Women In Combat

[Anonymous]

I am in the Army as a 13W. I have served my country in Kuwait Korea and Bosnia. I deserve to be whatever I want to be in the Army and have had many debates about this issue. I have trained my whole career as combat arms yet cannot be Infantry. I can go Airborne and Air Assault yet cannot jump into combat with my unit? There are limitations to females because of the limitations placed on them. The males complain about pt standards for females. They are fair for what we are allowed to be and do in the Army. The day I can jump into combat will be the day I pass a male pt test (even though I almost max the male pt standards for 17-21 yr old being a 27 yr old female) But it is more than this you can be a LA sherriff and be involved in shootouts in our own country but you cannot do it overseas. Well this sure sounds fair huh? I am a Soldier first and always. The day the Army gets over the division on this the better. The question isn't if it's when. When it does open up I will sign up because I beleive I am as good as any male soldier. But I have always beleived this. You never lower your standard, you just help others to acheive it. The Army Ar's serve as a baseline. But you as a Soldier should always try to surpass the minimum and acheive the best you can. About the emotional and pregnancy issue. Norplant is a great idea and being a female that has busted butt to get into the Infantry I wouldnt be eager to get pregnant either. Emotional issues affect men as well as females. A valid point but figure this Infantry is a grunt job and a women ragging being a B*&% wouldnt be much different than the men complaining. I also have never heard of a women going crazy and shooting people in her workplace either or shooting their commander so the emotional issue to me is low risk. Not every female would be cut out for it but not every male is either.

Groovyrugbychick@yahoo.com

[Anonymous]

13W - Field Artillery Meterological Crewmember. This MOS was previously designated as 93F, until October 2003 when it was redesignated according to the guidelines from the Chief of Staff in conjunction with Task Force XXI.

Field artillery meteorological crewmembers lead, supervise or participate in the operation of a field artillery meteorological observation station. More specifically they operate and conduct maintenance on meterological equipment and computers, including the use of meterological balloons. They will compute total and free balloon lift for helium and hydrogen balloons. Perform inflation, preflight, and post flight duties. Utilize basic meteorology knowledge to conduct and report limited observations of surface atmospheric conditions.

While this is an important job and requires your best efforts, it hardly qualifies you for conducting operations as an Infantryman. You haven't "trained my whole career as combat arms" because until last October your MOS wasn't classified as a Combat Arms MOS. I agree with your basic complaint...it isn't fair. The fairness issue is not relevant, because there is no Constitutional right to serve in the military or to serve in combat. Since there is no legal right to serve in combat, fairness cannot be considered. The only consideration must be what makes our military more combat effective. Your personal wants and desires, along with those of every other soldier, must always take a back seat to the needs of the military in providing the national defense.

It is commendable that you can meet the minimum standards of the male APFT for any age, but that is hardly a reason for placing you in the Infantry. Every male soldier in the US Army must be able to meet the PT standard for their age, but as you so astutely observed...not every male is qualified to be in the Infantry. Unless you can bring something more than desire and the ability to meet minimum standards, there is no reason to consider making this social change.

What you fail to understand is that your physical abilities (as good as they might be), are insufficient for allowing you to take a position conducting Infantry operations. Seldom are combat arms soldiers required to fight as an individual. Instead they are taught and required to fight as a team. Therefore, even if you could max the male APFT for 18-21, it would not change the fact that men fail to bond in at atmosphere of sexuality (esprit-de-corps is essential to combat arms soldiers). It would not change the plethora of other reasons why this is a bad idea including: issues of privacy, pregnancy, more debilitating injuries for women, longer recuperations for women, perceived favoritism, jealousy, sexual intimacy, sexual harassment, and the ingrained concept that women should be protected causing male soldiers to take unnecessary risks.

"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." These words by John F. Kennedy are especially true about our armed forces. The concept of service is turned on its head when you state, "I deserve to be whatever I want to be in the Army..." You deserve to be treated with respect. You deserve to be treated in the same manner as any other soldier, insofar as customs and traditions allow. You don't deserve to hold an Infantry position with complete disregard to all other considerations.

The reason you can be an LA County Sheriff is that they are never required to spend 24 hours a day for 6 months in a hostile fire zone, living out of a rucksack, with no privacy, constantly on the move on foot, carrying weights in excess of 120 lbs for 20 or more miles (this was the average weight determined by DOD for Infantrymen in the recent war with Afghanistan/Iraq. The LA County Sheriff's deputy, even if he/she is required to use his/her handgun, is seldom in a firefight for more than a few minutes (most police officers never fire their weapons in the line of duty). They are able to travel to and fro in air-conditioned vehicles and the heaviest weight they carry is their holster and baton. The comparison is spurious at best.

