NationStates Jolt Archive

NOTE: Another volley in the continuing controversy over women in combat, this time from the women already there.


Trust us to decide our role in the Army, female servicemembers in Iraq say (http://www.military.com/News/Home/0,13324,4-XX-0-DAYX20050526,00.html)

By Sandra Jontz and Kevin Dougherty, Stars and Stripes
Mideast edition, Wednesday, May 25, 2005

FORWARD OPERATING BASE MAREZ, Iraq — If Pvt. Roxana Figueroa had her way, the Army would open up all jobs — from infantry on up — to women, and leave it up to women to decide where they want to serve.

“If women want to, and can make it, I think they should be able to serve in combat,” said the 20-year-old, deployed to Iraq with the 94th Engineer Battalion based in Vilseck, Germany.

At a minimum, women should be able to serve in combat support units, and she opposes a congressional proposal that would ban women from such roles. [ NOTE: This proposal has been withdrawn by the House of Representatives ]

“I think it’s wrong,” she said. “It’s taken us a long time to come this far, to even have engineering jobs in the Army, and now they might take that away from us.”

There’s also no doubt that women serving alongside men in a combat zone presents its fair share of challenges, said Spc. Leticia Montez, 21, an administration and mail clerk with 113th Engineer Battalion.

“They are right when they say we need to have certain things that men can get by without,” Montez said, citing hygiene products as an example. But if supply clerks can’t stock the shelves with such items, she said, family and friends back home can be counted on to send products in care packages.

The issue is controversial for men and women serving in Iraq, and several soldiers at FOB Marez declined to venture a point of view for fear of reprisal and backlash.

Under current policy, set in 1994, women are banned from joining units below brigade level whose primary missions are to engage in direct ground combat. Iraq is testing that policy.

Maj. Henrik Fast, executive officer of the 145th Support Battalion in Kirkuk, said female soldiers are an “integral part of our operations.”

“The impact of eliminating females from combat service support units would be devastating to us,” he said, noting 20 percent of the battalion is female. “Such a proposal would kill us.”

Women serving in Iraq, even in the support roles, are already in the line of fire.

They are medics, mechanics, supply specialists, truck drivers, cooks and communications specialists. Some of those jobs require them to leave the relative safety of bases.

“Women in my unit are performing admirably and are keeping pace with male counterparts doing the same thing. Out in combat situations, they’ve performed amazingly,” said Lt. Col. Cheri Provancha, 25th Brigade Support Battalion commander, citing the efforts of Spc. Shavodsha Hodges, whose supply convoy was hit with a roadside bomb in October and then came under small-arms fire.

Hodges is credited with yanking a gunner from his turret and treating his wounds after a Humvee rolled over.

Capt. Elijah Preston, a signal officer for the 3rd Battalion, 116th Armor Cavalry Regiment of the Oregon National Guard, said female soldiers he has worked with are more than capable of performing their duties, even in combat situations.

But, Preston said, losing a female soldier is harder on him than losing men.

“I think a lot of people would disagree with me, but that’s how I see it. Seeing our mothers and daughters die, I think, is harder that seeing our fathers and sons [die].”

Spc. Corinne Newman, 27, of Nampa, Idaho, is a combat medic.

“It’s disappointing. For one, they train you just like the rest of them. If they train you equally you should be able to be out there and support them,” she said. “We’re all soldiers as far as I’m concerned.”

Spc. Jarell James, also with 94th Engineer Battalion, had no trouble voicing his opinion on the debates taking place in Washington.

“I think it’s stupid,” the 22- year-old said. “Females fight for all of this, all their rights, and now they want to take them away. They’re working backward, not forward.”

I think this should be like any other job - if you have the training, you can do the job.

I am a woman. Women can do fine in combat but there shouldn't be co-ed combat units IMO.

Personally I think women should be kept out of the armed forces compeletly. My basis for this is biological, even if we knock the male population to hell(by killing off a large percent) those that remain can replenish the population as a single man can father mulitple children(5,10 ect) at a time while a female can only produce one child(maybe two or three) at a time.

I am a woman. Women can do fine in combat but there shouldn't be co-ed combat units IMO.
A "Dominant Readhead" from North Carolina?? WOW! :D

How would they operate then? As separate units??? :confused:

Personally I think women should be kept out of the armed forces compeletly. My basis for this is biological, even if we knock the male population to hell(by killing off a large percent) those that remain can replenish the population as a single man can father mulitple children(5,10 ect) at a time while a female can only produce one child(maybe two or three) at a time.
If we ever get to that point, we'd have bigger problems then repopulation (I'd say that nukes have started to fly).

I have a slight issue with females being in the military. Mostly because males are stronger than females.

So I say, females should fight in their own companies.

A "Dominant Readhead" from North Carolina?? WOW! :D

How would they operate then? As separate units??? :confused:


Yep, seperate units. Too many problems with males and females co-existing in that kind of atmosphere. A lot of that has to do with how so many males view females and the overwhelming propensity that many males have to protect females. A lot of it has to do with physical differences and the probablity that if a man were injured in combat a man smaller than him could probably drag him out by himself but the liklihood of one woman being able to do it would be slim.


Tell me...in a combat situation would you hold the tree branches and vines back so that a woman could proceed first or would you go in front of her to protect her? There are some inherent differences that training may be able to overcome but then again maybe not. :eek:

Good lord. During my tenure in the military (Marine Corps and Army National Guard), I have trained with and fought alongside hundreds of motivated, capable women that were servicemembers first, women second. They performed thier jobs admirably and fought very well against an enemy that was resourceful, tough and determined.
In the Marines, we all go through either San Diego or the Island, where we are taught to be Marine infantry first and foremost. Whether you are a male, a female, going to become an officer, a cook, a pilot, or a mechanic, you learn how to shoot your weapon accurately out to 500m and how to operate in a combat environment. Supposedly, the Army is finally seeking to make basic combat training a 13 week program instead of a 9 week to teach people better rifle marksmanship and more infantry techniques.
Speaking as a former Marine and a current Officer Candidate in the National Guard, I strongly feel that women should be allowed to serve in combat MOS's and be assigned to direct action units. They have already proven themselves time and again in this lovely war of no front lines that we are fighting in now.

I hadn't heard that the House had withdrawn that proposal--it's a good thing they did, because the Armed forces are in rough enough shape without some stupid congressman trying to force them to completely readjust to a new requirement while in the field. The Army would have just ignored the requirement anyway, so it's better that he pulled it back.

I have confidence that the military is able to screen soldiers, male or female, so that only capable individuals serve in combat. I question whether it's a good idea for wide-scale combat deployment of women for cultural reasons.

Let's say, God forbid, this headline runs in the NY Times: "Nation Mourns: Battle of *insert name* ends, 1200 US dead, 240 are women". Basing the casualties in the example on the estimate that 20% of the military is now female.

There will be initial shock and grief at our loss, then the national attention will turn to the female casualties. Many citizens will be more upset by the female casualties than the male . There will be questions, then outrage.

What are the political and social consequences of female casualties? Some of those unintended consequences will affect the military. So why place females in combat in large numbers unless they are needed there? At present we have enough men to be effective.

Yep, seperate units. Too many problems with males and females co-existing in that kind of atmosphere. A lot of that has to do with how so many males view females and the overwhelming propensity that many males have to protect females. A lot of it has to do with physical differences and the probablity that if a man were injured in combat a man smaller than him could probably drag him out by himself but the liklihood of one woman being able to do it would be slim.

Tell me...in a combat situation would you hold the tree branches and vines back so that a woman could proceed first or would you go in front of her to protect her? There are some inherent differences that training may be able to overcome but then again maybe not. :eek:
I wouldn't do anything more for a female member of a unit I was in than I would for a male member of a unit I was in.

How males view or behave toward females is irrelevant. Two wrongs don't make a right.

I have confidence that the military is able to screen soldiers, male or female, so that only capable individuals serve in combat. I question whether it's a good idea for wide-scale combat deployment of women for cultural reasons.

Let's say, God forbid, this headline runs in the NY Times: "Nation Mourns: Battle of *insert name* ends, 1200 US dead, 240 are women". Basing the casualties in the example on the estimate that 20% of the military is now female.

There will be initial shock and grief at our loss, then the national attention will turn to the female casualties. Many citizens will be more upset by the female casualties than the male . There will be questions, then outrage.

What are the political and social consequences of female casualties? Some of those unintended consequences will affect the military. So why place females in combat in large numbers unless they are needed there? At present we have enough men to be effective.
How about because women who want to be in combat and who can pass the requirements should have the option of doing so? :rolleyes:

Some of the best, most professional officers and enlisted I've ever had the honor to know and work with were women. Some of the worst were too.

Replace "women" in the previous paragraph with "men" and take the two together to get a full understanding of the experience. I won't go so far as to say that female troopers aren't identical to male troopers, but if they can do the job physically and mentally and they want to do the job, what's stopping them?

The problem with organizing female-only units is it creates a massive issue with force structuring. Females in combat units could only be recruited and deployed in large blocks, which means that new recruits would either be assigned non-combat positions or not accepted at all, depending on needs. Then there's the whole bias issue and questions would come up that the Xtyfirst Infantry Battalion (male or female) is getting inferior equipment for being male or female whether or not it actually was.

Remember history: "seperate but equal" isn't.

While women may be well qualified to perform combat operations I really must disagree they should be aloud to fight in the front lines of war.

The front lines should be for men only because men is what the other army is.
Show me a women that can beat a man of the same weight, training and height in full on close combat, and I'll agree they should be let in. While all combat situatuions are not close, people should not be in there if they can not handle it
Perhaps this can sum it up

What is the average height and weight of a woman?
My guess would be about 5'6" to 5'8" and 140-160 pounds
What is the average height and weight of an man
My guess would be 5'11" to 6'1" and 190-220 pounds
When you consider that men also have a higher pecentage muscle mass, it obvious why men are physically superior

The front lines should be for men only because men is what the other army is.
Show me a women that can beat a man of the same weight, training and height in full on close combat, and I'll agree they should be let in. While all combat situatuions are not close, people should not be in there if they can not handle it
Perhaps this can sum it up

What is the average height and weight of a woman?
My guess would be about 5'6" to 5'8" and 140-160 pounds
What is the average height and weight of an man
My guess would be 5'11" to 6'1" and 190-220 pounds
When you consider that men also have a higher pecentage muscle mass, it obvious why men are physically superior
But there are women who are over 5'11, and solidly built, just as there are men who are under 5'8.
Even ifit is true that the average man is physically superior to the average woman, there are still women qualified to fight.

IF we're talking about volunteers, and IF they enhance combat effectiveness, then go for it. But let the military decide the utility of a female volunteer policy.

I disagree that Congress should ban all women from combat.

The front lines should be for men only because men is what the other army is.
Show me a women that can beat a man of the same weight, training and height in full on close combat, and I'll agree they should be let in. While all combat situatuions are not close, people should not be in there if they can not handle it
Perhaps this can sum it up

What is the average height and weight of a woman?
My guess would be about 5'6" to 5'8" and 140-160 pounds
What is the average height and weight of an man
My guess would be 5'11" to 6'1" and 190-220 pounds
When you consider that men also have a higher pecentage muscle mass, it obvious why men are physically superior
If I had a picture of Andrea, I would gladly post it. She was a 5'10", 185 lb., red-headed Amazon I knew a long time ago. She was the local Tae Kwan Do champion ( two black belts ). We went to the mat once ... just once ... and that was enough for me. I had bruises on my bruises! Heh!

EDIT: ... not to mention that she was very lovely and built too! :D

Training, I feel, is everything. It always has been. "Few people are born brave, many achieve it through training", to butcher the quote. Men, remember, are very individualistic in nature, and have to be brought together with training. In fact, if we take nature as purely defining the capabilities of men, and assume an average, women are far better for fighting as a squad than a man is. But nobody pays any attention to that, and nor should they. Nor should people pay attention to the stereotype of weak girly girl or some guy who can survive off of their own testosterone for a month without food or water. Women can achieve the same level of fitness as men, and we are intelligent enough to know what we're getting involved in. Some people point out brutalities that may be carried out on captured women. We know the risks. Who is to say what women can and cannot be allowed to face? Nobody except the individual who chooses to face it.


Secondly, some people like to point out the difficulty of relationships forming, and the consequences of them ending, whilst in the field. The Hellenic armies had relationships in their core, to keep morale strong, and it worked well. This is the example of relationships working in the armed forces. However, I am unaware of any time where relationships were detrimental to the armed forces. It is, infact, a blind assumption made because people feel they know better then evidence can show.

It appears to be in this matter, equally to all the others, that people pick and choose which evidence they wish to listen to, and wish they wish to completely ignore.

EDIT: that crazy proposal has been dropped? Good.

Training, I feel, is everything. It always has been. "Few people are born brave, many achieve it through training", to butcher the quote. Men, remember, are very individualistic in nature, and have to be brought together with training. In fact, if we take nature as purely defining the capabilities of men, and assume an average, women are far better for fighting as a squad than a man is. But nobody pays any attention to that, and nor should they. Nor should people pay attention to the stereotype of weak girly girl or some guy who can survive off of their own testosterone for a month without food or water. Women can achieve the same level of fitness as men, and we are intelligent enough to know what we're getting involved in. Some people point out brutalities that may be carried out on captured women. We know the risks. Who is to say what women can and cannot be allowed to face? Nobody except the individual who chooses to face it.


Secondly, some people like to point out the difficulty of relationships forming, and the consequences of them ending, whilst in the field. The Hellenic armies had relationships in their core, to keep morale strong, and it worked well. This is the example of relationships working in the armed forces. However, I am unaware of any time where relationships were detrimental to the armed forces. It is, infact, a blind assumption made because people feel they know better then evidence can show.

It appears to be in this matter, equally to all the others, that people pick and choose which evidence they wish to listen to, and wish they wish to completely ignore.

EDIT: that crazy proposal has been dropped? Good.
Great post! And yes, it has been dropped. :D