Should Women Fight in Combat?

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

The House is debating who should decide whether women can fight in combat this week. This issue surfaces every few years. What do you think about it?

Let lawmakers decide
By Thelma Drake
USA Today 5-24-05

This week, the House of Representatives will debate whether the Defense Department or the American people should decide if women fight in direct ground combat.

Under Pentagon policies established by former Defense secretary Les Aspin in 1994, America's military branches are not allowed to assign females to small commands "whose primary mission is to engage in direct ground combat," such as infantry, armor and artillery commands.

Last week, the House Armed Services Committee included a provision in the National Defense Authorization Act to ensure that the military maintains the current policy against requiring women to serve in ground combat units and to prevent any potential move to subvert Congress' constitutionally mandated oversight responsibilities.

The provision would not remove any female service members from their positions. I repeat: Zero changes would be made affecting women in the military. The bill in Congress would simply make today's Defense policy our nation's federal policy as well.

More important, Congress would be held accountable by the people for any future decision regarding women fighting on the front lines. This is how it should be.

As a woman in Congress, I am a strong and avid advocate for breaking down barriers and creating opportunities for every woman. There are more women in Congress today than ever before. Women own nearly half of America's small businesses, and they serve with distinction and honor in the positions they fill within the military.

As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, and as representative of the nation's most heavily military congressional district, I unequivocally support the women in our military and their desires to serve our nation honorably in the armed forces alongside our men.

Military policy has been to keep women off the front lines, and it is a policy that the Defense Department should not unilaterally change. I believe any change in this policy must be the responsibility of Congress, so that America's elected officials can be held accountable.

Rep. Thelma Drake, R-Va., is a member of the House Armed Services Committee. (The panel's chairman, Rep. Duncan Hunter, declined to offer an opposing view. Committee staff arranged for Drake's commentary.)
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-05-24-oppose_x.htm

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 11,856 • Replies: 191

No top replies

Nope.

0 Replies

Currently women in the military are put through physically demanding, rigorous training, including weaponry, as are the men. Does it seem odd that women would be trained for combat and then be barred from using this training?

Or should women be receiving this training at all?

0 Replies

Just as with men, there are some women who are capable of combat duty, and some not. I think that this option needs to be discussed with the potential service person at recruitment. If a woman wants to be in combat, and qualifies physically, why not?

0 Replies

NPR broadcast a segment on its afternoon news program yesterday in which a number of women now serving in Iraq were interviewed on this subject. They were all dismissive to contemptuous of the current bill now in Congress. A number of them, particularly NCO's and junior officers pointed out that while no women currently serve in frontline combat units, many serves in close support units that might find its self engaged in combat on occasion. It would completely undercut the authority of these officers if they were required to train their unit for combat but remove themseleve in conditions where combat was a possibility. They saw this bill as an attempt to restrict the careers of women in the military and were not at all in favor of it. Further it might be noted that women serving in the Navy are on ships that might at any moment find themselves under attack. I have a sister who was a Naval Officer (now retired) and she had a command (advance fleet intel/recon) that frequently put her in the air in situations where she might have been shot at. All of these positions and the possibilities for advancement that go with them would be denied to women wishing a military career.

0 Replies

Let's discuss the story of Private First Class Jessica Lynch. It's a story of a 19 yr old girl who signed up for the military to get tuition money and ended up getting raped mercilessly by Saddam loyalists

This story truly has to be one of the most bizarre, butchered, and hyped stories of all time. Lynch - an army clerk - was taken captive after a shoot down between Iraqis and Americans. She, and only she, was rescued by American soldiers in an Iraqi hospital. The whole thing was taped, the media went nuts over it, and liberals, conservatives, and feminists alike have not really been able to decide how they are going to take the whole story.

The only real set divide is between people who support the war and those who don't. Anti-war advocates, from the very beginning of the Lynch story, were crying that the military was lying about certain things regarding the rescue. It turns out they were right. Anti-war protestors have complained, consistently, that the story was nothing more than hype to drum up support for the war. And, vice versa, pro-war and, in particular, pro-military people have seemed to embrace Lynch. The fact that her book is being released on Veteran's Day is proof. Marketers know that military people support her and that sales will go up when pro-military, patriotic fever is high.

Jessica Lynch: Proof That Women Should Not Be In The Military

0 Replies

Doctors should practice medicine. The Pentagon should manage the Armed Forces. Congress should focus on the budget and affairs of the nation.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Nope.

Why?

0 Replies

One of the key components of the libertarian point of view is that everybody should have the right to assume whatever risk s/he wishes to assume; however, the one assuming the risk should accept the consequences and be responsible for whatever the outcome might be. The freedom to assume risk does not include the right to subject others to risk.

Some years ago, I read an account of the Israeli military that went into combat with men and women fighting alongside each other. After that conflict, the Israeli men stated never again. The natural instinct of men to protect and provide assistance to the women was dangerously distracting and excessively emotionally stressful, especially when the women were wounded.

Americans who oppose women in combat usually give a different reason. If both have had equal training, it would be a rare woman who can better a man in hand to hand combat. If somebody needed to be lifted out of a burning tank or aircraft, a strong, muscular buddy is preferred to a 130 lb woman. Currently, women in the military do not have to meet the same performance standards that are required of the men.

But as Phoenix said, how can we have equality if those women who can meet the same standards as the men and want to fight are not allowed to fight? Or should the psychological factor be a factor? Should the particular vulnerability for female prisoners of war (rape) be a factor?

Men and women are different. Should that be a consideration?

0 Replies

For an accurate account of Jessica Lynch's ordeal see this web site:

http://www.answers.com/topic/jessica-lynch

For a contemporary account see the following Washington Post article:

A Broken Body, a Broken Story, Pieced Together
Investigation Reveals Lynch -- Still in Hospital After 67 Days -- Suffered Bone-Crushing Injuries in Crash During Ambush
By Dana Priest, William Booth and Susan Schmidt
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, June 17, 2003; Page A01

Washington Post Link

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Currently, women in the military do not have to meet the same performance standards that are required of the men.

Women should be held to the same standards. If you need to have brute strength to accomplish something, then if a woman is incapable of it she shouldn't be allowed to do it. It is a matter of life and death sometimes. However, there are a lot of women who could kick some of the guys currently serving asses. So why shouldn't they be allowed to fight?

0 Replies

I agree. I was going to answer the thread title simpley with "if they want to", but I guess it should be "if they want to and are able".

0 Replies

The only thing I would imagine keeping women out of combat would be physical strength.

Carrying 50 lbs of gear and then trying to get a fellow soldier who has been injured off the battlefield might be a bit tough. Otherwise, I see no issue at all.

Women certainly have the stamina, drive, intelligence, etc to be on the battlefield.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

The only thing I would imagine keeping women out of combat would be physical strength.

Carrying 50 lbs of gear and then trying to get a fellow soldier who has been injured off the battlefield might be a bit tough. Otherwise, I see no issue at all.

Women certainly have the stamina, drive, intelligence, etc to be on the battlefield.

Exactly. I know I wouldn't physically make it so I wouldn't even try. But lots of women could and should.

0 Replies

McG writes

Quote:

Women certainly have the stamina, drive, intelligence, etc to be on the battlefield.

If this is the case, why aren't women required to carry the same weight in their packs as the men are required to carry? Why don't they have to complete the bayonet assault course in the same amount of time as the men? Why aren't women required to do the same number of push ups?

I think the strongest woman is not going to be as strong, as fast, or have the same stamina as the strongest man.

I say this as a grand champion feminist, but I believe in keeping things real.

Unless some think women can achieve the same physical proficiency as the men, should that be a consideration when it comes to women on the front lines?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I think the strongest woman is not going to be as strong, as fast, or have the same stamina as the strongest man.

Most MEN aren't as strong or fast as the strongest man.

0 Replies

That's true. But probably most men have the capability to meet the minimum standards for men in the Army infantry. I would guess very very few women can. The question is, should they have to?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

That's true. But probably most men have the capability to meet the minimum standards for men in the Army infantry. I would guess very very few women can. The question is, should they have to?

Yes. There should definitly be a standard that ALL military persons must meet. Male or female. It's like with firefighting. I don't know about you but I don't want someone who is not 100% able to carry my dead weight out of a burning building working in MY city.
Check this out. These are just two websties on the physical tests firefighters have to go through. If a woman can successfully do this, go for it. This is the same feeling I have about the military.

Seattle

Scottsdale

0 Replies

I am reasonably fit and have a strong back. I regularly carry a 20-lb computer pack on my back when I am working and I am feeling it after running up and down flights of stairs during a day of appointments. I can't imagine carrying the weight of an IBM selectric typewriter up a couple of flights of stairs, much less a 150-lb victim.

Pressure, however, has been put on many Fire Depts. across the country to lower physical standards for female fire fighters, such as it happened in the military.

I agree, it just isn't right and I think it puts people at risk.

But if a woman can meet the minimum standards required for the guys, then there would be no other reason to exclude her?

0 Replies

Women should only be in the Military to give men pleasure.

0 Replies

Should Women Fight in Combat?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know