know, there are no sh!t bag NCO's.

    Okay, my rant is over, my point is sh!t bags come in all genders, races, ranks, MOS's, branches of service and walks of life. There is no universal recipe for what breeds them other than poor command philosophy, training and indoctrination.
    Last edited by Nevada carrier; 01-16-2011 at 03:03 AM.

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    For those who aren't familiar with the term, "PLGR" stands for personal lightweight GPS receiver. It has little to nothing on a Garmin eTrex or Dakota, but it's largely been replaced by the DAGR.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  14. #14
    Regular Member rotorhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    862
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    For those who aren't familiar with the term, "PLGR" stands for personal lightweight GPS receiver. It has little to nothing on a Garmin eTrex or Dakota, but it's largely been replaced by the DAGR.
    Neither of which should have replaced basic map reading skills- learning them AND practicing them on a regular basis

    Nevada Carrier, that was an excellent read. Too bad the civilian leadership and the "diversity" panels won't digest any of it. What has happened is that a mindset is now making it so no amount of training or competence will make up for the differences on a monthly EO reporting sheet.

    The stated goal is to make it so women can get promoted faster and into more of the higher positions, and that's it. Regardless of the impact on units or their ability to conduct combat operations. Those considerations will be secondary, and that's the whole point of my original rant.

    In my opinion, the military recently has adopted, and will continue to adopt, many programs and policies which will highly impact the combat effectiveness and the ability to win battles and wars. They have done this against the opinions of it's top leaders in uniform and have made diversity the number one consideration above and over all others. This will affect all services, all ranks, all positions, and recruiting. All aspects of the military will be hamstrung by legalities, many of which that have little bearing on the actual needs of the military's ability to fight and win. They will, in fact, have the opposite effect and further hamper it's effectiveness.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by Nevada carrier View Post
    ...When Jessica Lynch is who you think of when you recite the soldiers creed "I will always maintain My arms, my equipment, and myself. She did not do those and contrary to why the rest of the sheeple were told on CNN, she didn't fire her weapon until it was empty, she didn't even get a round off because she and those in her unit like her hadn't cleaned their rifles in days, or even weeks.
    Confirmed.

    My unit was also a combat arms unit (I bet we were in the same battalion or under the same units command. 31st ADA mean anything to you?) and we held the west end of An-Nasiriya until the Apaches flew in to clean up the mess her unit (507th Maintenance) made by the XO apparently not studying land nav the way he should. I had access to coms (I was one of our units commo guys) listening to them get chewed up.

    After securing what was left of the convoy, not only were the weapons not maintained, some of them were still in their transport racks, and had been since Texas.


    In regards to your birth control comment, I would agree that that would be ok, but your girls doctor would ALSO tell her that it is not guaranteed to pause ye old cycle 100% of the time, and that the effects will differ from woman to woman. Not to mention that female body odor from simply sweating, has a different smell than male.
    Last edited by slowfiveoh; 01-16-2011 at 12:58 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Personal responsibility is a facade created by religious people in particular...
    On "Personal Responsibility just after the previous, in the same exact thread.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Religion uses is as a tool, they did not create it.
    The wheels on the bus go round and round...round and round.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    You think that I am ill-equipped...hit me with your best shot Einstein, I am calling you out.


    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Free will is only slightly a conscious exercise...

  16. #16
    Regular Member Nevada carrier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    The Epicenter of Freedom
    Posts
    1,297
    Quote Originally Posted by slowfiveoh View Post
    Confirmed.

    My unit was also a combat arms unit (I bet we were in the same battalion or under the same units command. 31st ADA mean anything to you?) and we held the west end of An-Nasiriya until the Apaches flew in to clean up the mess her unit (507th Maintenance) made by the XO apparently not studying land nav the way he should. I had access to coms (I was one of our units commo guys) listening to them get chewed up.
    Contrary to what many believe, the rank most likely to get you killed is...



