Panetta to Lift Ban on Women in Combat

[Duff_Man]

I just heard leadership is out inspecting all front lines combat areas for any materials that might be unprofessional or present a hostile work environment. Additionally, unprofessional language will no long be tolerated in combat situations. (i.e "###### me, they are shooting at us).

The bathrooms at Kandahar are the last bastion. A typical bathroom experience in a Porta-potty at Kandahar is like giving yourself a Dutch oven in a humid, plastic closet, filled with poo, that's been baking in a 110 degree dusty desert, under a nuclear devil sun, all day. The only things that bring an ounce of joy to the experience are the pieces of immature humor on the walls (reference below). And when they paint over aforementioned art, it regenerates faster than Homer Simpson's beard, like a giant genital-laden etch-a-sketch. Then you stumble outside, choking, and for a second, you don't mind the Poo Pond.

Who ever drew this gem in a Kandahar Cadillac needs to be hunted down and handed an ARCOM for boosting the morale of hundreds of people a day, in the worst place on Earth. But I guess I digressed a little.

I don't really think many people care about women serving in any job as long as they're not given ANY preferential treatment. 100 points on the female APFT run is something like 15:36, which is a 64 on the male scale, and by the way, below 60 is failing for infantry. But I think being able to compete with men physically extends much further than the 3 exercises on the APFT. It also means being able to hump 70-80 lbs of gear on 5 miles outbound from the FOB on a dismounted patrol over unimproved terrain in 8000' mountains at the same speed as the male counterparts and having enough energy for the 1 hour TIC on the return trip. It also means being strong enough to kick in doors and fight male combatants room-to-room in MOUT. If there's a woman out there who can do all that just as well as the man who would otherwise be in her place, then great, welcome aboard. But if woman are injected into units on 'weighted' scales which risk the lives of the entire unit, this 'program' will forever lose credibility.

[Duff_Man]

Completely disagree. This "equality" doesn't work in the extreme situations found in many combat units, because it violates "societal norms". And when you violate the "societal norms" of the people within that unit, I believe no good can come of it. Here's just 1 example (from today's Wall Street Journal):

The Reality That Awaits Women In Combat

A Pentagon push to mix the sexes ignores how awful cheek-by-jowl life is on the battlefield.

By Ryan Smith

America has been creeping closer and closer to allowing women in combat, so Wednesday's news that the decision has now been made is not a surprise. It appears that female soldiers will be allowed on the battlefield but not in the infantry. Yet it is a distinction without much difference: Infantry units serve side-by-side in combat with artillery, engineers, drivers, medics and others who will likely now include women. The Pentagon would do well to consider realities of life in combat as it pushes to mix men and women on the battlefield.

Many articles have been written regarding the relative strength of women and the possible effects on morale of introducing women into all-male units. Less attention has been paid to another aspect: the absolutely dreadful conditions under which grunts live during war.

Most people seem to believe that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have merely involved driving out of a forward operating base, patrolling the streets, maybe getting in a quick firefight, and then returning to the forward operating base and its separate shower facilities and chow hall. The reality of modern infantry combat, at least the portion I saw, bore little resemblance to this sanitized view.

I served in the 2003 invasion of Iraq as a Marine infantry squad leader. We rode into war crammed in the back of amphibious assault vehicles. They are designed to hold roughly 15 Marines snugly; due to maintenance issues, by the end of the invasion we had as many as 25 men stuffed into the back. Marines were forced to sit, in full gear, on each other's laps and in contorted positions for hours on end. That was the least of our problems.

The invasion was a blitzkrieg. The goal was to move as fast to Baghdad as possible. The column would not stop for a lance corporal, sergeant, lieutenant, or even a company commander to go to the restroom. Sometimes we spent over 48 hours on the move without exiting the vehicles. We were forced to urinate in empty water bottles inches from our comrades.

Many Marines developed dysentery from the complete lack of sanitary conditions. When an uncontrollable urge hit a Marine, he would be forced to stand, as best he could, hold an MRE bag up to his rear, and defecate inches from his seated comrade's face.