Allow me to point out one more error in your post. You state, "The Army Ar's serve as a baseline." Army Regulations are the law, not guidelines. Failure to obey an Army Regulation is an offense punishable by the UCMJ. It is not a guideline in the same way that Army doctrine, or customs and traditions are guidelines, and therefore Commanders can choose to follow them or not.

:
: I am in the Army as a 13W. I have served my country in Kuwait Korea and
: Bosnia. I deserve to be whatever I want to be in the Army and have had
: many debates about this issue. I have trained my whole career as combat
: arms yet cannot be Infantry. I can go Airborne and Air Assault yet cannot
: jump into combat with my unit? There are limitations to females because of
: the limitations placed on them. The males complain about pt standards for
: females. They are fair for what we are allowed to be and do in the Army.
: The day I can jump into combat will be the day I pass a male pt test (even
: though I almost max the male pt standards for 17-21 yr old being a 27 yr
: old female) But it is more than this you can be a LA sherriff and be
: involved in shootouts in our own country but you cannot do it overseas.
: Well this sure sounds fair huh? I am a Soldier first and always. The day
: the Army gets over the division on this the better. The question isn't if
: it's when. When it does open up I will sign up because I beleive I am as
: good as any male soldier. But I have always beleived this. You never lower
: your standard, you just help others to acheive it. The Army Ar's serve as
: a baseline. But you as a Soldier should always try to surpass the minimum
: and acheive the best you can. About the emotional and pregnancy issue.
: Norplant is a great idea and being a female that has busted butt to get
: into the Infantry I wouldnt be eager to get pregnant either. Emotional
: issues affect men as well as females. A valid point but figure this
: Infantry is a grunt job and a women ragging being a B*&% wouldnt be
: much different than the men complaining. I also have never heard of a
: women going crazy and shooting people in her workplace either or shooting
: their commander so the emotional issue to me is low risk. Not every female
: would be cut out for it but not every male is either.


MFFJM2@aol.com

[Anonymous]

I would just like to completly agree with LTC Bailey in this matter. The Jessica Lynch expierence proves it. There were several male soldiers among that group, but America as a society focused on her, because she is a female. Society has not changed THAT much. Men are still raised to protect women, and women are still known as the fair sex. Maybe it will change one day, but not anytime soon and I for one am glad. I love being in the military, but as the LTC said, it would not be a wise decision for us to be put on the front line, and really, most of the reason why not is because of the mentality of society. It would not benifit our country. And that is what being a soldier is all about, benifiting and protecting our country.

:
: 13W - Field Artillery Meterological Crewmember. This MOS was previously
: designated as 93F, until October 2003 when it was redesignated according
: to the guidelines from the Chief of Staff in conjunction with Task Force
: XXI.
:
: Field artillery meteorological crewmembers lead, supervise or participate in
: the operation of a field artillery meteorological observation station.
: More specifically they operate and conduct maintenance on meterological
: equipment and computers, including the use of meterological balloons. They
: will compute total and free balloon lift for helium and hydrogen balloons.
: Perform inflation, preflight, and post flight duties. Utilize basic
: meteorology knowledge to conduct and report limited observations of
: surface atmospheric conditions.
:
: While this is an important job and requires your best efforts, it hardly
: qualifies you for conducting operations as an Infantryman. You haven't
: "trained my whole career as combat arms" because until last
: October your MOS wasn't classified as a Combat Arms MOS. I agree with your
: basic complaint...it isn't fair. The fairness issue is not relevant,
: because there is no Constitutional right to serve in the military or to
: serve in combat. Since there is no legal right to serve in combat,
: fairness cannot be considered. The only consideration must be what makes
: our military more combat effective. Your personal wants and desires, along
: with those of every other soldier, must always take a back seat to the
: needs of the military in providing the national defense.
:
: It is commendable that you can meet the minimum standards of the male APFT
: for any age, but that is hardly a reason for placing you in the Infantry.
: Every male soldier in the US Army must be able to meet the PT standard for
: their age, but as you so astutely observed...not every male is qualified
: to be in the Infantry. Unless you can bring something more than desire and
: the ability to meet minimum standards, there is no reason to consider
: making this social change.
:
: What you fail to understand is that your physical abilities (as good as they
: might be), are insufficient for allowing you to take a position conducting
: Infantry operations. Seldom are combat arms soldiers required to fight as
: an individual. Instead they are taught and required to fight as a team.
: Therefore, even if you could max the male APFT for 18-21, it would not
: change the fact that men fail to bond in at atmosphere of sexuality
: (esprit-de-corps is essential to combat arms soldiers). It would not
: change the plethora of other reasons why this is a bad idea including:
: issues of privacy, pregnancy, more debilitating injuries for women, longer
: recuperations for women, perceived favoritism, jealousy, sexual intimacy,
: sexual harassment, and the ingrained concept that women should be
: protected causing male soldiers to take unnecessary risks.
:
: "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your
: country." These words by John F. Kennedy are especially true about
: our armed forces. The concept of service is turned on its head when you
: state, "I deserve to be whatever I want to be in the Army..."
: You deserve to be treated with respect. You deserve to be treated in the
: same manner as any other soldier, insofar as customs and traditions allow.
: You don't deserve to hold an Infantry position with complete disregard to
: all other considerations.
:
: The reason you can be an LA County Sheriff is that they are never required to
: spend 24 hours a day for 6 months in a hostile fire zone, living out of a
: rucksack, with no privacy, constantly on the move on foot, carrying
: weights in excess of 120 lbs for 20 or more miles (this was the average
: weight determined by DOD for Infantrymen in the recent war with
: Afghanistan/Iraq. The LA County Sheriff's deputy, even if he/she is
: required to use his/her handgun, is seldom in a firefight for more than a
: few minutes (most police officers never fire their weapons in the line of
: duty). They are able to travel to and fro in air-conditioned vehicles and
: the heaviest weight they carry is their holster and baton. The comparison
: is spurious at best.
:
: Allow me to point out one more error in your post. You state, "The Army
: Ar's serve as a baseline." Army Regulations are the law, not
: guidelines. Failure to obey an Army Regulation is an offense punishable by
: the UCMJ. It is not a guideline in the same way that Army doctrine, or
: customs and traditions are guidelines, and therefore Commanders can choose
: to follow them or not.