    Yes, I was in 31st ADA, 1st of the 1st to be precise. For a very short time, I was in 3/2. I joined their ranks just before we were re-stationed under the 94th AAMDC and was in the first air defense artillery battalion to set up shop on Kadena Air base in Okinawa, Japan. I never saw combat, but unlike many soldiers of either gender, I trained as if I was getting ready to deploy to Iraq next week. I did this because it was entirely possible that I could have been. As we both know, when they call up Air Defense guys when the only thing flying in the air that aren't friendly are mortars and RPG's, I would have likely been doing things like convoy security, FOB and patrol ops.

    When I joined, I met a lot of guys who believed that by being a cook, they would see more of a kitchen than the enemy, mechanics would never be outside a motor pool, and commo guys would never be more than a few meters from a dish or antenna. What they didn't get was that unit commanders didn't care what MOS you were, everyone took their turn outside the wire. Cooks can kick in a door, Mechs can man a .50 and SATCOM operators can hold a mine sweeper just the same as an infantryman or Cav Scout can. But people still signed up for the military under the pretense that only infantry and cavs would face real combat and other MOS's just dressed up like they were going to play soldier.
    Last edited by Nevada carrier; 01-16-2011 at 03:31 PM.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by Nevada carrier View Post
    Yes, I was in 31st ADA, 1st of the 1st to be precise...
    [snip]
    ...Cooks can kick in a door, Mechs can man a .50 and SATCOM operators can hold a mine sweeper just the same as an infantryman or Cav Scout can. But people still signed up for the military under the pretense that only infantry and cavs would face real combat and other MOS's just dressed up like they were going to play soldier.
    Right on man. I was in the 69th, under 31st ADA command during the invasion. Our battalion was the first forward deployed Patriot unit ever, specifically tasked to provide forward umbrella coverage for 3rd Infantry.

    Interestingly enough I was also RSOP which as you are likely aware of, is tasked to scout forward areas for likely PATSITE deployment.

    Our road went interesting because we pulled off the main drag (MSR Tampa) and cruised west shooting northwards to Karbala, stopping at several intermediary sites along the way.

    Not all of my unit saw action, hell, most didn't. We had a Bronze Star (Corrected: Had to go look at some photos) earned by a Mechanic who said, "Screw the Fedayeen, Screw the republican guard, I'm salvaging the good stuff off of that HEMET, then destroying it!". He did so under direct, and indirect fire.

    Then there was me and my little gaggle of cohorts. Our XO was a buddy of mine, and our platoon sergeant an old SF guy who elected for a job changed while he finished up his last few years (His knees were run ragged too). They weren't content doing ADA crap all day, so off shift I found myself on patrols, or running escort down MSR Tampa.

    Good times.

    Next drink I have man, I'll drink to you. We chewed the same sand for sure, or at a minimum dug it out of our crevices, lol. Class A's are still hanging up with the red and gold 31st ADA patch.

    On topic: We had the same issue with many females (and yeah, males too) in our unit. In fact, our unit was dubbed the "empire of corruption" within USAREUR due to being out by ourselves, away from any observing, major command element.

    You wouldn't believe the crap people got away with out there. (Or maybe you would?)
    Last edited by slowfiveoh; 01-16-2011 at 03:47 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Personal responsibility is a facade created by religious people in particular...
    On "Personal Responsibility just after the previous, in the same exact thread.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Religion uses is as a tool, they did not create it.
    The wheels on the bus go round and round...round and round.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    You think that I am ill-equipped...hit me with your best shot Einstein, I am calling you out.


    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Free will is only slightly a conscious exercise...

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    the earth
    Posts
    25
    The Russians used women in combat with limited effectiveness, but the problems of rape by their own troops was major. Snipers I can see...even with body odor, the benefits of their thought processes and endurance might outweigh the negatives. Armor, Helos and Aircraft drivers...all on a person by person basis. In a unit that, as a rule, has to turn into foot sloggers and even engage hand to hand? NFW.

    The reason for women being introduced into groundpounder units is SPECIFICALLY meant to undermine the effectiveness of frontline Forces.

