7 in 10 Americans support allowing women in ground combat

Politics • 3/16/11 1:29:11 pm • Views: 838

Seven in 10 Americans support permitting women in the military to serve in ground units that engage in close combat, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

The findings come as the Pentagon is preparing to review whether women should still be barred from combat units even though many of them frequently engage opposing forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Recent Pages by researchok:
The Hierarchy of Sports John Brennan: Obama's Controversial CIA Pick Is the Best Man for the Job How the New York Times Screwed Martin Luther King Jr. Parrot Confounds German Police by Sounding Like an Abandoned Child Theater-Only Blockbuster Movies Playing on Computers Near You

Jump to bottom

21 comments

Bob Dillon Wed, Mar 16, 2011 1:46:36pm

Not a good idea.

Bob Dillon Wed, Mar 16, 2011 1:54:58pm

[Link: poliquicks.com...]

Woman in combat units?
by H. THOMAS HAYDEN on JANUARY 17, 2011
The Administration’s “Military Leadership Diversity Commission” is reported to be about to announce a recommendation that women should be allowed to serve fully in combat,

Big time bad idea.

The commission says that it is seeking to dismantle the last major area of “discrimination” in the armed forces. The commission was established by Congress two years ago. The panel is to send its proposals to Congress and President Obama. According to initial reports, “It is time to create a level playing field for all qualified service members.”

“To provide a level playing field” for what?

Better idea is to send all the Commission members to a combat out post and then walk a combat patrol. You can’t judge an all out war (World War II and Korea) and all its brutality on both sides by the nation building /near casualty free engagements going on today in the Iraq and Afghan.

It has been reported that there are approximately 32,000 women in the U.S. military, comprising about 13 percent of the total U.S. Armed Forces (Defense Almanac 1995). It is certainly important to give women an equal opportunity in the military but a combat role will not be equal.

Most studies found that men would be overly protective for women.

Women cannot carry the same loads required of long combat patrols. Most soldiers and Marines carry over 70 lbs on a normal insert to a new combat base. Rangers and Special Forces carry up to 120 lbs on their missions.

Normal female needs will be difficult at best in desert operations with no cover or concealment.

Think sexual harassment is bad now – wait until this proposal gets more light of day.

Lidane Wed, Mar 16, 2011 2:16:06pm

Women have already seen combat on the ground in both Iraq and Afghanistan. They're already fighting in war.

There's no reason to keep denying them combat roles. It's already going on anyway.

Lidane Wed, Mar 16, 2011 2:19:01pm

re: #2 Bobibutu

Most studies found that men would be overly protective for women.

Women cannot carry the same loads required of long combat patrols. Most soldiers and Marines carry over 70 lbs on a normal insert to a new combat base. Rangers and Special Forces carry up to 120 lbs on their missions.

Normal female needs will be difficult at best in desert operations with no cover or concealment.

Think sexual harassment is bad now – wait until this proposal gets more light of day.

This is a massive pile of offensive, sexist bullshit. Change every mention of a woman to the minority of your choice and the ignorance and idiocy on display is even more obvious.

wrenchwench Wed, Mar 16, 2011 2:23:50pm

There are arguments to be made against women in combat, but I don't think H. Thomas Hayden is the one who will make them. This line:

Normal female needs will be difficult at best in desert operations with no cover or concealment.

is evidence of that. Not to mention every article I've read by him seems to be 50% baloney.

And regarding the argument about the weight carried in combat, I have two comments:

1) what if only women who can carry that much were assigned to combat, would you still be opposed?

2) I have read recently that men are breaking down under those enormous weights. What should be done?

wrenchwench Wed, Mar 16, 2011 2:25:09pm

re: #1 Bobibutu

Not a good idea.

Can you elaborate on your own thoughts on the subject? I have more respect for you than for the guy you linked to.

Mickey_being_mickey Wed, Mar 16, 2011 2:37:33pm

re: #5 wrenchwench

Normal female needs will be difficult at best in desert operations with no cover or concealment.

I've done two combat tours as a Cav Scout and I don't even know what this means.

wrenchwench Wed, Mar 16, 2011 2:45:16pm

re: #7 Mickey_being_mickey

I've done two combat tours as a Cav Scout and I don't even know what this means.

And I've done a 53-year tour of duty as a "normal female" and all I can think of is that he thinks women can't pee outdoors.

Mickey_being_mickey Wed, Mar 16, 2011 2:46:59pm

re: #8 wrenchwench

They can't? Hmm I remember one LOGPAC.....

Bob Dillon Wed, Mar 16, 2011 2:58:26pm

re: #6 wrenchwench

Can you elaborate on your own thoughts on the subject? I have more respect for you than for the guy you linked to.

For me personally, I feel the last place for a woman is in harms way. Also, women are givers and celebrators of life vs. takers. And the woman who raised me was born in the 1880s - so I acknowledge that my mindset may seem a bit Victorian. So, in a nutshell - there it is.

wrenchwench Wed, Mar 16, 2011 3:27:54pm

re: #10 Bobibutu

For me personally, I feel the last place for a woman is in harms way. Also, women are givers and celebrators of life vs. takers. And the woman who raised me was born in the 1880s - so I acknowledge that my mindset may seem a bit Victorian. So, in a nutshell - there it is.

I appreciate your sharing that, although it does seem a bit Victorian. Some women have no choice but to protect themselves throughout their lives, and I'm sure they never want their sons nor their daughters in harm's way. And they can't give and celebrate life without a man's participation.

I have some sympathy for your outlook, and the way you stated it shows that you understand not everyone shares it. The women who want to go into combat will always be a minority, and I couldn't do it, but I think those who want to should not be prevented from doing so for the wrong reasons. I also think the way promotions favor those who have lead others in combat needs to be looked at, so that good leaders who haven't been in combat aren't left behind.

Bob Dillon Wed, Mar 16, 2011 4:03:23pm

re: #11 wrenchwench

Your points are well taken. It is a tough issue. There are very tough and very capable women who choose to serve in the military.
And yes, having combat experience is a big consideration in promotions. I would rather there be an appropriate alternative for those ladies. Women are too precious to be lost to or damaged by the violence of war. I am a Vet and in addition spent four years in Nam. You may not care for the opinions of the guy I linked to - however, if I were to have to go in harms way and could pick my leader - he would be on my very short list. (He and I are both much too old for that sort of stuff anymore).

wrenchwench Wed, Mar 16, 2011 4:47:00pm

re: #12 Bobibutu

Women are too precious to be lost to or damaged by the violence of war.

I happen to think men are equally precious. Their loss and damage in war is tragic.

You may not care for the opinions of the guy I linked to - however, if I were to have to go in harms way and could pick my leader - he would be on my very short list.

I guess leadership in battle and political analysis are two different, not necessarily overlapping, skill sets.

I am a Vet and in addition spent four years in Nam.

That's why I was interested in your opinion. There is no substitute for experience.

Bob Dillon Wed, Mar 16, 2011 5:42:54pm

re: #13 wrenchwench

I happen to think men are equally precious. Their loss and damage in war is tragic.

Fair enough, but in my world women always are more so. In most conflicts during recorded history tho - wars are fought by warriors and most warriors are and have been men.

I guess leadership in battle and political analysis are two different, not necessarily overlapping, skill sets.

Touche. I will pass that on to him. ;-)

That's why I was interested in your opinion. There is no substitute for experience.

Agreed - thanks.

Bob Dillon Wed, Mar 16, 2011 10:44:45pm

re: #5 wrenchwench

1) what if only women who can carry that much were assigned to combat, would you still be opposed?

2) I have read recently that men are breaking down under those enormous weights. What should be done?

1) there is much more to combat than being able to hump 70 - 120 lbs for hours on end. Fully trained and qualified ... very rare I would think. Not enough to start changing the rules to satisfy the few. Still opposed. Fly a chopper gunship or fighter - stay out of ground combat.

2) its 3 a.m. - where are the guys who hump a lot of weight regularly? - (artillery teams for one) - They are in the gym - pumping iron before they go on their 5 mile morning run. They are dealing with, adapting and overcoming - it never ends. Men, in general, put on muscle faster than women.

The warfighting labs are developing lighter stuff for the troops constantly. Problem is there is so much more of it the total weight is a constant ongoing issue. A lot of the stuff is mandatory - you must wear or carry it.

Bob Dillon Thu, Mar 17, 2011 7:12:55am

re: #3 Lidane

Women have already seen combat on the ground in both Iraq and Afghanistan. They're already fighting in war.

