Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Women [should, shouldn't] be exposed to combat.

no combat roles, period.

pfc lynch apparently acquited herself very well (maybe even to the bronze star level; we'll see), but she should not have been in such a situation in the first place.

although hers was a support unit, it was close logistical support that should have been men only.

rear echelon nurse, fine. doctor, fine. administration, fine. accounting, fine. nutrition, fine. even some pilot/co-pilot roles, such as flying tankers or transport between combat zones, fine.

but no combat, nor anything near it.

see, men are different from women.

period.

Speaking only for myself and wishing to argue with no one I will say this. There is an old cliche that states all generalizations are false including this one. In this matter I do not believe that we can generalize and say no combat for all women. Blanket statment, the end, dear John, sent your saddle home.

I would say that standards of both physical and mental ability should not be lowered to accomidate anyone. One standard for all. If you can not perform you do not go. But, if they can?

I am a volunteer fireman. We have women in our department. I will be the first to freely admit that being a fireman is not by any streach of the imagination the equal of combat. However, you can get in hairy situations in which you may be killed or seriously injured. You can and will see things that are not the subject of polite dinner conversation. Some, a few, women and I hasten to add some men, can hack it and some can not. There is a problem in that in many cases you will never know for sure unless the situation occurs.

I am aware of the Israieli studies that seem to show that the male being hard wired to protect the female causes problems in combat. I am aware that men and women do not think alike or, in most cases, react alike. I am aware that men are generally physicaly stronger and larger than women. All these things I know.

In my mind then the answer to the question is yes they should with a qualifier. If they can pass the same requirements and if it is their desire to serve in a combat branch.

Of course Jessica Lynch was not in a combat branch. In todays battle field anyone may be called on to fight and not just front line troops. To forbid women in combat simply because they are women would be like refusing to teach your wife or sweetheart to shoot in self defense because she is female. If she doesn't want to learn can you force her? Not really. But if she does? Don't you teach her and support her.

BCR

Bog - I wonder if there is any truth to the rumor that the services actually do lower the standards to increase numbers of females in the ranks. I heard this once, but do not know this for a fact. (But, I wouldn't be surprised.)

As far as this young lady turning commando before capture, when she's on Opra and says so, I'll believe it. But I'm not going to believe the Washington Post.

Regards, sse

Hell, she took several rounds, emptied her weapon, an' got stabbed (bayoneted?). Don't see how even the Post could screw thet up. Now I don't put it past politicians hard up for an inspiring story to embellish the facts. But if her wounds and the empty weapon parts are true, then she did her part, period. As far as whether she should not have been in that situation, ask her. Does she want to go back to her unit? If yes, then she should be able to. I for one, think that training can overcome paternal instincts and physical inequalities. Ever seen some of those woman body builders?

PS
Don't anybody dare bring up the foot joke.

I'm a little more old school, than most here. Sorry, but I personally believe there should be no women in the military .... period. If they cannot be in combat, they cannot be in the military.

Reason. I'll give the reason from a sailors point of view. Since until recently women were allowed on combatants, meaning they took most of the shore/support billets. Life on a ship is hard and often arduous duty, this is why (when I was in the Navy) the Navy rotated you from ship to shore (my rotation was 5/2). The difficulty comes when your rotation comes up, it can often be difficult to get a good shore command because women are there on a permanent basis (I call 5+ years permanent). Leaving the lesser desirable shore commands available.

My take is either they do it all .... or they do nothing.

We have several hundred reports now of molestation and abuse at our service academies, Air Force, West Point. That number is actually much higher as most incidents are not reported for fear of repurcussions. Now that is from what is supposed to be from our "finest and brightest." In the regular ranks, you can multiply that figure several more times.
Women, in fact, cannot compete and get the job done physically in the field.
Women do, in fact, cause distractions on the lines as well as anxiety amongst the ranks about their safety. More risks are taken to protect them compromising everyone's safety.
Women being paraded on TV as prisoners demoralizes the whole nation.
Women being raped are more traumatized than the male soldier.
Men can nurse just as well as women, as well as do anything a woman is doing now there in the combat zone which is fact the entirety of Iraq, a theater where there is, in fact, NO REAR area for you uninformed in military matters. Why do you think there has been all the talk concerning protecting our rear and our flanks?
When men are not serious about protecting their women, I wonder and that is not dogma. Everybody is entitled to their opinion, some just demonstrate with their opinion that they agree with certain changes in our society that do not hold onto the cherished values of protecting women and children. For any Bible believers here, I cannot recall offhand God as a matter of course asking men to put their women into combat. Russia and the VC did, two communist societies totally w/o American values and little regard for life. Then again, our society has lost its way in many areas morally and each has an opinion of what is moral.

Mule - The media has screwed up so much on reporting this, I just don't believe anything unless its widely verified and the way its going that takes a few days for that to happen.

I don't believe, under these circumstances, someone should get what they want out of desire. There should be a realistic policy established and followed.

This lady is a hero no matter what happened, as are the men who rescued her. I just think it should never have happened to begin with.

I know there are those who go to great lengths in body building, but you don't see those egos enlisting. When I see those types running around the country competing, I wonder how they are at liberty to do that. Do they have jobs?

Regards, sse

The issue should be decided if it's an advantage or not. If someone can explain why having woman near front lines enhances our chances of winning then have them there.

To me the negative reasons far outweigh the advantages.

I have toured may manufacturing facilities and when woman are present an awful lot of time and energy gets spent by some men in entertaining them.

On the other hand I don't think men are nearly as good as nurses for men at least. Woman are also outstanding at tedius detail so they have a place in the military. Just not anywhere near the front lines please.

I don't think any women belongs in combat, or anywhere near the frontlines. Just my $.02

I'm with Bearstalker, Fish and Weagle. Some of you other guys too.

Absolutely no direct combat roles. Hell, they're subject to enough danger just being in-theater.

Notwithstanding the acts and bravery of Jessica Lynch the front line is not the place for our women or our girls.

War is a horrible thing, something our counrty should always be prepared for by having the most effective military possibly, and prayers that it will never be put into service.

The problem in our country is the touchy feely liberal bs that has produced a military that has changed it's standards to represent the rainbow, instead of to produce the most effective group of killers in the world.

That is how we ended up with a some nut rolling three grenades into the tent of his commanding officers, and how a fine young women ended up battered and tortured by the barbaric bastards we're fighting.

Amazing how much hard our fine young men and women can fight despite the limitations placed on our military.

No women, no queers and no angry muslims. We should be fostering a military comprised of Richard Marcinko and his ilk.

sse-- Sorry to be late getting back to you on your question. I do not know for a fact that standards are lowered so much as there is a double standard. My sources tell me that, for example, if a male soldier is required to do five pull ups to pass a test the female passes with three (figures are just for example). If five push ups the female qualifies with four. Run a mile in six minutes the female gets six and a half and so fourth.

Maybe some active duty military will chime in and set the record straight but my sources tell me that the above is basicly correct.

BCR

That's what I heard, too. Its just stupid beyond words. Heard another lady on TV last night. She made a few points, one, she said these young ladies didn't know what they were getting into. She also said that the females were at a disadvantage in protecting themselves and fellow soldiers.

"Thanks so much Bill and Hill, you idiots."

Regards, sse

I think you're right, Boggy -- but I know one exception, and a most unlikely candidate the young lady is! She's the knock-down-gorgeous daughter of my friend Wally (who was a Carlos Hathcock in the South Pacific during WW2). Tina and her husband are Hollywood stunt folk now. When they were in the Navy, she was a medic -- trained and served with the SEALs and could do more push-ups and chin-ups than any of the guys. Her instructors nearly wore her out showing-up the men. In deep-sea-diving school, she could stay down longer than any of the guys, too. And all this in a slender, shapely blonde who'd draw whistles in Hollywood.

------------------------------------------

Lately, I find myself wishing some women had some combat experience -- TV anchor-babes -- so they'd be less prone to interrupt their reporters on the scene and their military experts in the studio with such stupid questions. Like the gal this morning, as a reporter was telling about the surrender of 2,500 Iraqi Republican Guards -- "Is that a significant figure?" I've never been shot-at, nor ever had an enemy surrender to me, but it seems obvious that one fewer source of hostile fire would be "a significant figure." And 2,500? Praise the Lord! for a slew of small favors.

