NationStates Jolt Archive

NOTE: IMHO, banning women from combat support roles is a big mistake. As a matter of fact, I am of the opinion that women should serve in whatever capacity they are capable of performing, including direct combat roles. Your opinions are humbly solicited.


Panel Votes to Ban Women From Combat
Army Leaders Strongly Oppose House Subcommittee's Action

By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, May 12, 2005; Page A08

Brushing aside opposition from top Army leaders, a House subcommittee approved a measure yesterday that would ban women from serving in certain support units in a bid to keep them out of "direct ground combat."

The vote is likely to escalate a political debate that has simmered in Washington since last fall over the role of women in war zones, as the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan have engaged women in battle and killed and wounded female soldiers.

The legislation, backed by House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), would require the Army to prohibit women from serving in any company-size unit that provides support to combat battalions or their subordinate companies. While not retroactive, the measure, if enacted, would block the assignment of women to thousands of positions that are now open to them, a committee staff member said.

"The American people have never wanted to have women in combat and this reaffirms that policy," Hunter said in a statement.

Army leaders strongly criticized the legislation in letters to Congress yesterday, saying women are performing "magnificently" in a wide range of units, working where battlefields have no clear front lines.

"The proposed amendment will cause confusion in the ranks, and will send the wrong signal to the brave young men and women fighting the Global War on Terrorism," Gen. Richard A. Cody, the Army's vice chief of staff, wrote in a letter delivered to the House yesterday. "This is not the time to create such confusion."

He said that the Army is in "strict and full compliance with Department of Defense policies regarding women in combat," but that it continues to "study" the role of women in light of an ongoing reorganization of Army units and the complex, changing nature of warfare. Cody wrote that Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, concurred with the letter, an identical version of which was sent to the House by Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey.

The legislation, an amendment to the 2006 defense authorization bill, was introduced with little advance notice yesterday after Hunter advised the Military Personnel subcommittee late Tuesday night to vote on it, congressional staff members said. It passed 9 to 7 along party lines.

The latest debate over women in combat was kindled by an Army reorganization started last year, which created new mixed-sex "forward support companies." The companies were designed to be located together with combat battalions so they could provide them directly with supplies, maintenance and other support. Critics of the change, however, including some congressional Republicans, said it violates a 1994 Pentagon prohibition on women in units that "physically collocate and remain with direct ground combat units."

The Army said it has adjusted its organization to comply with the policy on women.

Subcommittee Chairman John M. McHugh (R-N.Y.) said the legislation is aimed at enforcing a "no women in combat" policy, and denied it is a "Neanderthal initiative to keep women out of the Army."

Democrats on the subcommittee, however, criticized the amendment as unfair to women and warned that it could worsen recruitment a time when the Army is failing to meet enlistment goals.

"You are sending a message that women can't do this job," said Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.). Rep. Susan Davis (D-Calif.) asked, "Can we really afford to toss out 20 percent or more of the individuals who are serving so capably in these units?"

Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.) said the legislation amounted to "discrimination" barring women from "serving in the battlefield."

first of all, I disagree. I can't see any reason at all why you'd want to restrict who can serve in the military. it's patronising, discriminatory and inefficient. if someone is capable to serve and desires to, then it shouldn't be a question of letting them.... it shouldn't be a question at all.

But more than that, the source itself provides reason enough that it shouldn't be allowed.

"Brushing aside opposition from top Army leaders"

"Army leaders strongly criticized the legislation in letters to Congress yesterday, saying women are performing "magnificently" in a wide range of units, working where battlefields have no clear front lines."

Politicians interfering in the army never usually pans out well. Civilians CANNOT run the armed forces.

first of all, I disagree. I can't see any reason at all why you'd want to restrict who can serve in the military. it's patronising, discriminatory and inefficient. if someone is capable to serve and desires to, then it shouldn't be a question of letting them.... it shouldn't be a question at all.

But more than that, the source itself provides reason enough that it shouldn't be allowed.

"Brushing aside opposition from top Army leaders"

"Army leaders strongly criticized the legislation in letters to Congress yesterday, saying women are performing "magnificently" in a wide range of units, working where battlefields have no clear front lines."

Politicians interfering in the army never usually pans out well. Civilians CANNOT run the armed forces.
Agreed! I can't see how we can possibly presume to advocate "equal employment opportunity" and not allow women to hold any and all jobs for which they qualify.

Utter Bullshit.

I agree that requirements should not be lowered for women. But if they can meet the requirements, there is no reason not to allow them in these roles. People can talk all they want about how female POWs are treated, but all soldiers know that being a POW is not a walk in the park and what they may be getting themselves into.