Lil_Kisses2@lycos.com

[Anonymous]

they made similar arguments about integrating african americans into the military.

[greenhippie]

Due to the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, people don't often bring homosexuality up in this arguement, but truth be told, there are homosexuals in the military and they seem to be getting along just fine without favoritism and jealousy, etc., getting in the way. People go into the military to do a job and when you want to get a job done, you don't let sexual tension get in your way. Putting a woman in combat with a man will be no different than the successful jobs homosexual men are acheiving in combat with other men. But, then again, if the straight men knew that they were working alongside gay men, some of them would probably throw a big ol' hissy fit over that too, dispite the quality of their work.

[LTC William E. Bailey]

Guest writes, "they made similar arguments about integrating african americans into the military."

This is completely wrong. It was never suggested, not even by the most racist proponents of segregation, that blacks were physically unqualified to conduct modern ground combat. There were no medical studies that supported the contention that the physical requirements of combat were beyond the abilities of most blacks. The reason most often quoted for continuing segregation in the US military was the lie that black men lacked the necessary courage. Likewise, it was never suggested that the introduction of black men would cause the philial relationship to become one of eros, as is the case when women are placed in close proximity to men.

Greenhippie writes, "People go into the military to do a job and when you want to get a job done, you don't let sexual tension get in your way. Putting a woman in combat with a man will be no different than the successful jobs homosexual men are acheiving in combat with other men. But, then again, if the straight men knew that they were working alongside gay men, some of them would probably throw a big ol' hissy fit over that too, dispite the quality of their work."

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. However, I must say that your opinion is less than persuasive as you have no experience in combat or the military, and therefore have no idea what is required of soldiers in that environment. The reason there is little or no sexual tension with gays in the military is that their orientation is unknown to all but a few. Once their orientation becomes known they are processed for discharge. Sexual tension, among small groups in life and death situations, manifests itself in ways in which you are competely unaware with things like: jealousy, fear of reprisal, perceived or real favoritism, anger, and even hatred. In an atmosphere of sexual tension, esprit-de-corps and male-bonding fails to occur, or is seriously impaired. This impairment in male-bonding results in lowered cohesion and reduced combat effectiveness.

In an atmosphere of sexual tension the "hissy fit" you suggest would manifest itself in verbal abuse, physical assaults, and possibly even murder. This would not be the first time a gay man or woman was killed because he/she revealed her sexual orientation to people who were less than understanding. Discipline would become a nightmare. Recruiting would suffer as would re-enlistments. Many officers would resign their commissions in protest of any change to the present policy. After you've spent more time in the Army then sitting at MEPS, you may have a better understanding of the requirements of the military and combat.

[chaya]

As a former Staff Sergeant in the U. S. Army, I agree with LTC Bailey--though only concerning ground combat. (I can't say I agree concerning the issue of woman pilots and sailors). As a woman who began suffering from Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome and fibromyalgia during the last few years of my enlistment I can hardly claim to have matched my male peers in physical fitness. On the other hand, I have known a few (A FEW) women who seemed as tough as some men. Perhaps they would make good sheriffs in LA, as the original writer would. And they would be a definite asset to any support unit in a combat area.

I was a member of a support unit. I, too, "maxed" my PT tests, standards that were used for both men and women. And I received votes on confidence from all my male peers, who told me they would consider themselves lucky to have me in their foxhole--because I could think quickly, had good judgment, was fearless, had endurance, and had good training. Having someone smart with you in combat can be a very handy thing.

