There's an aspect of this subject that hasn't been covered.
That is the right to vote. If women are not to be drafted in time of war, then those women should not be allowed to vote. It seems very wrong to give someone the power to vote for wars without being subject to conscription themselves.
I find it particularly offensive for gung ho, flag waving, conservative, support your troops, make war not love, bimbos having the right to send my sons off to war.
You"re a female citizen and deserve to vote, but only if you share the same risks.
There should be physical, mental, psychological and stress tests--and whatever test they can come up with--for each applicant.
Man or woman--the test scores track you in to the assignments you are capable of.
Women will likely score into the combat capability much less often--but it would be an unbiased way to make the call. IMO.
What are the precedents in human history for putting women in actual combat? I don't think there are many.
Lash writes
Quote:There should be physical, mental, psychological and stress tests--and whatever test they can come up with--for each applicant.
Man or woman--the test scores track you in to the assignments you are capable of.
Women will likely score into the combat capability much less often--but it would be an unbiased way to make the call. IMO.
It would be unbiased and at face value is an excellent suggestion. The thing it fails to allow for, I think, is human nature. As it is now, all personnel enlisted into the Armed Forces are assumed to be physically fit and capable of doing whatever duty is needed. I think as soon as the word got out that it was possible to serve in the Armed Forces with no possibility of being sent into combat, we would see a lot of folks intentionally flunking their fitness tests to ensure themselves of a secure cushy desk job at government expense.
Of course some say that is exactly what the women can have now and that isn't fair to the men. When women are assigned to less hazardous duty, that means there are fewer less hazardous jobs for the combat troops to be rotated into. In other words, those serving in the military who are assured of no combat roles fprce those who are assigned to combat roles into much longer exposure to higher risk.
There are no easy answers to the issue I think.
Foxfyre wrote:I think as soon as the word got out that it was possible to serve in the Armed Forces with no possibility of being sent into combat, we would see a lot of folks intentionally flunking their fitness tests to ensure themselves of a secure cushy desk job at government expense.
Many young people who go into the armed forces now do so with the notion that they will fulfill a needed job but not in combat. Combat can come in many forms. It seems to me that most people only object to women serving in close ground combat. Nobody, for instance, appears to be saying that women should not fly fighter jets or man ships. Not being in combat does not at all mean not going to war.
As to the fairness of employing people in the service who don't have to serve in combat, both men and women occupy positions that are not involved in combat, and that won't change. The military is a massive industry. Why should anyone, in an all volunteer military, resent someone who has taken a non-combat role in the armed forces? You need all of them.
Freeduck writes
Quote:As to the fairness of employing people in the service who don't have to serve in combat, both men and women occupy positions that are not involved in combat, and that won't change. The military is a massive industry. Why should anyone, in an all volunteer military, resent someone who has taken a non-combat role in the armed forces? You need all of them.
Playing devil's advocate here for a minute, I think you missed the point there though Freeduck. Should there be non-combat roles in the armed forces or should all jobs in the armed forces be filled by combat-capable people with people rotating in and out of the more hazardous duty. There could be exceptions made for critically essential personnel such as doctors, but why should some of the troops be put at more risk because all or most of the non-combat jobs are filled by people who don't want to take any risk?
I got your point, but I was adressing the way things are. I see no reason why it would change to the scenario you describe. If so, we would need age limits and we wouldn't be allowing amputees to remain in the service. We also might have an even more difficult time meeting recruiting goals.
And I'll again make the point that there are all kinds of combat. what would it mean, for instance, to be combat-ready in the navy? Wouldn't that be very different from combat-ready in the marines?
Currently, I'm not aware of any kind of general resentment in the military by those who are involved in close combat of those who are not.
So, as to the question, should there be non-combat roles in the military? There absolutely must be. You need people on the deck of an aircraft carrier to guide the planes. You need mechanics and laborers to repair tanks. You need clerks to keep track of where these things are and what shape they are in. You need someone who understands the massive network of computers and databases that make the organization run. You need marine corps tuba player. It doesn't make sense to cross train every person, especially when their jobs require highly specialized training, as many do.
So, as to the question, should there be non-combat roles in the military?
Freeduck writes
Quote:There absolutely must be. You need people on the deck of an aircraft carrier to guide the planes. You need mechanics and laborers to repair tanks. You need clerks to keep track of where these things are and what shape they are in. You need someone who understands the massive network of computers and databases that make the organization run. You need marine corps tuba player. It doesn't make sense to cross train every person, especially when their jobs require highly specialized training, as many do.
I think the mechanics at tje front, medics, and those guys on the deck of aircraft carrier are at risk, and they all have to complete the training the combat soldiers/sailors/airmen/marines complete. In time of war all are subject to being shot at and the duty they are doing isn't entirely nonhazardous even when they aren't.
There are some appropriate civilian roles. My parents ran the commissary on a POW base here in New Mexico during WWII and neither were in the military. (All their brothers and various assorted others of our relatives however, were fighting overseas for most of four years.) Should those going into the military, however, all know what the potential risks are? It still doesn't feel fair that some should be assured of less hazardous duty and thus ensure that others will have to assume more hazardous duty than otherwise might have been the case.
And that comes back to the whole issue of whether women should be subject to combat. If they are not, the men have to do more of it. If they are, will the men be put at higher risk anyway as few women can do everything the men can do?
It seems however, that at least some military commanders don't want to lose the women in their units, so they do not seem to have the same questions I do. And, all things considered, even I am willing to give them more say in the matter than I have.
Edited to correct screwed up quote that Freeduck figured out anyway.