Agree also with no banning, instead of opening all jobs to women, start limiting back? No, jobs should be open to them just as they are for men, and viceversa. Combat or not, if they can handle it let them do it.

Politicians interfering in the army never usually pans out well. Civilians CANNOT run the armed forces.
*smacks self in the forehead*

Do you even REALIZE that the reason women are even in the military, much less combat, is because politicians and civilians interfered in the military???

If a woman can do the job then I don't see a problem. If special accomodations must be made, like easier basic training requirements, then no. The military shouldn't be bound by affirmative action style quotas.

*smacks self in the forehead*

Do you even REALIZE that the reason women are even in the military, much less combat, is because politicians and civilians interfered in the military???

There is a subtle yet tangy difference in the interference here. This is something specific to the military. Gender equality on the whole is about every aspect of life. Politicians and civilians shouldn't interfere in a matter that concerns only the military, and especially when the military disagrees. Removing women from combat roles in the military does not affect anything outside the military, so it should be entirely within their control, as they have a far better understanding of the army than the generic bureaucrats who pump out this bile.

NOTE: IMHO, banning women from combat support roles is a big mistake. As a matter of fact, I am of the opinion that women should serve in whatever capacity they are capable of performing, including direct combat roles. Your opinions are humbly solicited.


Panel Votes to Ban Women From Combat
Army Leaders Strongly Oppose House Subcommittee's Action

By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, May 12, 2005; Page A08

Brushing aside opposition from top Army leaders, a House subcommittee approved a measure yesterday that would ban women from serving in certain support units in a bid to keep them out of "direct ground combat."...

..."The American people have never wanted to have women in combat and this reaffirms that policy," Hunter said in a statement...

Which American people is this idiot talking about? Not me, I think, in this politically correct day and age, this is the one thing I agree with: If women are capable of doing the job of any man, there should be NO restriction of where they do it. Besides, I would think the American people would prefer to say that we don't want any of our men AND women in combat...

To heck with "Equal Opportunity"...

Now, that I've said that....we need data before making a policy decision on this. If we are making decisions just based on "fairness" or "gender quity", then we're missing the fundamental reason we have a military.

This is about what is the composition of the Army that fights, breaks things, kills, and dies, not about what is a nice and positive social relationship. I want my Army to be the best machine to break things and kill people that it can be...I have no interest in gender equity IF it reduces the breaking/maiming/killing effectiveness of the Army.

In my day, women were not in combat roles in the US Army. But, women have performed in combat roles in the Russian army (principally in WWII) and in the Israeli army. Of course, partisan fighters frequently have included women. But, generally, women are not regularly included in ground combat units unless the nation is in a really serious crisis.

Do the generals have the data? Does Congress have the data? I sure know that I don't have the data. I've never believed that the generals in the Pentagon had cornered the market on strategic or tactical thinking, and I darn sure know that the folk in Congress are more driven to be political survivalists than to be combat warriors.

Women as combat copter pilots...they've performed quite competently as pilots and can kill folk and blow up buildings just as well as men. But, as an ordinary infantry combat soldier...well, I have some concerns.

I'm for gender equality in the military but I personally wouldn't serve in a combat role. Anything in the military other than a combat position would be alright. I'd only kill someone in self-defense.

EDIT: Self-defense in war...

it's like the GI Jane thing, would you want a woman covering your six or at your side, and if you go down, do you think she'll be able to pull you to safety or whatever it is they're supposed to do? i'm against for women in a fighting role unless it's a segregated unit. you don't have women playing sports with men, so you shouldn't have women fighting alongside them either. (not saying that some women couldn't, just saying they shouldn't)

why not apply the same physical and mental rules for all applicants, rather than declare women 'too weak' to fight?

hell, most modern warfare involves firing projectiles from great distances anyway

If they make the qualifications, they should be allowed, regardless of any other factor.

I'm for gender equality in the military but I personally wouldn't serve in a combat role. Anything in the military other than a combat position would be alright. I'd only kill someone in self-defense.

EDIT: Self-defense in war...


I don't think you are for equality...you want what you want, and that is part of the problem in our society with this debate -- we are not ready to make women fight and die just like the men, and women really don't want that equality either.

In our society, we just don't give soldiers the privilege to make that choice. If women as a class demand to be given equal opportunity to be in combat units, then women who are in the Army MUST accept orders to proactively kill the enemy just as their male counterparts must.

If you are in the Army and the Army orders you into a ground combat unit, what are you going to do? Suppose you're handed a map, a compass, and a sniper rifle and ordered to go kill some enemy officer while he's eating breakfast....

It's worth noting that women aren't allowed in the combat arms units anyway. They're allowed in the combat support and combat service support branches...which nowadays gets blurry, and I understand that. However, if she's qualified and meets the same standards...I don't care if I have a woman in my platoon. Making broad legislative decisions about the military against and over the objections of the military's own leaders is fairly ignorant and assinine.

It also raises another question, they aren't allowed in combat arms and they want to take away combat support and combat service support...well...that's basically the Army as a whole...it's a slap in the face of every woman who fought to get their foot in the door. It's a really sad development.

Another way the GOP chooses to support our troops: reduce our combat manpower while fighting a war on two fronts.

What's next? segregated units?

Another way the GOP chooses to support our troopsA senator from california does not the GOP make, also last time i checked Clinton didn't veto the bill that put the policy in place.

If they're ablebodied and lawabiding, people should be allowed to serve in the military. Doesn't matter if they're male, female, straight, gay, whatever. Congress needs to but the hell out, especially since THE ARMY IS TELLING THEM THIS IS A BAD IDEA!

Some women I know would make perfect soldiers. They would tear you a new one in short order if you pissed em off. This bill is just BS.

i'm against for women in a fighting role unless it's a segregated unit.
My brother in law and I were discussing this (he's ex-Navy) and we decided that there should be 2 divisions of female infantry/mechanized calvary/etc. 2 corps in each. Each corps would be rotated to duty...one week on, 3 weeks off. They would get the same training as special ops forces and would be the most feared troops on the planet. The designation...

US 1st PMS Division

/me runs :D

My brother in law and I were discussing this (he's ex-Navy) and we decided that there should be 2 divisions of female infantry/mechanized calvary/etc. 2 corps in each. Each corps would be rotated to duty...one week on, 3 weeks off. They would get the same training as special ops forces and would be the most feared troops on the planet. The designation...

US 1st PMS Division

/me runs :D

ROFLMAO

If they are good enough they ca fight. That's my opinion. If a woman can fight well enough to make SAS or Marines Commando (a woman recently got barred from the Marines despite passing all requirements) then let them in.

I served in the US Army for 4 years and worked with lots of women. As a military intelligence specialist, about 20-30% of my co-workers were women. I don't remember any who felt that women should be allowed in combat arms roles. You have to understand that it's not a question of letting women do what they want, but of letting President on down making women do what they want. Most women I've known in the military were pretty comfortable knowing that they would not be expected to engage the enemy in direct combat.

There was a rather masculine female Master Sergeant I knew who could be described as a "scary bitch" that wrote a paper on why women should not serve in combat roles. Her primary reason for taking that position had to do with sanitation. Males can go unwashed for much longer periods of time without a shower before they start getting diseases. The current standard in the Army is that males can be made to go without a shower for 30 days, while females need to clean themselves at least every 4 days. If you kept women in the field for a whole month, they would likely have considerable discomfort and would probably develop infections. This means that any unit with females in it requires a higher level of logistical support than an all male unit. The further foward the unit is, the more difficult it is to provide that support and it may often not be possible. Add to that the fact that no more than 1 in 10 female soldiers are physically on par with males and you should begin to see that putting females in combat roles isn't really worth it.

The situation in Iraq is a little different in that it's not so much of a major combat operation but a more of a policing mission. IMO, this is why the Army is supportive of having women operating with combat arms troops. That and it shows to me that the military has become more dependent on the use of female troops. Given their relatively limited capacity to fight independent of running water and tendency to get pregnant from time to time, this is bad trend.

Although I generally oppose most legislation, I support this action as it seems only to be a re-affirmation of currently existing law. Understand that women sign up for military service with the expectation that they will not ever be on the front lines unless something's gone horribly wrong. It's not fair to them at all for the military to fail to meet this expectation.

If they are good enough they ca fight. That's my opinion. If a woman can fight well enough to make SAS or Marines Commando (a woman recently got barred from the Marines despite passing all requirements) then let them in.
There are lots of women in the US Marines (ok, maybe not 'lots', but at least a few thousand). What are the details of the case you speak of?

I think Battery Charger nailed it...except for missing one thing.

Imagine your sister/mother/girlfriend/wife goes into the military and ends up in combat. She gets wounded...then taken prisoner by the enemy (who does NOT follow the Geneva Convention). There is a VASTLY greater chance that she will be raped/sexually abused, merely because she is female.

Do you think that's a good idea? I don't.

In an abstract way, I support allowing women to serve the military in any way they desire. More power to them.

In a practical way, however, experience has taught me that it causes more problems than it's worth. I served in the US Navy on board a combatant, and I was there when combat rates were opened to women, who had previously only been allowed to serve ashore or on support vessels. My ship was not retrofitted to support female crew members before I left, so I did not get a direct experience of women on board. But other ships in my battlegroup did, especially the support vessels. I got direct experience of them when the battlegroup pulled into port, homeport and otherwise, and some rather massive scandals directly affected the crew of my ship even though nobody on board had been involved. Liberty was cancelled for the whole group once because a few women on the tender were total morons.

It's a recipe for disaster. Take a young woman... pretty, ugly, smart, stupid, it doesn't matter. Add an environment where she is significantly outnumbered by young men at their hormonal peaks. Place contents in close quarters. Allow to stew for six months.

The results:

1) Genuine cases of sexual harassment/assault.
2) False cases of sexual harassment/assault.
3) Extortion under the threat of charges of sexual harassment.
4) Favorable treatment due to fear of charges of sexual harassment.
5) Favorable treatment due to 'poor widdle me, I'm just a girl' attitude.
6) Unfavorable treatment due to sexism.
7) Sexual politics.
8) Prostitution.

All of these things, naturally, undermine morale and unit cohesion. If we were just talking about isolated incidents, it would be different, but in my experience these were all part of everyday life for co-ed ships. Well, maybe not the prostitution bit.

The most common complaint I've run across when speaking to guys who worked with women was that they didn't carry their weight, leaving their peers to pick up the slack.

There are lots of women in the US Marines (ok, maybe not 'lots', but at least a few thousand). What are the details of the case you speak of?

I was talking about the Royal Marines of the UK.

The results:

1) Genuine cases of sexual harassment/assault.
2) False cases of sexual harassment/assault.
3) Extortion under the threat of charges of sexual harassment.
4) Favorable treatment due to fear of charges of sexual harassment.
5) Favorable treatment due to 'poor widdle me, I'm just a girl' attitude.
6) Unfavorable treatment due to sexism.
7) Sexual politics.
8) Prostitution.
You forgot "large numbers of pregnancies". That's one of the largest, if not THE largest, reasons that women are getting sent home from Iraq.

You forgot "large numbers of pregnancies". That's one of the largest, if not THE largest, reasons that women are getting sent home from Iraq.

Thanks. I did forget. A lot of women turned up pregnant just before major deployments. Amazing coincidence, don't you think?

Well, I'm not military, but having rommed with and spoken with a number of current or ex-military folks, it seems the whole rational against putting women into combat and having them in the military is the fear of losing the men's only club that it currently is and having to watch their mouths and other body parts. For all the arguments that I have heard against women in combat (strength/stamina/moral/cohesion) it just seems to boil down to that in the end.

Especially with the all volunteer military we have now, women who are in it could be assumed to know damn well that they might have to kill or be killed and have accepted that fact (and anyone who thinks that women are not capable of killing has not read their history too well). Personally, I've always thought, after knowing a number of violent women who are not afraid of 'cheating' in a fight, that the real reason men dislike the idea of women in combat is that a well trained woman who's pissed off might aim not to kill, just in an area not too well protected by armor and would make the man WISH he was dead.

One question though, I thought the whole idea behind the current set up of the chain of command is that civilians are supposed to be in charge of the military. Civilian control is one of those restraints that the founding fathers tucked into the Constitution.

Combat support is a big difference from a combat role. Combat support in the Marine Corps is a supply, maintenance, admin type role. The article seems to talk more about combat, rather than combat support.

If women are included in combat units on their merits and not to fill quotas or provide another way for liberals to experiment with the Armed Forces, then it would probably work.

There was a Navy pilot a few years back that was pushed through flight school and carrier quals because her success was needed for the social experiment to work. She wasn't that good and crashed a F-14 at the ramp. That happens to men, too, but not men with the recommendations she had in her training record. Those men are manning the control tower or the maintenance desk, not sitting in the front seat of a fighter.

Women can fight. They faked identities as men in the Civil War and fought. They fight in the IDF. We could integrate them here, too. But on terms set down by the DoD, not the Congress.

Women don't belong in combat roles. Half the women around here can't even shoot a dove without feeling bad about what they did.

Women don't belong in combat roles. Half the women around here can't even shoot a dove without feeling bad about what they did.


If they don't belong in combat roles because most would feel badly about killing a dove, should a man who feels badly about killing a dove be able to avoid combat duty?

Maybe we could tie doves to fence posts. Then, if a woman is willing to kill it without feeling badly, then she could be assigned to a combat unit? She could be the cold-hearted sniper....

I have to admit that I feel strongly on both sides of the issue (I think).