During the invasion, we wore chemical protective suits because of the fear of chemical or biological weapon attack. These are equivalent to a ski jumpsuit and hold in the heat. We also had to wear black rubber boots over our desert boots. On the occasions the column did stop, we would quickly peel off our rubber boots, desert boots and socks to let our feet air out.

Due to the heat and sweat, layers of our skin would peel off our feet. However, we rarely had time to remove our suits or perform even the most basic hygiene. We quickly developed sores on our bodies.

When we did reach Baghdad, we were in shambles. We had not showered in well over a month and our chemical protective suits were covered in a mixture of filth and dried blood. We were told to strip and place our suits in pits to be burned immediately. My unit stood there in a walled-in compound in Baghdad, naked, sores dotted all over our bodies, feet peeling, watching our suits burn. Later, they lined us up naked and washed us off with pressure washers.

Yes, a woman is as capable as a man of pulling a trigger. But the goal of our nation's military is to fight and win wars. Before taking the drastic step of allowing women to serve in combat units, has the government considered whether introducing women into the above-described situation would have made my unit more or less combat effective?

Societal norms are a reality, and their maintenance is important to most members of a society. It is humiliating enough to relieve yourself in front of your male comrades; one can only imagine the humiliation of being forced to relieve yourself in front of the opposite sex.

Despite the professionalism of Marines, it would be distracting and potentially traumatizing to be forced to be naked in front of the opposite sex, particularly when your body has been ravaged by lack of hygiene. In the reverse, it would be painful to witness a member of the opposite sex in such an uncomfortable and awkward position. Combat effectiveness is based in large part on unit cohesion. The relationships among members of a unit can be irreparably harmed by forcing them to violate societal norms.

Mr. Smith served as a Marine infantryman in Iraq. He is now an attorney.

Oh yeah, and I guess there's all of this stuff too. This is a little more extreme than what we went through. We were just annoyed when a female would ride in our MRAPs because it meant we couldn't urinate in empty gatorade bottles unless it was a borderline emergency. We didn't have to stand around naked, getting hosed off with a pressure washer.

[nsplayr]

Completely disagree. This "equality" doesn't work in the extreme situations found in many combat units, because it violates "societal norms". And when you violate the "societal norms" of the people within that unit, I believe no good can come of it.

Guess we just disagree then.

"Violating societal norms" has been done several times in the past within the U.S. military and there has yet to be the "unit cohesion-pocalypse" that had been predicted before each change. Women, blacks, female pilots, women on submarines, open homosexuals, etc.

There will be problems, as Mr. Smith points out, and we'll have to find ways to mitigate them. Hell, there are problems the AF is experiencing now with crating a "professional work atmosphere" and women have been in the military since 1948. Some of it is BS and some of the problems in the future will be raised by BSers who in reality can't hack it, no doubt.

So while I don't dismiss Mr. Smith's example (that sounded like it was horrible BTW), in my view the problems that will arrise are not so great as to preclude equality of opportunity. Pretend you wanted to do a job in the military, you thought you could hack the requirements, but were barred from doing so because you were a man. Imagine that job is really 240,000 jobs, many of which are the best tickets to reaching the top (i.e. combat arms in the Army), assuming reaching the top is your goal or maybe you really just have a hard-on for that job.

The Golden Rule applies...put yourself in the other person's shoes and tell me how you would feel.

Edited January 24, 2013 by nsplayr

[135ASelect]

Guess we just disagree then.

"Violating societal norms" has been done several times in the past within the U.S. military and there has yet to be the "unit cohesion-pocalypse" that had been predicted before each change. Women, blacks, female pilots, women on submarines, open homosexuals, etc.

There will be problems, as Mr. Smith points out, and we'll have to find ways to mitigate them. Hell, there are problems the AF is experiencing now with crating a "professional work atmosphere" and women have been in the military since 1948. Some of it is BS and some of the problems in the future will be raised by BSers who in reality can't hack it, no doubt.

