Women in combat does not advance capabilities
-
Print
-
Create a hardcopy of this page
-
Font Size:
-
Default font size
-
Larger font size
Posted: Tuesday, February 5, 2013 12:00 am
Women in combat does not advance capabilities
The salesmen have won again. Women in combat — have we lost our minds? I know this is not fashionable, but let's get serious.
Does putting women in harm's way advance our combat capability? This is another popular social experiment that does nothing to advance our reason for being there in the first place! Combat is not some videogame or contest for social equality. This is serious business — people die, people are humiliated, people are tortured and demeaned.
The "do-gooders" have duped us again. They have shifted our focus from the goal — how do we field the most capable combat force? It is not by assuaging someone's feelings or ambition. Kill the bad guys, that should be our only purpose!
Jerry Osgood
Galt
Posted in
Letters
on
Tuesday, February 5, 2013 12:00 am.
(%remaining%) Remaining
Thanks for visiting Lodinews.com. You're entitled to view 20 free articles every 30 days. You will see 10 articles for free before being asked to register, and then you can view 10 additional articles by registering or logging in. Then, if you enjoy our site and want full access, we'll ask you to purchase an affordable subscription.
(%remaining%) Remaining
Thanks for visiting Lodinews.com. You're entitled to view 20 free articles every 30 days, and you currently have (%remaining%) free articles remaining ((%remaining_reg%) before being asked to register and (%remaining_sub%) before being asked to subscribe). Then, if you enjoy our site and want full access, we'll ask you to purchase an affordable subscription.
(%remaining%) Remaining
Thanks for visiting Lodinews.com. You're entitled to view 20 free articles every 30 days, and you currently have (%remaining%) free articles remaining ((%remaining_reg%) before being asked to register and (%remaining_sub%) before being asked to subscribe). Then, if you enjoy our site and want full access, we'll ask you to purchase an affordable subscription.
(%remaining%) Remaining
Thanks for visiting Lodinews.com. You're entitled to view 20 free articles every 30 days, and you currently have (%remaining%) total free articles remaining ((%remaining_reg%) before being asked to register and (%remaining_sub%) before being asked to subscribe). Then, if you enjoy our site and want full access, we'll ask you to purchase an affordable subscription.
(%remaining%) Remaining
Thank you for reading Lodinews.com. You have viewed (%viewed%) of your 20 free pages in 30 days. Please login or register at this time and enjoy the next (%remaining%) articles free of charge. After your 20 free articles, we'll ask you to purchase an affordable subscription.
(%remaining%) Remaining
Thank you for reading Lodinews.com. Because you have already viewed this article, you may view it again as many times as you would like without subtracting from your remaining free article views.
(%remaining%) Remaining
Thank you for registering on Lodinews.com. You're entitled to view 20 articles for free every 30 days, and you currently have (%remaining%) remaining. Then, if you enjoy our site and want full access, we'll ask you to purchase an affordable subscription.
(%remaining%) Remaining
Thank you for reading Lodinews.com. You're entitled to view 20 articles for free every 30 days, and you currently have (%remaining%) remaining. Then, if you enjoy our site and want full access, we'll ask you to purchase an affordable subscription.
(%remaining%) Remaining
Thank you for reading Lodinews.com. You're entitled to view 20 articles for free every 30 days, and you currently have (%remaining%) remaining. Then, if you enjoy our site and want full access, we'll ask you to purchase an affordable subscription.
(%remaining%) Remaining
Thank you for reading Lodinews.com. You're entitled to view 20 articles for free every 30 days. This is your last free article this period. On your next article we'll ask you to purchase an affordable subscription.
(%remaining%) Remaining
Thank you for reading 20 free articles on our site. You can come back at the end of your 30-day period for another 20 free articles, or you can purchase a subscription at this time and continue to enjoy valuable local news and information. If you need help, please contact our office at 209-369-2761.
Andrew Liebich posted at 9:07 am on Thu, Feb 7, 2013.
[yawn]
Andrew Liebich posted at 9:07 am on Thu, Feb 7, 2013.
The truth may cause you nausea but in the end it's still the truth.
[sleeping]
Joanne Bobin posted at 7:09 am on Thu, Feb 7, 2013.
Even if English was my second language, your comments would still be irrelevant.
Jeff Tillett posted at 8:45 pm on Wed, Feb 6, 2013.
Wait... Who's regurgitating information, ad naseum?
Ed Walters posted at 7:03 pm on Wed, Feb 6, 2013.
Mr. Dockter: Thanks for seeing my post as it was supposed to be written. It was ment to point out the difference between men and women in a combat situation. It seems most everybody took it out of content. I never ment it to be sexists, just my point of view. While women have advanced in most every endevor, getting shot, being hit and loosing a limb was not ment to be in my post and there is no glory in being injured and living the rest of your life in a wheel chair, that goes for men also. If I thought my post would have been taken that far out of contect, I would have never wrote it in the first place. I now realize people were affended, that was not the point of my post. It would seem the only way to find out if women can operate in a war zone and trade RPG`s with the enemy is to do so. For that to happen, I hope it never comes to pass.
Jerome Kinderman posted at 6:20 pm on Wed, Feb 6, 2013.
Along with physical and mental requirements, I would also add emotional to the list. How men and women respond emotionally to what they see, hear and experience are handled differently.
Andrew Liebich posted at 2:21 pm on Wed, Feb 6, 2013.
In 2004 women began being “attached” to "direct combat units" rather than “assigned.” I suggest you educate and inform yourself rather than regurgitate the mainstream memes of the day. Female soldiers have been in “COMBAT UNITS”, despite regulations against it and a law requiring prior notice to Congress since March of 2004.
[sleeping]
Joanne Bobin posted at 11:36 am on Wed, Feb 6, 2013.
Curious, Mr. Liebich. What exactly is your point? And why are you trying to make it?
Another conspiracy theory? What, exactly, is the conspiracy?
Jeff Tillett posted at 9:57 am on Wed, Feb 6, 2013.
No, she was supporting a convoy as an MP. This role was not considered a direct combat role (of which would only now be allowed), rather it was a combat-related role. Yes the distinction has been blurred, but there was and is a distinction. But the blurring of this distinction, among other factors, led to the new policy.
Jeff Tillett posted at 9:51 am on Wed, Feb 6, 2013.
up until now, women were allowed only in some combat-related positions. Now they will be allowed in direct combat positions. Part of the rationale is that the distinction between the two has been blurred... by the insurgent warfare being waged. That and the fact that certain promotions are unattainable without direct combat experience. If women are prohibited from the latter, than they are ineligible for the former.
Andrew Liebich posted at 9:26 am on Wed, Feb 6, 2013.
Female soldiers have been in “COMBAT UNITS”, despite regulations against it and a law requiring prior notice to Congress since March of 2004.
[sleeping]
Joanne Bobin posted at 9:08 am on Wed, Feb 6, 2013.
Whatever the outcome of the decision to allow women in combat, I can only say thank you to all men and women who have served in our military, especially those who gave the ultimate sacrifice and those who have returned home and, no doubt, whose lives have been changed forever by their experiences.
Thank you!
Andrew Liebich posted at 7:27 am on Wed, Feb 6, 2013.
just as they have been since 2004... [sleeping]
Andrew Liebich posted at 7:25 am on Wed, Feb 6, 2013.
Did Staff Sergeant Leigh Ann Hester receive the Silver Star for her "administrative" role with the 3rd Infantry?
[sleeping]
Jeff Tillett posted at 6:31 am on Wed, Feb 6, 2013.
You are correct: to enter the military there are gender normed standards. But that is not what this new policy change is about. They are not changing anything about who is accepted in the military. The change allows women to volunteer for combat roles, and for this policy change their will be gender-neutral standards. A standard of physical ability of what is expected of a soldier. Not all males will pass. Even fewer females will pass. But some will, and will be allowed to serve their country alongside their male counterparts.
Brian Dockter posted at 6:10 am on Wed, Feb 6, 2013.
Ed,
Your last post has some good points. It should be clear to everyone else that women
do not have to meet the same requirements as men in the physical part. Yet they want equality. Men in general want to protect women and keep them from harm. Now, Kevin and others here view this as sexist. It's nothing of the sort. And according to Ms. Bobin, women assigned to combat units are strictly in admistrative jobs. That being said. It seems to me Kevin should also be calling those men assigning these women to admiistraive jobs in combat units sexists too. As ridiculous as it sounds, it would be consistent to why he is calling you sexist. So I must go back to the issue of men in general wanting to protect women and keep them from harm. Doesn't sound sexist at all.
Kevin Paglia posted at 9:47 pm on Tue, Feb 5, 2013.
