In a war zone with no clearly defined “front line,” this female Soldier is in combat already. But that doesn’t mean we should put her in an infantry unit.
There is nothing equal about the implementation of Leon Panetta’s unilateral decision to allow women to serve in front-line combat units.
Giving women the “choice” to serve in a front-line combat unit means that you have also given them a choice NOT to serve in those types of units. Male soldiers, on the other hand, are afforded no such choice: if you’re assigned to a combat unit, and that combat unit goes to war, you can go with them or you can go AWOL.
That’s not gender equality.
Having served in a medical unit as a combat medic, which was comprised of ~35% women, I have first-hand experience in serving directly with women soldiers. Many of whom were absolutely prepared, qualified, and capable of serving anywhere their male counterparts did.
And many who were not. And why were they not prepared? Because the Army does not require women to train to the same physical standards as their male counterparts are held to.
War is hell, and physically taxing beyond anything you think you might know. It requires not just great stamina, but also exceptional physical strength. And the Soldiers you serve with depend on you to be able to pull not just your own weight — but if it comes to it, someone else’s weight. Literally.
As a combat medic, part of our training included carrying patients. Sometimes this was a four-person litter carry, over great distances. Sometimes it was a two-person carry. And sometimes we were called upon to lift a fallen Soldier by ourselves.
Many of the female medics in my unit were simply not capable of lifting another Soldier and moving them to safety.
If women want to serve on the front lines — which I support — then make sure that they are qualified and capable of doing so. Make them train to the same physical standards that their male counterparts do.
Michael Yon, who knows as much, and likely more, than just about anybody else about modern warfare, hits this perfectly (via his Facebook page):
Many people are weighing in, and some ask about my view. Since 2005, I have constantly defended the truth on this matter by saying that women are in real combat every day. That goes from Apache, Blackhawk, Kiowa pilots (numerous have been hit), to true ground combat.
Not just in vehicles, but real life infantry ground combat, with real firefights, bombs, the works. Just like the movies. Bullets flying and the women are out there. I got the pics and video many times.
This goes all the way down to platoon level. They operate as medics, civil affairs, intel, female engagement teams, and no doubt other jobs. I have seen this in serious fighting Iraq with both British and US forces, and I have seen women in serious firefights in Afghanistan, again with both British and US forces. That they are in combat every day, and have been for years, is a FACT. Anyone who says otherwise is lying or uninformed.
However…the idea of making women into grunt (infantry) Marines, and US Army Rangers, etc., is a huge mistake. Some women can likely handle it, but as one Marine said here today, it will lead to unneeded deaths of young men and women.
As example, when we take casualties, it is often necessary to carry the casualties a long distance to a helicopter landing zone. If you take five casualties, in many situation you will need 30 men to carry them, and it is not always flat easy ground.
Sometimes they have to drag the wounded out of the line of fire. Happens all the time. This is daily business, not some rare occurrence. They must be dragged body armor and all, to cover, then medics break out the stretchers.
A wounded, immobile Marine with full kit is a heavy beast, and time is crucial when he is bleeding and bullets are flying.
After he is on the stretcher, you might have to go down or up treacherous slopes, at night. This sxxx is HARD. Or through the obstacle courses of the vineyards in Helmand and Kandahar. Those walls and vineyards can be hard even for unwounded people.
If you take five or ten casualties, the entire unit might be involved in carrying them. This is grueling work, and you do not have the luxury of weakness. Weakness simply means death.
If you are willing to admit that this is going to happen, and are still good with sending women to infantry units, you have made the decision that it is okay to die to forward women’s rights, and I respect that decision so long as you are honest that you are willing to let people die. But to deny that people will die is a flat lie, and that is not respectable.
I think one of the commenters at Yon’s page is exactly right as to the real purpose of this move at this time: “I think it’s also cowardly of Panetta to do this on his way out. The Left wants the military hobbled as well as sad stories of wounded/killed women to polarize public opinion.”
Yep.
_____________
MORE: Lt. Col. (retired) Allen West, who knows a good deal about the military, war, and combat preparedness, is opposed:
“Unless the Obama administration has not noticed, we are fighting against a brutal enemy and now is not the time to play a social experiment with our ground combat forces,” he wrote. “President Obama, as Commander-in-Chief, should be focused on sequestration and the failure of his policies in the Middle East. This is the misconceived liberal progressive vision of fairness and equality which could potentially lead to the demise of our military.
Related Posts
Email This Post
⋅
Print This Post
May I respectfully dissent from Allen West. Since we all here agree that women have “unofficially” served in combat roles for decades, West’s assertion that this a “social experiment” and will potentially lead to the demise of our military” is invalid and not credible.
I disagree, Lt.Col. West’s assessment is nail meet hammer.
As for Panetta, he is a hold over from the Clintoon administration, the last time this social experiment was pushed.