So while I don't dismiss Mr. Smith's example (that sounded like it was horrible BTW), in my view the problems that will arrise are not so great as to preclude equality of opportunity. Pretend you wanted to do a job in the military, you thought you could hack the requirements, but were barred from doing so because you were a man. Imagine that job is really 240,000 jobs, many of which are the best tickets to reaching the top (i.e. combat arms in the Army), assuming reaching the top is your goal or maybe you really just have a hard-on for that job.

The Golden Rule applies...put yourself in the other person's shoes and tell me how you would feel.

Thanks for the insight nancy.

[osulax05]

The Golden Rule applies...put yourself in the other person's shoes and tell me how you would feel.

That's the problem right there. Decisions like this should have nothing to do with feelings or emotions. Like the article says, the only thing that should be considered is will this have a positive or negative impact on combat capability. I think most combat professionals would argue that this is merely a political move that will in the end hurt combat capability. I just hope no one is injured or killed as a result of this decision.

Edited cause I don't rite good

Edited January 24, 2013 by osulax05

[hindsight2020]

I heard a very good argument on XM radio today, where a male respondent argued to a female officer caller in support of the measure that if it is so true that females roll in seamlessly into the idiosyncrasies of frontline combat, then how come that is the same military currently riddled with so many accusations of sexual assault and violence against female military members?

The female officer dismissed the claim that the military has a sexual assault problem, at which point the guest, a quasi-SARC lady feminazi type, went bezerk against the female officer. It was a very compelling argument indeed, watching these two women who were in support of the measure essentially whipsawed against each other.

[Winchester]

Guess we just disagree then.

"Violating societal norms" has been done several times in the past within the U.S. military and there has yet to be the "unit cohesion-pocalypse" that had been predicted before each change. Women, blacks, female pilots, women on submarines, open homosexuals, etc.

There will be problems, as Mr. Smith points out, and we'll have to find ways to mitigate them. Hell, there are problems the AF is experiencing now with crating a "professional work atmosphere" and women have been in the military since 1948. Some of it is BS and some of the problems in the future will be raised by BSers who in reality can't hack it, no doubt.

So while I don't dismiss Mr. Smith's example (that sounded like it was horrible BTW), in my view the problems that will arrise are not so great as to preclude equality of opportunity. Pretend you wanted to do a job in the military, you thought you could hack the requirements, but were barred from doing so because you were a man. Imagine that job is really 240,000 jobs, many of which are the best tickets to reaching the top (i.e. combat arms in the Army), assuming reaching the top is your goal or maybe you really just have a hard-on for that job.

The Golden Rule applies...put yourself in the other person's shoes and tell me how you would feel.

This is shocking. Makes me wonder why there aren't any women in the NFL....

Ahem...I don't wonder that at all because NFL football is close to as physically demanding as you can get to comparing physical combat demands. (My speculation only). And guess what...even through the progressive lens of hurt feelings, equality, and standing up for the minority...women are not physically capable of a profession of those physical demands. Equal standards will prove this but chances are there won't be equal standards. Equal opportunity is cool and everything but we always ###### it up and tilt the table to the minority at the detriment of performance. Which is exactly why the NFL doesn't play such games. Performance is the true measure of ability I'm told.

Edited January 24, 2013 by Winchester

[theat6bisasham]

Erase the female standards from the military and make everyone meet the same ones - then I could give a crap who is there, I know they hacked the standard..whatever it may be. Until then, it's political nonsense and it's going to at best divide the troops and at worst kill people.

[hispeed7721]

Erase the female standards from the military and make everyone meet the same ones - then I could give a crap who is there, I know they hacked the standard..whatever it may be. Until then, it's political nonsense and it's going to at best divide the troops and at worst kill people.

Checks.

As long as there are two separate standards there is a line in the sand that can't be overcome by adding people to different career fields

[matmacwc]

This too will break under its own weight, much like Obamacare (maybe the plan in the latter)......And oh yeah, shut up Nav.

[lloyd christmas]

The Golden Rule applies...put yourself in the other person's shoes and tell me how you would feel.

OMFG Nav. Its fucking combat we are talking about here.

[Fuzz]

OMFG Nav. Its fucking combat we are talking about here.

The practical applications mean nothing to liberals/progressives, just look at the economy, gun control, ect.

[LockheedFix]

The Golden Rule applies...put yourself in the other person's shoes and tell me how you would feel.

You liberals and your feelings. Imagine how I feel every time I walk past a women's locker room and realize I'll never realize my life's dream of getting to change clothes in there. And the Golden Rule applies here , because I also wish women could come in the men's locker room and change clothes

[nsplayr]

That's the problem right there. Decisions like this should have nothing to do with feelings or emotions.

You're right, but it should factor in values. I don't think this was really a hot-button, emotional, knee-jerk reaction issue...it came as a pretty big surprise when the story broke. Apparently they'd been working on it at the Pentagon for a while.

This is shocking. Makes me wonder why there aren't any women in the NFL....

Great example chief...that totally negates your point. There is no rule that prohibits women from playing in the NFL. None.

You're right that no woman has played in the NFL nor would one playing be very likely, but they're banned by performance, not by policy. That's exactly what the new DOD rules will be, limits based on performance, not on arbitrary policy.

It's exactly what I think there should be; its not that I think there should be or in reality will be a bunch of female SEALs running around anytime soon, but if someone wants to try by God let them and see if they measure up. The Marines just tried this, failed out the women who didn't make it, and looks like no butts were hurt anymore so then when dudes fail out. That's the ideal model so let's make that happen.

Its fucking combat we are talking about here.

Yes, combat, I'm aware of what we're talking about. If you wanna throw spears for putting this into place talk to the Joint Chiefs who recommended this to SECDEF apparently without any newsworthy fanfare (unlike the DADT debate). But I guess those guys don't know WTF they're talking about either WRT combat...

You liberals and your feelings. Imagine how I feel every time I walk past a women's locker room and realize I'll never realize my life's dream of getting to change clothes in there. And the Golden Rule applies here , because I also wish women could come in the men's locker room and change clothes

Valid criticism and I share your dream. It's really a Dr. King-type dream, that one day my children and their children can serve honorably in a military like that of Starship Troopers, where tits and ass flop around freely while covered in hot water and soap

[lloyd christmas]

Yes, combat, I'm aware of what we're talking about. If you wanna throw spears for putting this into place talk to the Joint Chiefs who recommended this to SECDEF apparently without any newsworthy fanfare (unlike the DADT debate). But I guess those guys don't know WTF they're talking about either WRT combat...

Nice deflection. I wasnt commenting on anything but your liberal, pansy ass, unrealistic views.

[LockheedFix]

That's exactly what the new DOD rules will be, limits based on performance, not on arbitrary policy.

I say there's no fucking way this happens. The left will have its way and women will be held to a lower standard as has always been the case with this issue. I hope you're right for once, but i just don't see it happening.

[nsplayr]

Nice deflection. I wasnt commenting on anything but your liberal, pansy ass, unrealistic views.

Cool, my views are so fantastical and unrealistic that they're now official policy. Congratulations on your dissent, the DOD will march on.

[Winchester]

Nsplayer that what I said at the end. Performance based. I agree let them try but not at the compromise of performance standards. Do you really think it will be though?

[disgruntledemployee]

If any woman wants to join the infantry and fight head-on with the enemy, I suggest a test. I'm not young, I'm not in the best shape of my life, and I'd even go as far as to assume I represent a typical man in this world and something that our Army or Marines could potentially face. If said woman can kick my ass in a fight, she can join the ranks.

Out

[lloyd christmas]

Cool, my views are so fantastical and unrealistic that they're now official policy. Congratulations on your dissent, the DOD will march on.

My bad. Our senior military leaders and politicians would never lead us down the wrong path.

[billy pilgrim]

If Panetta thought so strongly about this and he had the moral courage (which I would expect no less from someone placed in this position with this much responsibility) I would think he would've initiated this change much earlier vice on his way out.

That aside, I would say this is generally a terrible idea for two reasons:

1) If women are held to the same fitness standards as men this will not be a factor, but I really feel that in the name of "fairness" they will not be. Women when held at a lower physical standard than men will place themselves and the men they are serving with at danger for obvious reasons.

2) Most men will generally try to protect women from danger. This complicates tactics for the squad leader etc... For example, who is leading off to go clear that house? Two people are wounded - which one do you drag to safety? The PC answer is that this shouldn't matter, but the probable answer is that it does and it will.

The bottom line is that we should not be putting American lives in danger in the name of "fairness".

If fairness is the name of the game promotion should certainly not be based on natural abilities and everyone should be given an equal shot at promotion, leadership etc... Combat is not fair.

[brickhistory]

Same physical standards upheld or not (they won't be), same capability to be a down-in-it grunt or not, adding females to male-dominated/oriented high-stress situations like, say, combat simply adds another, and very primal, stressor to the equation.

Males, of any species, are males (save for the 10% gay ones that liberals like to make comparisons to) and will be influenced, usually negatively, by having females in fight situations. I will call BS for anyone that says introducing females into flying squadrons, artillery BNs, etc, hasn't produced ccok fights, friction, and trouble related to the mixing of males and females. It is, not even human, animal behavior. Add in house-to-house, getting the bejeezus shot out of you on a ridgeline, etc, etc, etc, and it's gonna cause problems.

Ivan/Li Xu/Hajji, etc, are gonna have fun with this one.

I am not hating on the females who do the job now. This is not about you the individual. This is about biology.

Good luck, LT Snuffy, of 1st Platoon. You are gonna need it...

[Guest one]

"I read somewhere their periods attract bears. Bears can smell the menstruation."

"Well, that's just great. You hear that, Panetta? Bears. Now you're putting the whole military in jeopardy."

[nsplayr]

Nsplayer that what I said at the end. Performance based. I agree let them try but not at the compromise of performance standards. Do you really think it will be though?

I certainly hope so. I uphold the same standards regardless of gender or whatever else when I'm instructing students, hopefully the ground combat dudes at the various pipelines schools will continue to be empowered to do the same. If that's not the case at some point down the road it's bad implementation of an otherwise good policy.

Males, of any species, are males (save for the 10% gay ones that liberals like to make comparisons to) and will be influenced, usually negatively, by having females in fight situations.

I agree with you that men will try to protect women, but are you really saying that gay men are somehow different and don't protect women in the same ways as straight men? You must know different gay guys than I do...what's your basis for that claim?

I will call BS for anyone that says introducing females into flying squadrons, artillery BNs, etc, hasn't produced ccok fights, friction, and trouble related to the mixing of males and females. It is, not even human, animal behavior. Add in house-to-house, getting the bejeezus shot out of you on a ridgeline, etc, etc, etc, and it's gonna cause problems.

100% agree there are problems caused by this, that's obvious. But the problems are worth getting the values question right and at least in my experience the benefit of having some ass-kicking chicks flying with me has far outweighed the costs of a little gender-based friction from time to time. YMMV.

[nsplayr]

...and situations where lives are at risk is not the place to make political headway.

This has been said during every single sociological change ever implemented by the military and I'd argue exactly the opposite.

In the military you have people who work closely together to achieve common goals under harsh and stressful situations. That's a pretty good place for people to see past their inherent biases and realize we're all underpinned by something shared and decent and good as human beings. That doesn't preclude problems, but I think it makes it easier to integrate "X" population in the military than it does in just a random group of Americans in some other average profession.

*** Plus, not surprisingly, McChing was on Fox News all day advocating in favor of it, ....so right there you know it's a terrible idea.

This is hard to argue with, she seems truly awful.

Edited January 25, 2013 by nsplayr