But here I must point out that a maximum score on a PT test is only a fair indicator of how well a person will be able to handle combat. I maxed it, but I was well aware that I could not have performed the job my father did, for example, as an Infantry sergeant at Chosin Reservoir. The assets that a woman brings to a military unit--which I believe are many and valuable--will not help her handle combat. There are only a few women in this country who are built like men and who have worked out like men. Only a few. And of those, even fewer join the military.

I was in the Army from 1976-1979 and then from 1985-1989. I've seen the changes that have taken place for women. What I observed was this: with women being given "equal" status, the volunteer army began freely absorbing them into its ranks simply because it couldn't get enough men without a draft. But saying that a woman is equal just because she maxes a PT test doesn't make her physically equal.

I don't know of one woman whom I have ever met who could endure, for example, the carrying of packs and heavy weapons and ammo, road marches, sometimes bitter cold, and hours of physical exertion that a man can--and in combat, the men will be pushed to their limits. (I have experience with this from NCO Academy). What I have invariably seen happen is this: men either slow down, or they carry the load that a woman can't. In a support unit, this is okay. It's balanced out by the assets that a woman can offer that men can't. But it is not okay, not for one minute, in combat. In combat, every woman I have known would be the equivalent of an injured or sick soldier.

No, a woman's bones, ligaments, tendons, and muscles all need to be as powerful as a man's and they just AREN'T--no matter HOW well you run and do push-ups and sit-ups. I'm sorry to have to mention this as well--but it is true that a woman's uterus makes her singularly unqualified for battle. There are the issues of rape, of estrogen which delays healing of connective tissues, of pregnancy, of anemia, and alas, of menstruation. And as others have pointed out, a woman's uterus also figures into how her male peers will treat her during battle and how well they will be able to bond together and get the job done.

I used to be in favor of sending women into combat because I thought it might make Americans think twice before starting another foolish war. I was wrong.

A woman who maxes an Army APFT might easily make a fine sheriff in LA. But most sheriffs are about as far away as you can get from being fit for combat.

Any woman should be fiercely proud of her honorable service in the U. S. Armed Forces. The contributions of women in so many areas are great, and there is no commander who does not recognize their value. There are many kinds of equality. There is no reason for her to yearn to be placed in a position that may erode her own health as well as the readiness of her unit.

[Anonymous]

Hi--

I concure with all who say that a woman should not be in combat. I am one of the women, in my better days, that could max the male PT test. I am a marathoner, a triathlete, ect..., but there is no way on God's Green Earth that I could keep up with men in infantry. During an exercise I got an opportunity to try to keep up with the combat controllers, and failed miserably. There are physical differences between men and women, and no matter what anyone says until we experience a massive darwinian change in our species those biological differences will remain. So good on you that you are that physically tough, but you are not qualified to be in infantry.

[Anonymous]

Considering that the population of the United States has been around 50%male, 50%female, it seems very incredible that the men have taken more than 90 PERCENT of the casualties. With I, the taxpayer, helping to pay for military pay and benefits such as onbase housing, free medical care,
college assistance, and other benefits, I find it outrageous that women
can join the military and NOT expect to share the risks of war.

Now, I'm not saying that any female soldier can or ought to be able to carry a 120 lb backpack. But there has to be some way to distribute the fighting and risks involved in warfare more fairly. With the military resorting to stop loss orders and putting recruits on back to back tours, you certainly wouldn't want to try drafting males like me now would you?

[Anonymous]

If we started drafting guys such as you, so that you can appreciate the freedom that was given to you, maybe we can build a real army and not have to rely on contractors to do half the support battle here in Iraq. We have enough warriors doing the battle. It is the support slice that is costing the most of the billions spent. Why should we pay contractors here $5,000 a month to clean the embassy pool in Baghdad, when a draftee PVT can do it cheaper. Come to Iraq, and you will see a PFC cook not doing her job, but taking headcount at the door. Who is doing the cooking? That KBR subcontracted third country national being paid $700 a month, but being supervised by a KBR U.S ex-pat making over $100k a year.

[chaya]

Guest, you're exactly the kind of male I'd like to draft. It would take your fretful mind off your tax dollars and teach you a little about the kinds of challenges soldiers face. It's a hard pill to swallow, to think that we've come to a place where America's liberties are bought-and-paid for by spoiled, self-absorbed men who sit and watch TV and imagine they can solve the world's problems while they pay the true patriots, mostly the lower classes, to run off and fight their wars for them.

Woman soldiers face death on a daily basis. There are no longer "front lines" in modern battle. All women in Iraq face imminent death in exactly the same ratios as their male counterparts in the same units. Some have already died. I know: one of them was a single mother of young children from the Hopi nation here in New Mexico.