Let’s agree to disagree:
Since women have been in combat already to state that if this is official then it will potentially lead to the demise of our military is a slap in the face to all of the women who serve our nation. This so called “social experiment” has obviously worked if the military “unofficially” has allowed women to take on this role. I am with Robbie: combat YES, infantry NO and let’s take care of the physical training too.
I don’t think we are talking about the same thing.
Women in a “combat zone” is not the same thing as being a combat infantry soldier. Do you know what a LRRP is? A female soldier has to check her “cycle” and inform the platoon leader before they can go on one? A patrol that requires they carry a full combat load of 60 lbs, plus weapon. At least we will know the men will get issued the SAW.
As for the physical training, WTF? Didn’t you notice, even as a young boy, that boys and girls are different? The average male has 30% more muscle mass than the average female. There is no PT program that can overcome nature, only enhance what nature has provided.
No, this is nonsense, intended to weaken our combat capability.
N2L: here’s a synapsis of one of many studies that has been done on physical abilities of male/female basic training recruits:
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2008 Nov;40(11 Suppl):S654-9. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181893f30.
Differences in physical fitness of male and female recruits in gender-integrated army basic training.
Yanovich R, Evans R, Israeli E, Constantini N, Sharvit N, Merkel D, Epstein Y, Moran DS.
Source
Heller Institute of Medical Research, Sheba Medical Center, Tel-Hashomer, Israel. [email protected]
Abstract
PURPOSE:
To evaluate gender differences in physical fitness before and after a 4-month gender-integrated basic training (BT) course and to determine whether this program effectively narrowed the differences between male and female soldiers in physical fitness parameters.
METHODS:
One hundred and thirty-seven soldiers (109 females and 28 males) successfully completed a 4-month BT course in the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). The subject’s physical fitness was evaluated pre- and post-BT by three laboratory tests [the maximal aerobic capacity (VO2max), the Leonardo Ground Reaction Force Plate, and the Wingate Anaerobic Test (WAnT)] and by the IDF physical fitness test (IDF-PT).
RESULTS:
Females significantly improved their scores in the IDF-PT and laboratory aerobic tests, whereas males significantly improved only in the IDF-PT. After BT, gender differences narrowed by approximately 4% in all tests except upper body strength. Although fitness improvement after BT was marginally higher in females than males, resulting in a slight narrowing of the gender differences, a significant gender gap in physical fitness still exists after BT.
CONCLUSIONS:
There was only a small overlap in physical abilities at the beginning of BT, which indicated vast differences in physical fitness between the genders. As expected, integrated combat BT improved physical fitness. Although females demonstrated marginally higher improvement in aerobic capacity, basic physiological gender differences were still evident at the end of the training regimen.
Read the full study at:
http://www.setantacollege.com/wp-content/uploads/Journal_db/Differences%20in%20Physical%20Fitness%20of%20Male%20and.pdf
Physiological differences aside, can basic training separate the strong female from the weak one (physically speaking)?
And the money quote is in the conclusion:
As expected, integrated combat BT improved physical fitness. that conclusion is more relevant than anything elsewhen examining the structure of BT.
Actually, that statement is the least relevant. So they are more “fit,” that doesn’t mean they can hump a full load and throw a man over their shoulder and carry him off the battlefield.
Without digging up Panetta’s statement, he did state that women in combat roles would have to meet the “qualifications” in order to serve in that capacity. Thanks Leon, I’ve seen this Kabuki before, it began in the 70′s with our EMT, Fire and Police departments. It won’t take long, as before, when the numbers of women “qualified” for the role are woefully inadequate that the forces behind this social experiment will raise Hell, demanding that those in charge do something about the chauvinist in the Army and Marine Corps not advancing their cause. The result, as before, will be to lower the “qualifications.”
Then there is the issue of morale, sanitation and safety. Any air dropped supplies for forward combat troops will not only include MREs, boots and bullets, but Tampons, as well.
Mark Davis has a good piece on this today:
Military and Society Threatened by Women in Combat.
Why would any male soldier be “threatened” by Tampons dropping from the sky?
It doesn’t threaten them, it is nonsense to even have to consider it. It’s difficult enough to maintain any semblance of sanitation in the field and hemorrahging soldiers in combat is always considered a bad thing.
Males have psychologicallyalways been the weaker sex – that is very true
How did you arrive at the conclusion?
In my previous live, before I became a member of the criminal justice system, I worked with ex-military reintegrating into society (I was a therapist). Male soldiers have never been as resilient as female soldiers, aside from the physical aspect of BT and combat as an exception. Males have harder time in combat in terms of psyche disintegration (you were right that perhaps in combat a male soldier would not psychologically be able to process a Tampon dropping from the sky) and are more likely to have difficulty transitioning to civilian live post military service. These trends are still continuing. Women as more resilient to PTSD and males as more likely to commit suicide and have long lasting psychological issues post combat)..
read this: http://www.apa.org/monitor/2009/09/women-war.aspx (one of many on the subject)
You missed the point entirely about the Tampons. NO ONE should have to even consider them being air dropped for combat troops…EVER!