    We had women in my first squadron (VS-41 Shamrocks out of NAS North Island) and most could neither pull their weight nor were the vast majority of them (easily 90%) interested in doing so.
    They could not handle equipment trunks on deployment loadout, they could not handle the smallest of evac pumps on general quarters drills, they could not etc etc etc

    And EVERYONE knew that they were not only a "distraction" on short 2 week workup deployments, but as crew members on a combat vessel at sea for months at a time? Fogedaboudit.

    ***THIS IS NOT MEANT AS A DEGREDATION OF THOSE VERY FEW WHO DID THEIR JOBS IN AN EXEMPLARY FASHION, COULD MEET THE PHYSICAL REQUIREMENTS DEMANDED OF A SMALL MAN, AND HAD A "NO NAVY WICKS" POLICY IN PLACE WHILE BEING ABOUT THEIR BUSINESSS***

  19. #19
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by zack991 View Post
    I have not even gotten to the fact that men are genitally built so much strong than any women could ever be. Men are able to handle the extra abuse that otherwise would destroy a women body...

    I feel this is the crux of the issue. I am forced to admit that a sound male-bodied person (even of smaller stature) is capable, generally, of greater physical *brute* activities that require giving it all emotionally and physical.

    If I was confronted by a man of smaller stature than me--even though I workout, hit a 100 pound punching bag regularly--I would likely be hard-pressed to take him down in a hand-to-hand situation. I have met some women that are street fighting tough women, who could probably beat the crap out of the average guy, but would likely not last very long against a man with the same fighting experience and size. Men are just physiologically, and psychologically built and brain structured to be aggressive and violent.

    Socialization alone prepares a man to be more familiar with aggression and acting out aggressively than the way a woman is socialized, IMO, well, based on what I have observed.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  20. #20
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Awshucks View Post
    The reason for women being introduced into groundpounder units is SPECIFICALLY meant to undermine the effectiveness of frontline Forces.
    Are you saying that the intent of introducing females into the front line forces is to undermine effectiveness? If so, what is the ultimate goal in this direct attempt at undermining the forces?

    I think that the intent is to give females the choice. I continually hear that "this is not the time." When is there a good time to open up the gates and see what happens? I am not saying that some aspects of the military will prove to be incompatible for females; only time will tell. I am guessing that females having the choice to enter any branch of the military, over time, will not end with an undermined military, but rather, a military that gives females the option, but in some areas, generally, females WILL NOT cut it; as a result, very few women will make it through training and are placed, and very few will will even attempt it.
    Last edited by Beretta92FSLady; 01-16-2011 at 04:21 PM.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by rotorhead View Post
    Yes, I know women have been on the front lines since the Revolutionary War, but they have been used in limited capacities and only on the front lines when that front line happened to be moved right to that unit's door.
    Women have lied about their gender and served on the front lines in just about every conflict. And some of those got pregnant too.

  22. #22
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by slowfiveoh View Post
    There is a distinct biological reason that women are not in primary combat roles. It is linked to the reason they also create logistical concerns.

    #1. Field Latrines:
    The proper digging of latrines in the field changes from male to female. A female soldier, because of the abundance of potential feminine products, requires what is known as a "trench latrine". These leave a larger mark for opfor to locate and use in tracking, in contrast with a "pit latrine" (used for males), which is much smaller, and leaves a less of a footprint.

    #2. Biological scents:
    Female soldiers, although certainly the type of motivated, calculated killer I want behind a .50 during certain periods (is that a pun?) of the month, unfortunately leave a strong trail of odor, be it perfume from pads/tampons, or biological excretion, that a tracking unit equipped with dogs, could easily pursue. This endangers operatives, and infantrymen alike during critical maneuvers. The Taliban for example, have been known to use tracking dogs to pursue field ops or patrolling squads.

    #3. Logistics:
    Packing kotex pads or tampons in an already excessive loadout is not my description of traveling light, specifically when the FOB or other base in the AO might not be seen again for 2-3 weeks.