Before you try to money-manage the U. S. Army based on your own idyllic notions of high-school gym, you should spend a little time as a grunt yourself. Then, and only then, will you have earned the right to tell us just how it is that "fighting and risks can be distributed more fairly" in combat MOS's.

[Anonymous]

LTC Bailey,
While I don't agree with most of your opinions on women in combat, I have always appriciated your knowledge base and the generally respectful way in which you present your opinions. I, however, was disappointed in the way you dismissed a poster out of hand with your post of "I must say that your opinion is less than persuasive as you have no experience in combat or the military, and therefore have no idea what is required of soldiers in that environment". I would suggest the same could be said of your opinion on the effect of women on "esprit-de-corps and male-bonding" as you have presumably never served in combat with members of the opposite gender. More or less weight can be lent to someone's opinion based on his or her experience level, but I believe it is beneath us all to suggest said opinion to be completely invalid and not worth debating in a constructive manner.
In addition, you post "It was never suggested, not even by the most racist proponents of segregation, that blacks were physically unqualified to conduct modern ground combat". That is not strictly factual; for decades, African-American soldiers and sailors were discriminated against on the grounds of 'proven' physiological deficiencies, including poor night vision which have since been shown to be completely fallicious.
V/r
Ann

[LTC William E. Bailey]

Ann: I'm sorry you felt my response was less than respectful to Greenhippie. Everyone is entitled to their personal opinion on any subject, which I acknowledged. However, when someone writes on this site about women in combat arms MOSs, it would be best if they had some beneficial knowledge or experience. If you will re-read the comment by Greenhippie you will see that the author compares homosexuality in the military with women in combat, and states that people in the military "don't let sexual tension get in your way." It was this particular comment to which I was responding. The author, to this day, has no idea what soldiers in combat allow to get in their way. So, yes, I was dismissive, but only because this "new recruit" suggested that they knew what soldiers in combat think, feel and experience.

I have in fact served in combat with women, although not with women in combat arms MOSs, as that is still not permitted. I have commanded men and women in the US Army, and have seen first-hand their abilities and, for lack of a better word, their disabilities. I have witnessed the failure of male-bonding when women were introduced into a previously all-male existence. There are literally dozens of studies that I have read, some of which I have posted on this site, showing the effects of introducing sexual intimacy or "eros" into a non-sexual of "filial" environment. My opinion is based on my experience of over 2 dozen years on active duty and multiple tours of combat duty. Although, I am not an expert in women's studies, I feel that my knowledge and experience are equal to anyone's on combat and the requirements therein.

Now you bring up an interesting point, that blacks were not simply discriminated against because of the claim that they weren't sufficently brave, but because of claimed physiological deficiencies. Please provide the references of these claims of "proven physiological deficiencies".

Black soldiers fought in Washington's army during the War of Independence, and served with Andrew Jackson at New Orleans in 1815. Late in 1861, Colonel T. W. Higginson took command of the First Regiment of South Carolina Volunteers, the first Black regiment in the service of the United States.

The movie "Glory" depicts the story of the all-black 54th Regiment of the Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry. Their training and battle experience led them to their final assault on Fort Wagner in South Carolina, where their heroic bravery turned bitter defeat into a symbolic victory that brought recognition to black soldiers and helped turned the tide of the war.

By the end of the Civil War there were some 200,000 black soldiers in Union blue, as well as another 150,000 to 200,000 black civilians who served in numerous capacities with the U.S. Colored Troops as well as all-white units as scouts, spies, cooks, corpsmen, nurses, teamsters, and various other positions. Thirteen U.S. "Colored Troops" were awarded the Medal of Honor in the Civil War.

On June 28, 1866, an Act of Congress authorized the creation of six regiments of Black troops, two of cavalry and four of infantry. These troops went on to play a major role in the history of the West, as the "Buffalo Soldiers."

The racism of the 30's and 40's manifested itself in reducing the numbers of black troops and keeping them out of "all-white" combat arms units, through the odious practice of segregation. Truman on Feb 2, 1948 announced to Congress that he had ""instructed the Secretary of Defense to take steps to have the remaining instances of discrimination in the armed services eliminated as rapidly as possible."

By the way, a prolonged vitamin "A" deficiency can lead to Cachexia or poor night vision, and due to the effect of diet some blacks may have had this deficiency, but when their diets improved so did their night vision.