Well, it appears SSE earned his stars yesterday. Thet woman's daddy said she ain't been shot or stabbed! Jus' beat to hell I reckin'. Probly raped. If women are prepared to have that happen to them, then I reckin' they got the right to serve in combat. The standards should be the same, I know I served with many a soldier thet wasn't fit to walk to the PX, let alone charge an enemy line. My bride runs 5-15 miles a day, an' always finishes marathons ahead of a pack of very fit men. An M16 is a hell of an equalizer in the upper body strength area. I'm thinkin' the real impediment here ain't the wimmins' abilities or lack therein, its the mindset of men.

yes, there are a few exceptions. my own daughter, while in top physical shape in college (she was a volleyball player who set a nat'l div III record for assists as a setter), could leg press - in multiple sets - over 400 pounds. she could run and do sit-ups and push-ups with the male athletes. perhaps she could throw a soldier over her shoulder and tote him a ways under combat conditions (she sure can drag a deer like a man). but she still would not have the overall enduring strength of an a man her own size (5-4, 125 pounds) of average strength. pulling up 115 pounds is hardly the same as pulling up 215 pounds. which of those two would you wish were around if you were wounded and unable to make it to cover?

fish,
I was an army field medic. At the time I went thru Ft. Sam, they had nurses goin' thru the field medic training too. I had the opportunity to go thru manuevers with female medics (even though they never saw assignments with combat units). We would haul casualties outta the line of fire, provide stabilizin' first aid, and carry to the LZ for evac. We were trained to double up takin' wounded from the battlefield, even then, the ladies did have trouble with the bigger men. Like I said, you got to have a minimum standard, an' thet should apply to men as well. From what I've seen, many wimmins could excel above the minimum performing men. Many cain't. But why have an exclusionary rule? Let each person sink or swim on their own merits. If a hardass grunt woman can drag my ass outta the field of fire an' hunker down over me keepin' me safe, I ain't gonna argue that she should not have that right.

One of the funnier stories from those manuevers, a medic I went through basic with was hit by a smoke grenade. With all the shootin' and confusion, nobody noticed the feller was really hurt. He had to crawl across the ground an' swim the river hisself, with a big hunk burnt outta his leg. Here he comes crawlin' into our first aid area an' everbody's treatin' phony wounds.

An' about crossin' thet river. The wimmin had an advantage over some of the shorter, muscular men. They floated better, an' were able to tow their casualty better. Many fellers drank a lot of green water there, includin' me. I had a 240 lb casualty, an' me an' my partner were confronted with several water snakes durin' the crossin'. As a kentuck boy, I was familiar with mocersins, but my partner from some city back east was scared outta his skin. I managed to git a breath every 20 feet or so, an' our casualty lived thru the experience, so I reckin' we passed muster. Ain't sumthin' I'm anxious to repeat, but if I do, I want a female partner with big boyant fat deposits.

I will only say a few things.

Go to any Army base and watch morning PT runs..You will repeatedly see big slow formations running by and then a herd of women straggling behind, unable or unwilling to keep up!

In my own MOS women couldn't properly perform their duties. Whether it was humping crates of 2.75" Rockets or taking the tail of the aircraft while groundhandling with the blades folded...We were fortunate that 18th Airborne Corps kicked the women out of Cav units..Not to mention while in TF 118 the women troops weren't allowed to deploy onboard Navy fighting vessals so they didn't pull their weight in the rotations to the Persian Gulf.

Mike

To add one more comment to my post above, Muslim radicals have their young daughters go on suicide attacks and then, brag on them, how proud they are of them and many have remarked they wish they had even more young children to sacrifice for their cause. I always found this especially odd since there are millions of men who could have pulled off the suicides. To me, it should not be what women want or demand, it is what a society holds sacred and times obviously have changed.
Regardless, it has been interesting to read other's opinions and it is a reflection of the different opinions in our society.

Mule - I wouldn't want to see you serving along side a wimmens. With yer good looks you'd probably show up at the infirmary all beat up and techs collecting DNA off yer privates.

Regards, sse