Women in Combat branches

[scoutpilot]

Sam - hate to break it to you but.... it's not the military that is discriminatory it's Congress. You don't haul a 100lb pack up a mountain in Afghanistan as a FA officer. The reason women are banned from certain occupations is because they are female. dictated by congress. inherent danger as well as questioning the ability (not physical) of females to pull the trigger.

PT tests - females who go to Airborne and Air Assault perform the same physical tests and skills as their male counterparts.

Nothing personal, JAM, but you've been wrong about many of the things you've said in this thread.

For starters, today you absolutely will haul a pack like that up a mountain like that in an Afghanistan like that as an FA officer. The FA branch has undergone a sea change in this conflict, with the low volume of fires needed. As a result, FA battalions have functioned essentially as infantry, performing daily mounted and dismounted patrols, filling MiTT roles (though MiTTs are now gone) on a battalion-wide tasking, as well as providing rapid counterfire support from mortars and emplaced guns, complemented by precision GMLRS fires.

Pima - The APFT does have different standars for males and females. But that is the test to pass only in order to keep wearing the uniform. Passing the APFT only qualfies you for a desk job.

Incorrect. In an ideal Army, maybe that would work. In reality, the real Army is full of units who let people slide by for years with sub-par PT performance. There are many overweight, physically poor soldiers in the Army who have not taken a PT test in years, or who have barely passed one. That includes officers. The regular Army is far too easy on those who perform at a sub-par physical level. There are plenty of "leaders" in the Army who can barely squeak out a 180 on the APFT.

When you see a female with AirBorne wings - she completed the same course to the same standards to her male counterparts.

Yes, but it would be more accurate to say that the men performed to the female standards. There is no explicit running test in airborne school, but SMs are expected to maintain a 9:00 mile pace for 4 miles. The 9:00/mile pace is a failing pace for the male APFT, but is a passing score for a female APFT.

You asked when the last time was that you heard of a 140-lb Ranger hauling his 200 pound buddy to safety. That has happened many times, and not just in the Rangers. But for the record, you will hear very little about their exploits, as they are not functioning in their traditional capacity in theater, and their missions are not for public consumption.

As for women in combat...that's an argument that isn't really worth having. The handwriting is on the wall, in more ways that one. But there's always value in arguing from a position of correct information.

 

[Gray Hog]

This is an issue that ALL women deserve the same rights and abilities to serve in the same positions as every man, if they can prove that they are on the same level regardless of gender.

No that is absolutely NOT the issue.

The military is not a federal jobs program. It is not about equal employment and advancement opportunity for all citizens; it is about providing for the national defense in the most efficient and effective manner, in order to accomplish the assigned missions with minimal cost in terms of both blood and treasure.

 

[Pima]

Gray, I think you are confusing me with other people. I am a woman and I believe that women should not be given a free pass on the PFT. I believe if they want to play with the boys than they should play with them on their field. I am not someone who will defend taking a shot from the ladies tee.

That being said I believe that there are women who can perform at the same level of men. I believe that we are powerful and will not rely on genetics to the point that we deserve a pass. (Reality is there are many female athletes who would wipe the floor clean against a military member in physical ability, thus it is is BS to say they can't do it, same with our intelligence).

I do not believe women should be given an edge on physical requirements when it comes to combat. However, if they can perform at the male stds they should be given the chance.

 

[Gray Hog]

Gray, I think you are confusing me with other people. I am a woman and I believe that women should not be given a free pass on the PFT. I believe if they want to play with the boys than they should play with them on their field. I am not someone who will defend taking a shot from the ladies tee.

That being said I believe that there are women who can perform at the same level of men. I believe that we are powerful and will not rely on genetics to the point that we deserve a pass. (Reality is there are many female athletes who would wipe the floor clean against a military member in physical ability, thus it is is BS to say they can't do it, same with our intelligence).

I do not believe women should be given an edge on physical requirements when it comes to combat. However, if they can perform at the male stds they should be given the chance.

Even if someone can perform equally to another on an individual basis, that does not mean that they are interchangeable "units." It is not about how well that individual can perform specific tasks, it is how the presence of that individual impacts the overall performance of the organization. A military organization functions as a team, through interpersonal relationships based upon mutual trust and respect. Those synergies make the whole greater than the sum of its parts. Where those synergies do not exist, the organization's combat effectiveness suffers and, ultimately, more blood is shed to accomplish the mission.

Even if you hold women to the exact same physical and tactical/technical standards, the fact remains that wherever special accommodations must be made (and there will always need to be some), friction and resentment will develop, which is detrimental to combat effectiveness.

 

[Just_A_Mom]

scoutpilot - you missed my point.
Pima was arguing that since there are different standards for the APFT by gender (also by age but for some reason that is not an issue) - females should not be in combat. My argument is simply to make the standards the same for certain jobs.
if that were done - she would not have an argument.

The military is not a federal jobs program. It is not about equal employment and advancement opportunity for all citizens; it is about providing for the national defense in the most efficient and effective manner, in order to accomplish the assigned missions with minimal cost in terms of both blood and treasure.

This is nothing more than code for: It is imperative to deny people the opportunity to perform certain jobs based on their anatomy.

The jobs that females perform in the service DO absolutely provide for the national defense. In fact, some females are already performing in combat.
If you strongly feel those jobs should be reserved for men then perhaps you should get out more. Go talk to young men today and tell them to man up and join the military, or maybe we should reinstate the draft. Nearly every position females have today they have by default - when you need bodies and there are not enough men, they allow women. This is historical dating back to WWII.

 

[Gray Hog]

This is nothing more than code for: It is imperative to deny people the opportunity to perform certain jobs based on their anatomy.

Madam, you don't know the first thing about me. I do not speak in "code." I say what I mean and mean what I say. What I meant is exactly what the words say, nothing more, nothing less. Do not project your biases upon me.

The jobs that females perform in the service DO absolutely provide for the national defense. In fact, some females are already performing in combat.

Again, you don't know me. I would venture to say that I have served in a combat zone more recently than you. I require no lecture from someone's mother to tell me what combat is like, nor what roles are being performed by whom.

If you strongly feel those jobs should be reserved for men...

I never said or suggested anything of the sort. Reread what I wrote.

 

[scoutpilot]

scoutpilot - you missed my point.
Pima was arguing that since there are different standards for the APFT by gender (also by age but for some reason that is not an issue) - females should not be in combat. My argument is simply to make the standards the same for certain jobs.
if that were done - she would not have an argument.


This is nothing more than code for: It is imperative to deny people the opportunity to perform certain jobs based on their anatomy.

The jobs that females perform in the service DO absolutely provide for the national defense. In fact, some females are already performing in combat.
If you strongly feel those jobs should be reserved for men then perhaps you should get out more. Go talk to young men today and tell them to man up and join the military, or maybe we should reinstate the draft. Nearly every position females have today they have by default - when you need bodies and there are not enough men, they allow women. This is historical dating back to WWII.

No, you have missed MY point. Regardless of what point you were trying to make, you were using your perceptions and attempting to pass them off as fact. Whether you're for or against women in the same jobs as men, you were making statements about the Army and branches of the Army which are 180 degrees out from reality.

I've noticed through your posts that you consider yourself to be an expert on all manner of Army and SA subjects. I would, however, ask that you be very careful in what you claim to know about the operational Army. There are many young people on this board facing an array of choices, and those of us in the profession of arms are very concerned with making sure they get the most complete picture--a picture based on facts and experiences from those members who are able to share them, and not based on perceptions and outdated notions.

 

[vampsoul]

Let me prefeace this with a single disclaimer: I admit I know zip, zilch, nada about the real Army.

Now here's my rant:
As a girl who had to play twice as hard to be accepted by the guys who played football at recess in elementary school, as a girl who was forced to take aerobics instead of wrestling in middle school, as one of only three girls who endeavored to prove their worth in a hockey class of thirty in high school, I am moved to say that women deserve the chance to prove they can physically handle the job. unify but do not lower the physical standards for combat roles. If they can meet them, then great, if not, then too bad. But they should at least be allowed to attempt and prove they can do it.

 

[Gray Hog]

Let me prefeace this with a single disclaimer: I admit I know zip, zilch, nada about the real Army.

Now here's my rant:
As a girl who had to play twice as hard to be accepted by the guys who played football at recess in elementary school, as a girl who was forced to take aerobics instead of wrestling in middle school, as one of only three girls who endeavored to prove their worth in a hockey class of thirty in high school, I am moved to say that women deserve the chance to prove they can physically handle the job. unify but do not lower the physical standards for combat roles. If they can meet them, then great, if not, then too bad. But they should at least be allowed to attempt and prove they can do it.

I think it is extremely important that you try to get past seeing the issue as one of individual ability. It is not. It is about how the military can accomplish its mission as efficiently and effectively as possible.

Military units are not measured by tallying the individual abilities of individual soldiers; they are measured by their collective combat effectiveness. If you have one soldier who is actually the very best at what he does, but, for whatever reason, the presence of that soldier in the unit causes disruption and discontent, the overall effectiveness of that unit suffers for his presence. The unit is better off without him, despite the fact that, individually, he is actually the best. Is that fair? No. Is it "right?" Well, when the price for degraded combat effectiveness is the additional loss of American lives, I would say eliminating that one otherwise-very qualified soldier is the right thing to do under those circumstances.

Sports teams are very similar. Teammates must trust each other and work collectively to win. It matters less how skilled each player is individually than it does how well they play together. You can look at the U.S. Olympic Basketball "dream teams" in recent Olympics to see this effect. Despite being comprised of the very best individual players from across the MBA, these teams have often struggled against amateur national teams from second rate countries. The reason is that those "dream teams" do not have the same cohesion as their opponents. They are not used to working together and their personalities often clash. The result is that they do not play well together.

With the synergy of teamwork, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts; without it, it is no better than that sum; where friction and conflict exists, it is worse than that sum. On a sports field, the stakes are points and a win/loss record. On a battlefield, the stakes are lives and battles won or lost. So, I think it unconscionable to argue the merits of fairness of career opportunities against the merits of unit combat effectiveness.

All of that being said, the vast majority of barriers to women in the military have fallen and rightfully so. More will fall. Eventually, it is quite possible that none will remain. In the mean time, understand that the issue is not (as some here would have you believe) about outdated sexism, gender bias, or exclusion; it is about evaluating the impact of removing gender barriers on the efficiency and effectiveness of combat units. The cost is measured in blood and treasure.

 

[Bullet]

Not that I want to bring this down any further, bu what exactly are you not-so-subtlety hinting at, Gray Hog? That the presence of women in a unit will cause less cohesion and trust within the unit? That the presence of women will cause good discipline to fall to the way-side, thus making the unit more susceptible to risk? The sort of "they're a bad influence to unit morale and cohesion" argument?

Not too sure I'm comfortable with that line of thinking. Seems too close to similar arguments used to oppose efforts to desegregate the military in the 40s and 50s. Just my impression.

If she can do the job, without any lowering of standards or expectations that she will get a free-ride from stuff the guys have to do, then well; let her do the job!

Heck, I flown with and supported guys (and gals) I couldn't STAND to be near when on the ground. But you know what, when the bullets (or SAMs) started flying, that crap was all left behind for the sake of mission accomplishment. It's called "discipline". Either you put aside your prejudices and biases to get the job done, or, I will agree with you on this, your team WILL fail.

And I do think we have enough professional leaders in the ranks of the NCOs and Junior Officers, the ones we rely on to maintain that discipline, that when the day comes (and trust me, it IS coming) that the barriers to females are lifted (as long as they can perform to standards the men are expected to perform to), this will be an issue quickly addressed and overcome. For the sake of the mission...

 

[Gray Hog]

Not that I want to bring this down any further, bu what exactly are you not-so-subtlety hinting at, Gray Hog? That the presence of women in a unit will cause less cohesion and trust within the unit? That the presence of women will cause good discipline to fall to the way-side, thus making the unit more susceptible to risk? The sort of "they're a bad influence to unit morale and cohesion" argument?

Not too sure I'm comfortable with that line of thinking. Seems too close to similar arguments used to oppose efforts to desegregate the military in the 40s and 50s. Just my impression.

If she can do the job, without any lowering of standards or expectations that she will get a free-ride from stuff the guys have to do, then well; let her do the job!

Heck, I flown with and supported guys (and gals) I couldn't STAND to be near when on the ground. But you know what, when the bullets (or SAMs) started flying, that crap was all left behind for the sake of mission accomplishment. It's called "discipline". Either you put aside your prejudices and biases to get the job done, or, I will agree with you on this, your team WILL fail.

And I do think we have enough professional leaders in the ranks of the NCOs and Junior Officers, the ones we rely on to maintain that discipline, that when the day comes (and trust me, it IS coming) that the barriers to females are lifted (as long as they can perform to standards the men are expected to perform to), this will be an issue quickly addressed and overcome. For the sake of the mission...

I am not "hinting" at anything. I don't know what sort of people you (and whoever's mom) are used to dealing with, but Army officers say things plainly and straightly. I do not speak in "code;" there are no hidden meanings or innuendos in what I say. I would appreciate it if you (and others) not read anything into my statements. If I have failed to make my point clearly or if you have additional questions regarding something I have said, ask me to explain further. I will be glad to do so.

I am sure that it is convenient for you to presume that I am some sort of throw-back to the dark ages, but I am sorry to disappoint you. You may have missed the related thread about women serving on submarines. In it (http://www.serviceacademyforums.com/showpost.php?p=113020&postcount=74), I shared the following:

1) I am a father of three girls. They should have the right to be whatever they want in life.

2) I am a former Army officer and military aviator. Some of the best soldiers and best pilots with whom I served/flew were women.

3) I am a combat veteran. Most of the challenges I thought I would face in a mixed-gender field/tactical environment were easily overcome.

Most of what you presumed the need to lecture me on is no different that what is contained in those three points.

However, that being said, I still recognize is that there are some unique roles and duty assignments within the military, which present far more significant challenges to gender integration than what I experienced as an Army Aviaton officer or what you experienced as an enlisted Air Force crew member. Neither of us is in a position to preach to the leaders of ground combat functions about leadership and discipline. They are every bit the professionals that you or I were. Moreover, their world requires FAR more discipline and leadership than is ever required of aircraft pilots, crewmenbers, or maintainers. I feel qualified to say that as one who has served as an aircraft pilot and leader of ground maintenance personnel in a combat theater, who saw direct combat both in the air and on the ground, and who witnessed ground combat forces in action.

Those who lead our ground combat units are absolute modern professionals. They are concerned with accomplishing the very difficult missions assigned to them with the least cost of material resources and, far more importantly, American lives. In their professional opinions, there would some significant challenges created by attempting gender integration and they believe that overcoming these challenges would come at a high price. I see no compelling reason to second-guess their professional judgment, nor can I give them a compelling argument why paying that price is necessary.

 

[LineInTheSand]

Hehe, Bullet wasn't enlisted aviation.....

What did you retire as Bullet, an O-5 or O-6?

 

[LineInTheSand]

Those who lead our ground combat units are absolute modern professionals. They are concerned with accomplishing the very difficult missions assigned to them with the least cost of material resources and, far more importantly, American lives. In their professional opinions, there would some significant challenges created by attempting gender integration and they believe that overcoming these challenges would come at a high price. I see no compelling reason to second-guess their professional judgment, nor can I give them a compelling argument why paying that price is necessary.

Ok, I won't beat around the bush either...I call BS. Many of the guys you talk to have great women working with them. We've all served with females you know as "one of the guys". "In combat" is not reserved for combat troops. You will heard about MANY females working along side their male counterparts in combat zones. You will also find scores who have received awards regarding their service.

It's already happening, the "big" military just hasn't caught up to that realization.

Same standards, not dumbed down, continued separation of berthing and restrictions on same-unit relationships...I have no problem with that. I would venture to guess that there are plenty of Army commanding officers (even the ones I don't know) who would say the same thing.

 

[Pima]

Hehe, Bullet wasn't enlisted aviation.....

What did you retire as Bullet, an O-5 or O-6?

That made me giggle too. Just for the fact it was O-5 who also had combat hours in the F-15E. I think he had 3 rotations (maybe it was 4) in the 15E, and 1 in the 111.

 

[Gray Hog]

Ok, I won't beat around the bush either...I call BS. Many of the guys you talk to have great women working with them...

Does anyone hear actually read the entire post before replying? I am pretty sure that I made it abundantly clear in that same post, that I have flown with great women pilots and served with great women soldiers in all sorts of capacities, in peacetime and in combat zones, who were every bit the equals of their male counterparts in every respect, myself included.

What we are talking about here is a different animal from Aviation. Those roles from which women remain excluded (in the Army) are primarily the direct ground combat maneuver forces. There is a world of difference between them and Aviation or other Army branches, despite the fact that on today's asymmetric battlefield, many of the soldiers serving in what are traditionally seen as support branches find themselves occasionally involved in direct combat.

As for Bullet, no offense was intended. I don't know what I read in his post, which led me to conclude that he was a crewmember, but it really doesn't matter, as it is immaterial to the point I was making. Whether Bullet was on E-6 or an O-6, if he was a flier and maintainer of aircraft, he was not involved in the sort duty, which required the type of leadership and discipline required of someone who leads ground maneuver troops in direct enemy engagements. I am sorry, but anyone who believes otherwise is fooling themselves.

For all of the armchair quarterbacking going on here, unless I am mistaken, I have not seen any posts from someone who has actually led ground combat troops of the sort that is the subject of this discussion. Maybe there are none here or maybe they simply leave this sort of debate to the amateurs and spectators, while they quietly and professionally go about their job defending our constitutional right to judge them and critique their character.

 

[SamAca10]

As for Bullet, no offense was intended. I don't know what I read in his post, which led me to conclude that he was a crewmember, but it really doesn't matter, as it is immaterial to the point I was making. Whether Bullet was on E-6 or an O-6, if he was a flier and maintainer of aircraft, he was not involved in the sort duty, which required the type of leadership and discipline required of someone who leads ground maneuver troops in direct enemy engagements. I am sorry, but anyone who believes otherwise is fooling themselves.

For all of the armchair quarterbacking going on here, unless I am mistaken, I have not seen any posts from someone who has actually led ground combat troops of the sort that is the subject of this discussion. Maybe there are none here or maybe they simply leave this sort of debate to the amateurs and spectators, while they quietly and professionally go about their job defending our constitutional right to judge them and critique their character.

How can you judge then? You say that you were an Army Aviator- does that mean you have combat experience leading troops on the ground? So are you admitting that you are "armchair quarterbacking" here? This statement seems a bit contradictory

I do not claim to have any knowledge of what the Army is like

 

[bruno]

GH- sent you a PM check your Private Messages

 

[Gray Hog]

How can you judge then? You say that you were an Army Aviator- does that mean you have combat experience leading troops on the ground? So are you admitting that you are "armchair quarterbacking" here? This statement seems a bit contradictory

I do not claim to have any knowledge of what the Army is like

I guess you missed it, but, in post Post #51, I wrote, "I feel qualified to say that as one who has served as an aircraft pilot and leader of ground maintenance personnel in a combat theater, who saw direct combat both in the air and on the ground, and who witnessed ground combat forces in action."

What I have said and continue to say is that my experience has taught me that the world of ground combat units is very different from the sort of combat I saw in the air or while leading Aviation soldiers on the ground (which was occasionally also under direct and indirect enemy fire).

I have seen the complete professionalism, dedication, and selflessness of ground combat leaders in action from the air and on the ground, while I was dismounted. I trust their judgement and know that their motivations are purely to accomplish their missions swiftly and safely. The type of direct leadership required of them in taking 18 and 19-year-olds into ground combat is FAR more difficult than anything required of those of us who led pilots and maintainers. Those of us who have never walked a mile in their boots are in no position to judge them and I, for one, do not second-guess them or question their character.

 

[Bullet]

I think everyone here needs to step back a minute and cool their jets a little (pun intended). Nothing wrong with disagreement on issues, nothing wrong with heated debate. Just realize that all are entitled to an opinion, as long as it is done courteously and with a sense of "let's all discuss so possibly we can learn something".

So, in that vein, you have my apologies Gray Hog if you thought i was attacking you and your opinion. Wasn't my intent. Rather, I felt that the gist of your argument was perhaps something I disagreed with, and I provided my reasons why. Again, no intent to offend, and if I did, you have my sincerest apologies.

And that brings us to a problem we all sometimes have when participating in internet discussions: the lack of face-to-face communication, where we miss the essential parts of tone, body language, and eye to eye contact (and where we can also see who we are taking to). Also, formal introductions are a rarity, at best. So, not an issue if you don't recognize my background or rank (it's not like a have an avatar on the side of me next to a jet wearing HUUUUGE Lt Col leaf clusters, or better yet a picture of Patton )

So, no harm no foul on the path this thread was taking. In fact, I'm bettng if this was a meeting face-to-face, we would be violently arguing at the club, but with beers in our hands, both of us knowing that by the end of the night we'd probably just be buying each other rounds and telling each other how great each of us were.

For all of the armchair quarterbacking going on here, unless I am mistaken, I have not seen any posts from someone who has actually led ground combat troops of the sort that is the subject of this discussion.

However, allow me one clarification on my background. 2 years, Air Liaison Officer with the 82nd Airborne. Led 4 teams comprised of 25 men in the field, to include loading them all up into the backs of C-130 to invade Haiti in 94 (or was it 95? Whatever, it was AGES ago! Dang, I'm old, and getting worse! ). Didn't see actual combat then, but was darn ready for it. Also did a little thing in 04, leading ALL the AF personnel on the ground in Iraq in the Tactical Air Control Parties and Combat Weathermen, over 200 people total. But that was from the HQ in Baghdad and not on the front lines with them. So I guess you can say I never actually led troops on the ground directly with them in combat, but I'm probably the closest that has posted so far, by a mile.

But that is besides the point (and dangerously close to arrogantly bragging. But hey, my dander got up! ), and not part of the true discussion. I hear you, Gray Hog. And I think we are for the most part in violent agreement. And I will admit my experience is mostly with aviation leadership, which is a different animal entirely from leading troops on the ground. But I truly believe the "unit cohesion" argument just isn't that strong.

But that's just me.....

More importantly, I apologize again if I led this down a path were anyone was offended. Personally, nothing wrong with a little debate. I just prefer to do so face-to-face, beer in hand.

 

[Gray Hog]

More importantly, I apologize again if I led this down a path were anyone was offended. Personally, nothing wrong with a little debate. I just prefer to do so face-to-face, beer in hand.

Well, it takes a LOT more than anything said in this tread to offend me. I trust the same can be said for you. Nonetheless, I certainly offer a blanket apology to you and anyone who felt there was anything in any of my posts, which was reason to take offense.

It is a serious issue, which has serious consequences. Therefore it is not surprising that people have strong opinions. However, regardless of where anyone stands on this issue, I think it important for everyone to remember that what we all want is what best for our brave men and women in uniform.

I would certainly prefer the face-to-face, myself. I would like it all the more with a beer in my hand. However, if you try to make me play that stupid game with the pool table you AF pilots seem to love so much, forget it.