The more I read about female warriors through out history the more respect I have for them. I recognize that a very small percentage might be able to meet the standards for combat. But history says women are very combat capable. I'll trust history over sexists any day.
http://myfivebest.com/the-5-toughest-warrior-women-who-ever-lived/
Kevin Paglia posted at 9:24 pm on Tue, Feb 5, 2013.
I'll repeat it for the fifth or sixth time: Any women who can pass the same physical and mental requirements as men should be able to pursue ANY military role their abilities and the military needs of them.
Jerome Kinderman posted at 8:09 pm on Tue, Feb 5, 2013.
Mr. Walters - the type of comments you make such as your most recent post do very little to forward your opinion. Name-calling and other sophomoric remarks (girl scouts and cookies) only serve to advance the opposition's cause.
I am one who believes that even those who haven't served in the military are still entitled to their opinions, even if they're based upon less than first-hand experience and best information.
I would suggest that just before you click on the "Post Comment" button that you take a moment to decide whether or not you'd appreciate what you've written had it been by those with whom you disagree. A little dignity goes a long way.
Kevin Paglia posted at 7:47 pm on Tue, Feb 5, 2013.
Did anyone else get that mental image of eddie, an 80+year old guy, walking around asking young 16 year old girls if they would like to serve their country?
Can anyone else yell "STRANGER DANGER"!!!!!!!!
Andrew Liebich posted at 11:05 am on Tue, Feb 5, 2013.
As is typically the case you argue emotion over fact...
The 3rd Infantry at Fort Stewart was deployed to Iraq (including women) in January 2005.
[sleeping]
robert maurer posted at 10:56 am on Tue, Feb 5, 2013.
I believe you are correct, Joanne,regarding a woman's roll in front line combat in the U.S. military ground fighting division,commonly known as "grunts".Those are hard jobs that demand the physical strength to not only carry their own gear,but to assist in carrying additional heavy weaponry as well as being able to carry a wounded or dead soldier away from the firefight.I also believe that if the female grunt is physically and mentally fit and her platoon leader has the confidence in her and chooses her and she wants to do it,she should have the right too. When anybody joins the service,they take a bunch of tests and are given choices of which job(s) they want to do based upon which they tested best in. An example of this was my first girlfriend who was mechanically inclined(thanks in small part to me) joined the U.S.A.F. and the last I heard a few years ago,she was a military aircraft maintenance technician stationed on our base in Japan. She may be able to bust heck out of a lot of tough guys, but her 5foot-6inch 130 lb. body cannot lift a man,nor any thing that weighs more than she does. Once again, there females who can get the job done and if the ground commander chooses a female to do it, I still don't see problem with it.
Joanne Bobin posted at 9:24 am on Tue, Feb 5, 2013.
In case you are wondering why no one CARES about your latest conspiracy theory, women have been assigned to combat units but in strictly administrative jobs, not actual combat.
[sleeping]
Andrew Liebich posted at 7:57 am on Tue, Feb 5, 2013.
The average fluoride/aspartame ingesting television watching zombie hasn't any idea that women have been in combat since 2004.
Mass media mental manipulation has made this issue "controversial"
Andrew Liebich posted at 7:53 am on Tue, Feb 5, 2013.
Female soldiers have been in “COMBAT UNITS”, despite regulations against it and a law requiring prior notice to Congress since March of 2004.
[sleeping]
Jeff Tillett posted at 7:37 am on Tue, Feb 5, 2013.
The problem is you assume the answer to your question, "Does putting women in harm's way advance our combat capability?", is no.
Kevin Paglia posted at 6:47 am on Tue, Feb 5, 2013.
The most "capable" force is a well rounded force. One where every possible tool is available to achieve any goal needed. So the real question is why does Jerry (and others) want to LIMIT our military's abilities?
"Combat is not some videogame or contest for social equality." This is the second time someone has said women are unable to have honorable desires to wanting to defend their country.
Steve Schmidt posted at 6:18 am on Tue, Feb 5, 2013.
The funny thing is that, when this was announced, it didn't even occur to me that, after 10 years of women coming under almost daily fire, it would be controversial.
I guess it just goes to show that one should never underestimate the barbarism and backwardness of the American Taliban and their parent organization, the GOP.
Steve Schmidt posted at 4:17 am on Tue, Feb 5, 2013.
Jerry, as usual you are a day late and a dollar short.