[Anonymous]

LTC--
Perhaps I was a bit inexact in my language regarding discrimination against African Americans in the military. My intent was to point out that there were falicious claims made about the physiology of black soldiers that were used to segrigate and discriminate--the quotes were meant to imply that "facts" aren't always fact depending on the personal or institutional biases they are being presented to support. As you have elequontly described, African American soldiers have served bravely and faithfully in the U.S. Armed Services despite countless attempts to segrigate and marginalize their service.
As for the interference with bonding with the introduction of women into a previously all-male environment...I would have to agree with you--but I caveat that with the notion that the emphasis must be on the word 'introduction'. Years ago, as a Midshipman, I was aboard a Navy LSD the day enlisted women first joined the crew (they had had women officers for about a year). The rancor I witnessed was overwhelming, and, indeed, the atmosphere was poisonous for morale. Only a couple years earlier, 1993, marked the introduction of women into combat aviation. One needs go no farther than a review of the history of LT Kara Hultgreen to get a sense of the backlash against the introduction of women into a combat unit and its effects on bonding, morale, and etc. However, in the present day women are fully accepted members of both of these Naval communities and serve there with no fanfare or note of any special status. Filial bonding is active in modern integrated Naval units, and while there are instances of the occurance of sexual relationships which devellop in defiance of the UCMJ, there are also less-publicized instances of 'eros' invading solely male units. It is inconceivable to claim that growing pains aren't part of the process of change, but the notion that men can't or won't accept the presence of women is, I believe, a destructive one that will, as an end result, prevent the U.S. military from achieving maximum efficiency.

[LTC William E. Bailey]

Ann: We are in agreement that there were and are malicious lies spread about black US soldiers, going as far back as the Civil War. However, as I pointed out in a previous post there were no serious claims that black male soldiers lacked the physical abilities to do their jobs, as is the case with women in combat arms MOSs today. You stated previously, "for decades, African-American soldiers and sailors were discriminated against on the grounds of 'proven' physiological deficiencies, including poor night vision". If you have or can direct me to any substantiated claims of this nature I would appreciate it, as I have been unable to find anything remotely like it in my research. Claims that black soldiers were "lazy", "shiftless", and "cowardly" abounded, but were proven to be damn lies in a hundred places during the Civil War, and afterwards.

Now you bring up an interesting point, that once men and women have gone through the difficult process of becoming accustomed to each other in combat arms billets, the problems inherent with sexual integration will go away, or will be conspicuously reduced. I would ask what evidence you have to support this conclusion..? The Secretary of the Army only this week concluded, after completing a study of the issue, to keep women out of ground combat positions. As examples of the contrary position I would point to the examples of rape and fraternization at Aberdeen, Maryland in 1997 in which nearly a dozen male drill instructors were convicted in the scandal. These soldiers had most certainly been around female recruits and soldiers for years, but weren't compelled to treat them as anything other than potential sexual partners.

It is certainly possible that after years, possibly decades, of difficulties the problems inherent with gender integration in combat arms units would work themselves out amicably. Of course, during the period of adjustment you suggest the combat arms units would not be as effective in combat as they had been prior to the integration of women. This reduction in combat effectiveness would certainly manifest itself in greater battlefield casualties, and possibly even tactical defeats of certain units. Should US Army combat units stand down for a decade or more until they have assimilated women into their midst..?

To suggest that for the Army to achieve maximum efficiency people, who are less physically capable then those presently in the positons, should be assigned to combat arms positions, even at the risk of greater casualties due to decreased combat effectiveness, seems counterintuitive, and a bit perverse.

Even if you are correct, which I don't believe you are, that women on board combat ships have been fully assimilated and there are no longer any serious problems that prevent or reduce unit cohesion, that doesn't mean that the same effect would be manifested in ground combat arms units. I shouldn't need to point out that a naval vessel is a considerably different environment from a Ranger Company or a Special Forces "A" team.

The acceptance of women by men is not the issue, but rather the basic male/female relationship which has been determined and refined over the past 10,000 years. The rancor you witnessed when women were first assigned to certain positions in the Navy, including naval aviation, hasn't subsided, it has only gone underground because it was detrimental to one's career to voice opposition to the policy.

[Anonymous]

Sir,
I do not claim to have all the answers in this debate. I grant fully that the examples I provide are not directly analagous to SF environments, but offer them as parallels which demonstrate that long-held assumptions about the effect of women on bonding are not necessarily true though they have been often repeated; my commentary thus far in this thread has been on this topic and has not delved into physical differences. I also admit a great deal of the points I bring up are anecdotal and are thusly not a general sample of the military populace--I am not a professional sociologist.
Certainly a naval vessel is considerably different from a SF environment; that is also vastly different than the aviation environment as well. Spending 8 hours alone with one other person in combat lends itself to a specific sort of intimacy of a wholly non-sexual nature.
I believe suggesting that opposition towards women hasn't subsided, but rather merely 'gone underground' is overly cynical and wholly untrue, just as I believe the notion that women have been fully assimilated (something I have not claimed) is overly optimistic and just as wholly untrue. In my experience, men in the aviation community who have trained and served from day one with women take it for granted--to them you're just another 'one of the guys'.

[LTC William E. Bailey]

I truly hope that I am not a cynic. I am certainly skeptical that women have been accepted into naval aviation and US Navy combat vessels by male officers and enlisted. I am skeptical because of the letters posted on this and other internet sites that cater to veterans. I am skeptical because I talk with Naval officers assigned to NAVEUR and EUCOM all the time. When I was stationed in Hawaii I had long talks with Marines officer and Navy officers while playing golf. Now, whenever the subject of women on combat surface vessels comes up these same guys lower their voices and speak in hushed tones about the problems. I have a good friend in the US Navy, now a Captain, serving with CINCPAC. When the decision was made to place women onto combat surface ships he wrote me a letter detailing the changes which from his perspective were dangerous. For example, on his ship the number one job of a majority of sailors during naval combat was fighting fires. Every seaman on the ship had a job to carry stretchers, lock watertight doors, and fight fires with fire hoses. When the women were assigned he quickly discovered that the women were incapable of maneuvering the stretchers through doors and up and down stairs. He found that women were unable to handle the firefighting equipment including firehoses, without a substantial increase in personnel, which reduced the availability of fire fighters in other locations. He found that some of the women couldn't even close and lock the watertight doors. So, because it was mandated from above he kept his mouth shut and assigned the women the job of checking the fire extinguishers to see if they needed to be filled. Now perhaps these problems have been overcome since women first set foot aboard destroyers and cruisers, but I would guess the Navy has just decided to use more people to do what fewer people had done before this policy changed.

The examples you provide aren't supportive of your position because your position cannot be supported. The long held assumptions about the effect of women in all-male environments are proven in every military in the world, as well as every police department, and even in every fire department. The deleterious effects of gender integration I mention are available in to be read in every sociology text in every college in the country. Whenever I mention another case of jealousy, or fraternization, or sexual abuse, or harassment the explanation given is that it's anomalous and not representative...which may be true. However, it might also be truly representative. The difference between these civilian jobs and non-combat arms units, and actual combat arms units is the nature of the work and the environment in which they work. The combat arms soldier can't go home and clean up and drink a beer and read a story to the kids after a day's work. Combat arms soldiers, like the guys in Afghanistan and Iraq, are doing the job every day for weeks and months at a time. Combat arms soldiers cannot stop fighting whenever they choose and return to base for a hot shower and a cold beer, before the next night's sortie. I purposely selected Rangers and Special Forces because they are the units most at risk by a decision to allow women into combat arms MOSs. You can certainly believe anything you want, but for the debate to progress you will have to present some evidence to support your claims.

[Anonymous]

Ok, women in combat arms. I'm a FA officer, so here's what I can tell you. I did not ask to be FA, but the Army chose me. As a female, DOD policy does not allow me to go below Brigade level. Ok, so I know it all about the needs of the army, and it's not about my career. But I do not understand why I am put in a position where I am felt to be completely unnecessary when there are so many other branches that are in need of officers. I am essentially in a made up job because my chain of command does not know what to do with me. Now because of OBC and my father in law, I am totally in love with FA and can't even imagine being in another branch, however at the same time I'm not really in FA because I can't be a PL, FSO, FDO, etc...
Tonight, I just attended my first St. Barbara's ball, and I had a deep insight into this topic. My BC was scared to talk to me like one of the guys because of EO and COO. The rest of the soldiers there stared at me like a freak show, and a few brave souls actually asked me "what the heck do you do?" So here I am stuck in a plane of military existenance that few people understand. What do I do? If I continue to accept, I will have a mediocre career at best, or go into the civilian world where I have no idea what I'd do. Or I can fight it which gives me the reputation of "that woman". I am really in a no win situation. Not that my chain of command gives a sh*t. I was just dropped into this neverland, and no one has bothered to see how it really affects me or the Army.

Yes, there are physiological, biological, etc... differences between women and men, but what it really comes down to is that many (not all)men cannot progress to a level where they can even contemplate the idea of a women truly being equal to them. Yes, I am in a bad mood after tonight, so I will say that the ignorance and inability for men to change is what holds women like me back.