    #4. Airlifted supply drops:
    Ok, so it falls under logistics, but it needs specific mention because it would be a huge problem. Personally, I want more dope, than soap and tampons. I know some women who are expressly for female 11B's are going to try and say "Wah wah, throw em on the pallet!", but every airload that goes out is a precise measurement on what can be carried and/or balanced in transport. Ask any loadmaster who just loaded up a CH-46 to throw in this box of tampons, and he is going to say, "You want me to ditch some water, or ammo?". He is being serious by the way.

    #5. Medical Requirements:
    It's already dicey in combatland, without having to also assure that an OBGYN is present and accounted for, in case a female soldier gets shot in the pelvis. Medically, this presents a can of worms for current combat support hospitals.
    OK, we get it, women menstruate. What if women who wish to serve use birth control hormones which prevent (or eliminate for indefinite lengths of time) menstruation?

    I mean, seriously, could you have referenced tampons and maxi-pads more in your argument?


    Quote Originally Posted by Awshucks View Post
    The Russians used women in combat with limited effectiveness, but the problems of rape by their own troops was major.
    No offense to any Russians on this board, but the Russian armies have had a problem of raping women everywhere they go, throughout their entire history. I mean, even as armies go, the Russians are notorious for this. They are so notorious that it indicates certain things about the discipline applied to cases of rape in the Russian military culture (i.e. none).
    Last edited by marshaul; 01-16-2011 at 05:03 PM.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Will kick all of our asses and laugh about it: http://lh6.ggpht.com/DoubleTapper/SI...jpg?imgmax=512
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  24. #24
    Regular Member Nevada carrier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    The Epicenter of Freedom
    Posts
    1,297
    Quote Originally Posted by slowfiveoh View Post
    Interestingly enough I was also RSOP which as you are likely aware of, is tasked to scout forward areas for likely PATSITE deployment.

    ...snip...

    You wouldn't believe the crap people got away with out there. (Or maybe you would?)
    I was on RSOP, while we were on mission, we worked hard, but once a site was secure, we had plenty of time to goof off. That's one of the reasons I didn't mind RSOP. We set up shop and we were on our own for days. Standard equipment for an RSOP crew was a football; you never, ever, leave without a foot ball.

    Nothing says good fun like a sleeping soldier in his cot suspended 20 feet in the air from the GMT crane and some engineers tape.
    Last edited by Nevada carrier; 01-16-2011 at 05:09 PM.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    OK, we get it, women menstruate. What if women who wish to serve use birth control hormones which prevent (or eliminate for indefinite lengths of time) menstruation?

    I mean, seriously, could you have referenced tampons and maxi-pads more in your argument?
    I think that tampons are an tampon imperative part of tampons and maxi-pads. Sometimes tampons I think may be Maxi-Pads yet sometimes tampons are confused. When deploying check for tampons and maxi-pads, even ovaries.

    Furthermore. Maxi-pad.


    Birth Control does not effectively prevent it from occurring 100% of the time, and has massively varying effects on different women.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nevada carrier View Post
    I was on RSOP, while we were on mission, we worked hard, but once a site was secure, we had plenty of time to goof off. That's one of the reasons I didn't mind RSOP. We set up shop and we were on our own for days. Standard equipment for an RSOP crew was a football; you never, ever, leave without a foot ball.

    Nothing says good fun like a sleeping soldier in his cot suspended 20 feet in the air from the GMT crane and some engineers tape.
    Eh, I never had a chance to play football during the initial days of the invasion. In fact, we were attempting to set up a pat-site in the wee-morning hours just outside of An-Nasiriyah when all that crap went down. That's how we got drug into it in the first place (Pulled security off the west berms, and our wrecker later brought broken bits and pieces out of there.).

    HOWEVER!

    We did play football later!





    Last edited by slowfiveoh; 01-16-2011 at 05:18 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Personal responsibility is a facade created by religious people in particular...
    On "Personal Responsibility just after the previous, in the same exact thread.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Religion uses is as a tool, they did not create it.
    The wheels on the bus go round and round...round and round.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    You think that I am ill-equipped...hit me with your best shot Einstein, I am calling you out.


    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Free will is only slightly a conscious exercise...

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •