Women in the Infantry?

[kerrykmk]

In a recent article in TIME magazine, the long debated issue of the role of women in combat arose. Personally, I believe the prejeduce against women in the military is rediculous. Not allowing women to be in the infantry simply on the ignorant belief that "women will panic in the face of attack." That is the most rediculous, and insulting thing I have ever heard in my life. It is not right to bar women from doing the jobs that men do, simply because those men believe that the women are "too weak" or "not capable" of carrying out such tasks. That is absolute nonsense. Women can do anything than men can do, and then some.

We should be allowed to choose what career path we'd like to take in the military. Some choose desk jobs, that's fine. Other's opt for medical related jobs, that's magnificent. But there's always been and always will be that certain group of women that want so badly to be treated equally, and to be in the infantry and do what they really enjoy. Being capable of carrying out infantry-related duties is not restricted to a certain gender, women are just as capable as men. And with the struggling recruitment numbers accross the board, one would think the military would seek to further open up gender-restricted positions in order to catch the interest and desire of women like myself, who want to be on the frontlines-- who want to directly defend their country in hand-to-hand combat, not just from behind a desk.

Anyways, that's my spiel.

If you'd like to read the TIME magazine article in full, here's the link to it: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/pr...161235,00.html

[SGRock]

You jump right in, don't you?

Don't think from what you are about to read that I am against women, hate women, etc.. I am just looking at this issue from a psychological and societal point of view. My overall opinion of this is that I agree with you in that there are som women that can handle combat, just like there are some men that CAN NOT, and that I would not trust in combat.

OK. I read the article in Time. My personal feeling is that if a woman can do the job and take on the role, fine. As I used to say when I was a young grunt; if a woman wants to be in the infantry, fine. She can start by carrying these bipods. The bipods for an 81 mm mortar weighed 45 pounds. That is along with all of the other gear we carried. All of our gear plus M-16, Alice and wargear AND the 81 gear would increase a Marine's weight by 60-100 pounds. You want to do it, Great. grab the bipods, get to the front of the column and don't you dare slow down.
The thing that people on the outside, like that journalist, don't understand is that male Marines and soldiers going in to an infantry unit have to prove themselves as well. "New guy, get the bipods. When you get tired you can carry the M-60."
The other thing that outsiders don't understand is that even some male "Remington Raiders" do not belong in the Infantry. I remember guys in my unit that weren't worth a darn and everytime we went to the field they ended up in the safety vehicle because their "feet hurt". I had a guy in my MSG Detachment in Bogota that would hide when we did a bomb search.
In a Marine NCO's fitness report there is one point in there that the reviewing officer has to mark that makes or breaks an NCO's career. "Would you go to combat with this Marine? If it is not marked "Specifically Desire" You're on shaky ground. I have met quite a few women civilians, including one female officer cadet on this board, that I would trust to take into combat with me.
My final point is that even though there are quite a few women that CAN do the job as an Infantryman, there are a lot of Infantrymen that are not ready for them. Not out of jealousy, mind you. This is a western society mindset. We treat women with respect and often times put women on a pedestal.
Men in western society go out of their way to protect a woman. That is how men are raised. Men in Eastern Societies treat women like animals to be bought, sold and beaten. When a woman is in a patrol with men, there is that mindset in the back of our brain housing group to watch out for that woman. That can jeopardize the rest of the members of that squad or platoon. I am not saying that women WILL or WILL NOT get special attention, just that the mindset IS there. This kind of mindset could also be used against a mixed patrol of men and women if the Iraqi sniper on the other end of that trigger wants to use that as a psychological weapon and only target the women in the unit. This could lead to demoralization of a unit also leading to that unit being ineffective.

that is just my take on it.

[Vulture6]

Time for the Women in Combat vs. Women in the Infantry debate again, eh?

First off:

Not allowing women to be in the infantry simply on the ignorant belief that "women will panic in the face of attack." That is the most rediculous, and insulting thing I have ever heard in my life.

I have to agree, anyone who bases their argument against having women in combat or women in the infantry on these excuses misses the boat entirely. It is ridiculous and insulting. But if you read the TIME article, the only one saying that is the amorphous “they” and it is not quoted from anyone, just some tired cliché offered by the author. However, I don’t know anyone who has been in the infantry for any length of time who believes that, though we almost all agree that having women in an infantry unit would be a mistake.

First, let’s clear up a common misconception. Most folks who are opposed to having women in the infantry (or combat arms units) are not necessarily against women in combat. It is a fact of life on the modern battlefield that women have been, currently are, and will be engaging in combat with the enemy. By and large, they have proven themselves capable fighters. They are being wounded, scarred, and killed in combat operations. They are as patriotic, courageous, and brave as their male counterparts. That, really, is not the issue.

Okay, women in ground combat arms role…

People have a lot of emotional issues here, and while it may be a great subject for Socratic discussion, I want to weigh in early with my 2 cents worth. Many of you have read most of this from me before.

Many people believe that there may be some valid issues concerning physical ability. However, on the surface of it, I have seen several Women Marines and Soldiers who could physically out run, overrun, and embarrass several male Marines that I have seen in a rifle company.

There is always some discussion about women getting killed / maimed / taken POW and/or raped by the enemy and the impact that it will have on frontline Soldiers or Marines. I say that this is a moot point. Having one of your comrades killed next to you, or to hold a Marine while he bleeds from his chest, or to have one gone MIA… it doesn’t matter if that individual is male or female. If they are part of your unit, they are as much a part of you as is your hand or eye. You will grieve equally long, and fight equally hard, regardless of their gender. The same thing goes for the enemy in your sights… it doesn’t matter if it is a man or woman shooting at you, their bullets are just as deadly and you won’t think twice when you squeeze the trigger.

My issue with women in infantry units has to do, not with their ability, but with the essential “good order and discipline” of the unit. It is not the skill of ANY individual that makes a unit combat effective. It is the cohesion of the unit. Anyone who is perceived as not pulling their weight has a detrimental effect on the remainder of the unit. Dissatisfaction with your chain of command is common, and frequently tends to increase the bond among those in the unit. But dissatisfaction within a unit, amongst its members, can be crippling. I am not saying that women would automatically slack off and that men never would. Each individual has a different make up – some can hack it and some can’t. Where I see the problem is that if a man is slacking off, or breaks down in a fit of tears, or simply quits, he will either receive a “friendly visit” from his peers in order to motivate him, or he will be processed out of the unit and into a support role. He might be pissed and try desperately to get back into a combat role, or he may take to that support role. What he won’t do, is file a complaint to his congressman claiming to have been discriminated against. I submit that if you put enough women in that situation, either some of them will file a complaint rather than face up to the fact that they couldn’t hack it, or some self-righteous crusader from the ACLU or NOW would do it for them. (It doesn’t take much research to find a myriad of lawsuits before the U.S. courts about some woman claiming she was denied a promotion in the business world because of her gender. Some of these lawsuits are justified, and some are not… however, no one’s life was at stake, and more importantly, national interests were not hanging in the balance.)

IT DOES NOT MATTER if there is any favoritism or not, merely the perception of favoritism, in either direction, is enough to spread the cancer of discontent within a unit. The hardships that an infantry line unit faces in combat are extreme. Trust in the person next to you, in front of you, and behind you must be complete. Training drills action and instinct into each person in a unit, and they learn to anticipate each other’s actions. I would hate to think what would happen to the cohesion of a unit if squad or platoon members were in an intimate relationship… (“Hey Gunny (SFC), the SSgt (SSG) is sleeping with LCpl (Spec) Smith and I always end up having to go on LP / take point / burn the shitters / carry the extra batteries / etc…. She used to be my girlfriend, but now the Platoon Sergeant is sleeping with her and he’s out to get me” – is it bullshit or true? It doesn’t really matter. It is a point of divisiveness that would destroy the effectiveness of the unit.) Or how about what would happen to cohesion when 10% of the unit becomes non-deployable because they are pregnant? (Look at what happens currently on some Navy ships – we used to have bets each month on how many sailors on the re-supply ship would be pregnant next time we did an un-rep) I’m not saying that all women would do this, all it would take is one.

On the modern battlefield, there will be plenty of opportunity for women to experience combat. The modern battlefield, what we call the “Three block war” will blur the lines between combatant and non-combatant. It will erase the idea of “the front lines” and bring the violence and bloodshed to all echelons. So, it is a given that women will participate in combat, and I have no problem with that, if they have volunteered for service, they have to be prepared to serve. I agree with you that if they are physically and mentally able and willing to serve, they should be given the opportunity. I also firmly believe that anyone wearing the uniform MUST be properly trained. That means combat training – enforcing unit and individual discipline. This has nothing to do with a woman’s ability, it has everything to do with the focus and concentration of a team when they come under fire and have to kick down doors and engage the enemy in the confusion and the dark.

My take on the whole controversy is this, and it applies to both sides… IT ISN’T ABOUT YOU! It isn’t about what is fair. It is about the unit, the mission, and the bond that causes Soldiers and Marines to die for one another. It is about selflessness and sacrifice, not selfishness. Study your history… men singled out for acts of bravery aren’t fighting for their country or cause, they are fighting for their comrades, their mates, their squad. It is about service to others and to something that is bigger than just themselves. The truck driver and the mechanic serve as well, as do the pay clerks and computer technicians. We all have duties and responsibilities. Either serve your country or don’t, just don’t whine about what’s fair. Male or female, it isn’t fair to die when you’re 19, it isn’t fair be crippled for the rest of your life – losing an arm or leg… or just having one that doesn’t work right, it isn’t fair to wake up years later sweating from the images that won’t go away. It isn’t fair telling parents that their son or daughter isn’t coming home. It isn’t fair for children to grow up knowing Dad or Mom only from the picture on the dresser.

It is a humbling and noble experience to serve with people from all walks of life who do great deeds under time of stress. I understand the desires that people have to want to participate. I encourage them to serve where they can, and give of themselves. The modern battlefield is such that opportunities for combat will be everywhere.

Combat is a deadly serious business, not some experiment in social equality or fairness.

Just my 2 cents.

[Batgirl]

I've lost track of the number of threads that have been set up to discuss this topic both here and on the old board and I would suggest if you've got the time, you do a forum search as there have been some good arguments made around this theme….

We should be allowed to choose what career path we'd like to take in the military.

I'm not going to come across as smug or self righteous in this thread because it wasn't that long ago I was arguing the same point that women should have the same career options provided they met the exact physical standards as male recruits. While I still maintain my core argument that there are some women who are physically and mentally up to the job and I've seen examples in the training environment where some female cadets are outperforming the males, I recognise this is only one part of the argument. A key lesson I've learned both since starting my training and also from listening to relatives and experienced members here is that it's not about the individual or what's considered equal or fair. As Vulture so articulately highlighted above, unit cohesion and discipline must always come first. Integrating women into combat arms units would have a detrimental effect on morale and overall military readiness would be jeopardised and no one wants that. National security and the ability of our armed forces to do the job they've been tasked with must always override any social experiments in political correctness.

[Panzerman]

In a startling revelation, the former commander of Abu Ghraib prison testified that Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, former senior US military commander in Iraq, gave orders to cover up the cause of death for some female American soldiers serving in Iraq.

Last week, Col. Janis Karpinski told a panel of judges at the Commission of Inquiry for Crimes against Humanity Committed by the Bush Administration in New York that several women had died of dehydration because they refused to drink liquids late in the day. They were afraid of being assaulted or even raped by male soldiers if they had to use the women's latrine after dark.

The latrine for female soldiers at Camp Victory wasn't located near their barracks, so they had to go outside if they needed to use the bathroom. "There were no lights near any of their facilities, so women were doubly easy targets in the dark of the night," Karpinski told retired US Army Col. David Hackworth in a September 2004 interview. It was there that male soldiers assaulted and raped women soldiers. So the women took matters into their own hands. They didn't drink in the late afternoon so they wouldn't have to urinate at night. They didn't get raped. But some died of dehydration in the desert heat, Karpinski said.

Karpinski testified that a surgeon for the coalition's joint task force said in a briefing that "women in fear of getting up in the hours of darkness to go out to the port-a-lets or the latrines were not drinking liquids after 3 or 4 in the afternoon, and in 120 degree heat or warmer, because there was no air-conditioning at most of the facilities, they were dying from dehydration in their sleep

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/013006J.shtml

[AmericanGirl]

I'm not military, but I will be the first to say integrated infantry units are probably not the greatest idea... now an all female infantry unit if the girls want to go for it...

I'm guess I have a couple issues with Panzer's post... I guess because it seems so unnecessary for anyone to have died from dehydration... first, if it's 120 degrees outside, I'm drinking water, period! ... two, if your going to the latrine late, find a pee buddy to walk to the latrine with you... safety in pairs... I may not be able to fight someone off on my own, but two against one is better odds. ...three, if I cant get anyone to go with me... I'm finding a bucket or a plastic bag to piss in, or have some sort of pepper or something to throw in someone's face, long enough for me to get away. It just seems like common sense to me, but anyone dying because they wont drink water seems senseless.

[Panzerman]

Yup, and anybody who's ever been to Victory knows that the article is total BS.

[ClutterbusterNY]

Col. Karpinski testified that "several" female soldiers died from dehydration.
My question would be, weren't these deaths reported by the DOD?
I looked at all of our female deaths in Iraq from 3/23/03 through 3/9/04 (even though
Sanchez transferred control of Abu Ghraib from Karpinski's unit to the 205TH MIB on 11/19/03).

http://museum.icp.org/museum/exhibit.../timeline.html

There were 18 deaths, (including one civilian Army employee) of these only 7 were non-hostile and only 2 of those occurred during the time of year when the temps could have reach 120 degrees...both of these were weapons discharges. I don't even know if any of these female soldiers were located at Abu Ghraib, but I wonder how she was able to verify several deaths due to dehydration.

http://icasualties.org/oif/female.aspx

[Panzerman]

Camp Victory is in Kuwait.

[ClutterbusterNY]

Originally Posted by Panzerman

Camp Victory is in Kuwait.