There's no reason to keep denying them combat roles. It's already going on anyway.

To quote Col. Hayden again ... "You can’t judge an all out war (World War II and Korea) and all its brutality on both sides by the nation building /near casualty free engagements going on today in the Iraq and Afghan."

I think the 7 out of 10 Americans have never witnessed an Amphibious Assault. Or have considered what it means to be ready willing and able, without hesitation to gut another human like a fish (ex-husbands are exempt from this consideration). Non-combatants were packing heat in Nam and sometimes using it. That did not qualify them for a ground combat role. I agree with Col. Hayden about the present conflicts where IEDs are the greatest threat followed up by snipers. This is not an appropriate benchmark to base such a decision on. Doing so will cost a lot of lives unnecessarily. Politics gets more people killed in wars - always has - always will.

Bob Dillon Thu, Mar 17, 2011 8:38:06am

re: #8 wrenchwench

And I've done a 53-year tour of duty as a "normal female" and all I can think of is that he thinks women can't pee outdoors.

I think the point he is making is that women can pee just fine out of doors - however when surrounded by men with high testosterone levels to start with and adrenalin pumping in intense situations - it might be wise to have as much blood as possible delivering oxygen to their brains - so their minds are totally focused on the task at hand - to create a distraction, any distraction, would be unwise. And for most men - just the memory of GI Jane taking a leak might prove distracting.

And BTW - he has commanded several thousand men and women at the same time and knows from direct experience the problems that mixing genders creates.

I may be in the minority - but I consider myself one of the informed and experienced minority. The majority have never been in combat and don't know WTF they are talking about or really proposing.

wrenchwench Thu, Mar 17, 2011 9:05:58am

re: #17 Bobibutu

I think the point he is making is that women can pee just fine out of doors - however when surrounded by men with high testosterone levels to start with and adrenalin pumping in intense situations - it might be wise to have as much blood as possible delivering oxygen to their brains - so their minds are totally focused on the task at hand - to create a distraction, any distraction, would be unwise. And for most men - just the memory of GI Jane taking a leak might prove distracting.

So, the normal female needs are not the problem, it's the normal male needs that are the problem. In that case, I would ask two things: 1) that H. Thomas Hayden admit that is the case he is making, and 2) that research be done to determine whether that is the case, currently, with the troops now serving, not speculation on what the case WAS two decades ago.

And BTW - he has commanded several thousand men and women at the same time and knows from direct experience the problems that mixing genders creates.
I may be in the minority - but I consider myself one of the informed and experienced minority. The majority have never been in combat and don't know WTF they are talking about or really proposing.

I respect your experience, but attitudes do change over time, as evidenced by the recent demise of DADT. Also, I learned from a comment of yours elsewhere on this board that you are still a youngster compared to the veteran I live with. I have to respect his experience also, and he doesn't always agree with you. Although he usually does.

Bob Dillon Thu, Mar 17, 2011 9:23:19am

re: #18 wrenchwench

It is the gender mix in life threatening situations that is the problem. Most men will always defer to the well being of the female - its in our DNA - no more study required. Anthropology has documented it well.

Yeah - I'm not even dry behind the ears in the senior community I live in.

My thanks to the veteran with whom you live for his service.

wrenchwench Thu, Mar 17, 2011 5:18:26pm

re: #19 Bobibutu

It is the gender mix in life threatening situations that is the problem. Most men will always defer to the well being of the female - its in our DNA - no more study required. Anthropology has documented it well.

Yeah - I'm not even dry behind the ears in the senior community I live in.

My thanks to the veteran with whom you live for his service.

I will tell him that, and I thank you for yours.

Bob Dillon Fri, Mar 18, 2011 9:31:12am

More grist for the mill ... and this is just for Iraq and Afgh ... not all out war.

[Link: www.usatoday.com...]

Female soldiers' suicide rate triples when at war

The suicide rate for female soldiers triples when they go to war, according to the first round of preliminary data from an Army study.

The findings, released to USA TODAY this week, show that the suicide rate rises from five per 100,000 to 15 per 100,000 among female soldiers at war. Scientists are not sure why but say they will look into whether women feel isolated in a male-dominated war zone or suffer greater anxieties about leaving behind children and other loved ones.

Auto

This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2016-01-01 10:29 am PST LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds Tweet

Help support Little Green Footballs!