As for how men and women cope differently with traumatic events, that is cultural and no, I don’t want to see the time when men and women are acculturated the same.
You are completely correct on the acculturation issue. Men and women are never going to be acculturated the same as it is impossible. The operative term here is opportunities that allow all of us to reach our fullest potential – that includes a full stop for those females who do not pass BT combat component.
In case you weren’t aware, the IDF made this mistake long ago and now do not allow women into their special forces, infantry, or armor.
I stated this in the very beginning: I support combat (since they are already doing it) but not special forces or infantry accomodations. Here we agree N2L.
Why can’t we all agree that a womans worth is equal to a mans even if there specific abilities are not? And, the same is vice versa. I don’t understand or agree with the feminists movement. Women are not men… and men are not women. What we have to offer is different. And, that’s okay, in fact, it’s good. Both sexes are better because of the other. Thank you for writing an article that correctly addresses the issue without demeaning women and appreciating what women have done throughout history.
The fact that men and women possess their own unique capabilities should be celebrated.
Since we were hunter-gatherers, we have all served each other in our unique ways.
It wasn’t men that “settled” the West, it was women, after the men had “conquered” it.
I agree with you 100 percent N2L. So does that mean that because females are not as good in math (a fact) than males, we not admit them to engineering programs? If males have been hunters and women gatherers in prehistoric time and looking at evolutionary cycle, should we not allow them to hunt witht their fathers either. A man is the head of houshold, a woman is the man’s neck… Time’s have changed N2L- daughters need to be raised with the idea of the survival of the fittest to make any headway in America.
When my wife is overworked or just busy with the kids or whatever, I will pick up the vacuum to (reluctantly but nonetheless).
None of those analogies addresses front line combat roles.
Both of my grandmothers carried revolvers, one lived in a small town, the other a farm. Both were as sweet as they could be, but no one was going to harm them or their family.
I went shooting with my entire family growing up. Later, my elderly retired mother would still go with me to the range, she grew up hunting and shooting.
I have daughters and grand daughters that I love dearly, they have all been exposed to shooting.
Self defense and survival are necessary, always have been.
Men serving in physically demanding front line combat roles (that not even many men can comprehend how difficult it is or qualify for) should not be put at further risk of harm in combat because of some nonsensical social experiment.
Obviously, some never learn.
I agree with Heinlein 100 percent N2L. The operative term here is OTHER THAN. Women bear children and raise them for the most part. In today’s US society, you will find a miniscule number of households when one-income (from the male) suffices. Darwin knew what he was talking about….
Joint Chiefs Looking to Lower Combat Standards:
I don’t get it? If it is optional for a female to be in combat, obviously she would have to pass BT of a higher standard (see my discussion on basic training above) and only than she would be allowed to serve in a combat role. I have not read anywhere that women would just be given a free pass for combar roles. If she does not pass BT’s physical agility components, than she would probable serve in aback up role of whatever. Again, BT has to be strenghtened in terms of physical training for female soldiers and ones that do not passs combat aspect of it may kiss that role goodbye. Fair?
Absolutely, I stated as much earlier, with the added experience of how these “experiments” go. It won’t be long before the standards are lowered to accomplish the ultimate goal of having more women serve in these roles, thus diminishing our combat capability.
As to the General’s comments I also find them laughable in terms of “international agreements.” In this regard, he looks like an idiot. It is one thing to work on BT combat training standards internally and another on announcing to the world that the US may need accomodations. BTW N2L – can we get a little figure like this in our arsenal of smilies here?
You really should read the links before commenting on them.
The General expressed a hope that “international agreements would be reached that would help level the playing field for combat between units of all-male troops vs. units of mixed genders. We’re optimistic that a sense of chivalry can be instilled which will give the female soldier a fair chance of surviving a hand-to-hand encounter with a male enemy soldier.”
This line which you took from the General’s comments speaks volumes, and I was just commenting on the part of “international agreements” – that’s all. What have I missed N2L?
As I said, you really should read the link before commenting.
Stepping back from this nonsensical social experiment, what I find most interesting is that Panetta presents this plan just weeks before he is due to leave his post. Why now Leon? Why not when you took the job in 2011? What (if anything) exactly has changed in that time?
In any event, I seriously doubt this plan will go forward, just another distraction from Fast and Furious, Benghazi, unemployment, taxes and debt.
INHOFE RESPONDS TO PANETTA ANNOUNCEMENT ON WOMEN IN COMBAT: (snippet)
Another masterpiece from Sultan Knish.