[Anonymous]

I would like to say that as a young female in the United States Army National Guard, that maybe my views on whether women should go into combat or not probably should be taken into much consideration. The reality of both sides of each of your opinions on this subject may differ in the next decade or more and will most likely affect me. I know that at just a young age of eighteen that I am capable of making my own decisions on what I want and what I know I can do. This is what all women of today should think and feel. All of you have seem to forgotten the reasons many women fought for to recieve the right to vote in the United States of America. That all men and women are equal! We are all equal. There should not be any question as to what a women is capable of or what a women will do because we are all equal. [/b]

[LTC William E. Bailey]

The issue under discussion is whether women, as a group, should be allowed to hold certain ground combat MOSs. Women have been in combat for decades. The right to vote, for women, was never a question of physical ability, as is the question of women in certain ground combat MOSs. The right to vote for women was not a question of reducing the morale and esprit-de-corps of other voters, as it is when women enter all-male institutions like close-combat in ground maneuver units. The lives of other voters are not at risk when the cohesion of the electorate fails. The right to vote, in a democracy, belongs to every adult citizen, but there is no right to hold jobs for which you are physically unqualified; this is a spurious analogy. The Constitution does not state that all people are equal in ability. Federal Law, insofar as equal opportunity is concerned, does not suggest that all people are entitled to equality in success. So, all people are most certainly not equal. The Constitution, and all Federal Law, only require that all citizens be provided with equal opportunity. We are not all equal.

[Anonymous]

Meg,
Are you in Field Artillery? or I'm reading the abbreviation wrong? Also is there any chance reclassifyng later into something more to your liking? As far as your colleagues are concerned I'm sorry they affect you the way they do.
Respectfully,
Carosel

[Anonymous]

Carosel,
Yes, I'm in FA. I posted then with a lot of anger because of frustration with men I had recently been dealing with. However, I'm not one to sit down and take it, so I just dug in deep and worked harder. We've just finished up some great field training, and I was able to prove myself in a field environment which was great because I've been in garrison since I got to my unit in July. At first my Battery Commander was very stand offish because he had never worked with women before, but now he treats me like just another LT.
Here's the thing. I love FA if I were truly able to do what I was trained to do. I trained to be a Fire Support Officer, Fire Direction Officer, and Platoon Leader which is all at the Battalion level or lower. But because I'm a female, I am restricted to Brigade level or higher which means that I cannot take any of those jobs. I do have connections though now, so that I can get down to the gun lines every once in awhile to brush up on my skills.
As for changing branches, I'll see as time goes by. I hate to quit something just because it's difficult but not impossible.

[Mireya]

I really don't understand the thought process of many of you. I am a ferm believer that anyone can acomplish anything. But if someone is told over end over again that they cant then maybe they start to believe it.

In the 7 monthes I spent in iraq in 2004 not only in I find my self in combat situatons but I also put my self in some. When my unit convoyed over 700 miles across the country of Iraq we were in many dangerous situations. But it funny how you react when put in a spot like that. when rounds start flying you just react and dont even think about it all of my training kicked in and its like you dont even think about the danger untill its all over.

After being in Iraq about a month My Gunny came to me and the one other female in my unit and told us that the medical teams with 3rd battalion 7th Marines were going to do some humanitarian work in some of the small villages in our area of Iraq. They needed females to assist them to help out with the needs of the woman, so no to impose on the culture and religous beliefs of the people. We steped up very eager bucause we knew that this was somthing no woman befor us had done. So two days later we were breafed and off we went. On a patrol lead by 1st light armored reconasence battalion, The company First Sgt made sure we understood the vehicles we were riding in and had the both of us ride "scout" which is poped up out of the back of the LAV scouting. It was long and chalenging but we acomplished our mission. and upon our return and de-breef that same First Sgt told the both of us to be extreamly proud of what we had done because we were the first feamle Marines to ever go on a patrol with a reconasance battlion in a combat zone. It is somthing I will never forget and I will be proud of for the rest of my life. So not only have I been there and done that, but I think that it proves that women in the military can acomplish any thing.

[LTC William E. Bailey]

I honor the service of every soldier, sailor, Marine, and airman that has served or is serving in a hostile fire zone. It is a fact that every man, woman, and child that comes under fire in a hostile fire zone is by definition "in combat". Mazlow's idea of self-actualization has been so distorted by high school counselors that it has come to mean, "anyone is capable of anything". This is complete hogwash. There are many things that we (collectively and individually) are incapable of achieving. It isn't demeaning but realistic to admit that the deaf cannot be radio operators, the blind can't be pilots, and that the mentally retarded cannot do integral calculus. Mazlow actually believed, based on his studies, that mankind has an internal, natural, drive to become the best they can be. However, physical limitations and mental limitations still exist; this is called physical reality. No matter how hard you want, need, desire, hope, pray or cajole your personal physical and mental limitations may prevent you from achieving certain specific life goals. Your recent opportunity to ride in a vehicle and hold a weapon in a potentially dangerous AO with a unit conducting a vehicular reconnaissance mission proves nothing about the capability of women to conduct modern ground combat, or to hold specific positions in the Infantry, Armor, Field Artillery or Special Forces.

[Anonymous]

Just a reminder: here in Iraq, many of the women solders in support positions have already been in combat: Specifically transportation units and military police. It's a different war here, and no one is immune from firefights and IED/complex ambushes. Our women are pulling triggers and expending ammo killing insurgents nearly everyday. They don't need to seek infantry positions; they're already fighting.