You’re in the New Army now.
I am and always will be a Republican that will promote the idea that women no longer belong in the kitchen. Otherwise, we may as well ban women from all public roles – because you know that are not good politicians, police officers, fire fighters and not good in math so God forbid we have fdemale engineers. Knish speaks nonsense when he refers to “girl power” as the force behind empowering women in today’s society. It is precisely because we value women, we allow them the opportunity to reach their full potential and succeed in whatever it is they chose in today’s America.
You are being absurd about this.
FRONT LINE COMBAT…why is this so difficult for you to grasp?
I am a realist Republican N2L. What is done is done and no matter how much we rant about, it will not be undone – perhaps only when we put a Republican in the Oval Office. Now, given the fact that the realm is what it is, thus my discussion on BT and how its combat preparedness testing CAN exclude those women who do not pass it.
Let’s face that we have to work w/in the confines of whatever the powers that are enact. Can we still be successful in promoting our agenda? We can do so by pushing for restrictions and limitations.
Combat is still voluntary for women. Let’s advocate for strict BT standards that will ensure that only the most capable move on to the next step. Otherwise we are just fighting against the wind.
BTW – I got the satire….
No you aren’t a realist, not about this, you are idiotic. BT this and BT that, total bullshit! Fitness doesn’t mean shit compared to muscle mass and testosterone in combat.
This isn’t a done deal, quite the contrary, the Senate Armed Services Committee will be the first to look at this and I doubt this Parthian Shot by Panetta is ever even evaluated.
Thanks for the compliment N2L.
BTW, can you trust the numbers: we have 14 dems and 12 Republicans on the Committee?
This equality in everything issue is getting out of hand. If the issue is equal pay or promotions, then deal with those issues instead. How stupid is it to try to force a woman’s body do what a man’s can do when Mother Nature says otherwise. Furthermore, now we will have created discrimination within the ranks of women themselves in the military by favoring those with more brute strength over those (the vast majority) who don’t have those capabilities.
It baffles me too, Dianne.
It’s as if 40,000 years of human history are too be ignored and we start anew at this point.
Maybe what the forces that want to destroy our military should do is enlist all the women that play in the NFL, NBA and NHL to compete for jobs with the Rangers and SEALs…oh, wait.
Again, it is not forcing but giving a woman the opportunity as it is not going to be mandatory. Why do we have female fire fightes and police officers? Should we als BAN women from these roles? Or perhaps,let’s have segretated batalions and police units. Just thbinking out loud Dianne…
Yes, a thousand times yes – women should be banned from most jobs they’ve forced their way into (with the assistance of feminized men like Thomas Rykala). How many times has a female police officer had her gun grabbed by a felon who was twice her size? How many female officers have the weight and strength to subdue a suspect without the aid of their partner? Female firefighters lack the upper-body strength to carry smoke inhalation victims, so they are allowed to “drag” them. Same standards? Ya think? And women, in general, make decisions and judgments not based on rational and factual standards but on emotion . . . which is why they should never have been given the franchise.
I would gladly give up my right to vote (if it made any bit of difference we wouldn’t be allowed to vote anyhow) if all the other airheads had theirs taken away.
You are welcome to stay in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant. Good luck to you.
Your response, besides being a standard liberal meme designed to “shame” the other and shut down debate, is also indicative of the emotional, rather than rational, nature of feminist responses. I do quite well in the kitchen, thank you – and I did quite well in business and diplomatic work, as well. I’m intelligent enough, however, to realize that bearing and raising morally upright White children is far too important a job to outsource to minimum wage third worlders. You will obviously welcome and genuflect to your future overlords. Me and mine – Not so much.
Firstly, I am not a liberal and a cursory review of my comments on Robbie’s website is a testament to that. Secondly, I value the contributions of motherhood to our society as much as you do thus my stance on female combatants, and lastly it is you who attempted to shame me by calling me “feminized man.” Please pay attention to what you type…..
But let me examine your first reply to my comment more closely. You made the following attributionall/logical errors:
First falllacy : Women forced their way into these jobs.
Second fallacy: Women in general think emotionally rather than rationally.
Third fallacy: Give up your rights to vote because it does not make any difference
One last thing – give yourself as a female more credit. It may serve you and any females you raise in more ways than you imagine. Once again, the best of luck to you…..
Sigh look..in spirit I’m all for it but it ignores one huge thing. Genetics/Biology.
what is the prime biological directive of both sides of this argument? To reproduce…to continue the species. It’s hardwired into our DNA and the DNA of EVERY living thing. Which is why we have soldiers sleeping with soldiers.
One of the subsets of that genetic hardwiring is this..The female MUST and WILL be protected at all costs. Again it’s hardwired into our DNA. It’s a stone bitch but there it is.