Foxfyre wrote:I think the mechanics at tje front, medics, and those guys on the deck of aircraft carrier are at risk, and they all have to complete the training the combat soldiers/sailors/airmen/marines complete. In time of war all are subject to being shot at and the duty they are doing isn't entirely nonhazardous even when they aren't.
This is the reason I asked for clarification on what we are calling combat. Hazardous duty (which comes with an increase in pay) is not the same thing as combat. There's no reason to expect that women can't perform hazardous duty and there are no physical requirements for hazardous duty.
Quote:Should those going into the military, however, all know what the potential risks are? It still doesn't feel fair that some should be assured of less hazardous duty and thus ensure that others will have to assume more hazardous duty than otherwise might have been the case.
Do you think that people who join the military DON'T know the risks? I would think that would be fairly evident. It's an all volunteer military and if you're not willing to be killed you ought not to join. That said, there's no reason to resent others for not having to assume the same risk should they end up with jobs that seem less dangerous.
Quote:And that comes back to the whole issue of whether women should be subject to combat.
And that brings me back to "what's combat"? There's no reason why women can't perform the sort of hazardous duty I mentioned in my earlier post. If you consider that combat, then ok. If it's not, then ok. There is a difference between close combat and hazardous duty that occurs when deployed to a battle.
Quote:It seems however, that at least some military commanders don't want to lose the women in their units, so they do not seem to have the same questions I do. And, all things considered, even I am willing to give them more say in the matter than I have.
Perhaps they have a better perspective. If there are jobs that can employ the less able-bodied (including disabilities) then why fill them with able-bodied folks who could be better used elsewhere just out of a sense of fairness? Where's the sense in that?
And I don't want to give the impression that I'm saying that women should not be allowed in close combat. If they are willing and able then they should be allowed to do it. But I am conceding that there would be fewer women in combat if physical requirements were the same for everybody -- which is what I advocate.
Freeduck asks a question which at face value seems simplistic, but when you think about it, it is a question that has to be answered before the question that is thread starter here makes a lot of sense. What do you have to do to get a combat medal?
What is combat?
Is it just the guys flying the planes, advancing the tanks, huddling in foxholes? Going door to door to rout out insurgents?
Or is combat also the guys launching the planes, putting the tracks back on the tanks, staffing the M.A.S.H. unit near the front, flying the medivac chopper etc?
What does everybody think?
Should women engage in combat?
Assuming anyone should engage in combat, why not women?
I've met many a woman capable of extreme violence. Why not direct such urgings towards the national interest?
How typical. Six pages of opinions (mostly in favor of women in combat), posted by individuals who have no first-hand experience, no stake in the issue, will share no part in the repercussions, and face the issue as an "equal opportunity" matter instead of one of combat effectiveness. Here are a short list of the reasons why women are banned from direct combat roles, and ones which would prove excaberated if a host of liberals hoping on the feminist bandwagon as their "cause of the month" had any bearing on the matter: (Highly unlikely. Thankfully.)
- women cannot physically endure some of the grueling aspects of combat roles. Many men cannot either, which is why they wash out of Ranger school, Special Forces, Seals, or even the plain infantry. On my last mission I carried an eighty pound ruck up a mountain for six klicks. That did not include my rifle, ammunition, grenades, or water. I weigh 160 lbs, rather light for my job, and it was difficult for me. I have never met a woman who could do the exact same trek, without substantially slowing us down.
- even if a (stress "a" as the numbers would be extremely low) woman could endure the same rigors, travel at the same speed, etc, there would be the logistical matter of meeting her feminine needs. A patrol base out in the mountains, jungle, what-have-you, provides no privacy for her (something that is absolutely necessary to avoid sexual harrassment complaints, or simple friction between team members. If the woman happened to be menstruating this would be an impactful matter (medical issues and tactical ones). And if the patrol needed to be extended, say from one week to two, a woman without the chance to wash anything would be at risk of infection. (Personal experience with an experienced female interpreter.)
- there is no demographic necessity. Are we lacking in male members of the population to fill the combat slots: No. Only 15% of the armed forces is counted as "combat arms" (infantry, special ops, jet pilots, marines, etc), from a force of approximately 2.5 million (including National Guard and Reserve) this represents only 375,000. The CIA Fact Book listed the following for the United States:
Military manpower - availability:
males age 18-49: 67,742,879 (2005 est.)
Military manpower - reaching military age annually:
males: 2,143,873 (2005 est.)
This should serve as a common sense rule of thumb that we are in no desperate shortage of men.
- if you concede that we don't need the women to fill the slots based on some perceived populational shortage, than the only reason to allow women in combat is sociological. This eliminates, completely, the combat effectiveness arguement from the equation. Now we're talking about politics. A good military is one where the policies, strategies, and tactics, are not derived from the political waverings of the moment. Basically, the only reason that can be offered is "I'm a liberal and I think it imperative that women be allowed every single opportunity that a man is, even when it is in detriment to the overall combative power of the military, most women in the military have no wish to participate, and the physical requirements can only be met by a very small percentage of the available female workpool." Simply put, it's a complete triviality.
Lusation, if you test all the people you have available to fight across all the criteria you have presented and some of the best performers are women, would you still exclude them? Why?
I thought Lusatian just explained it quite succinctly and persuasively, Earl.
I'm not so sure he did.
I'm not really committed one way or the other but I see holes in the argument.
Lets pretend: I'm a very large, very strong weightlifting woman. I have a hormonal imbalance due to a hysterectomy in my mid-teens. I don't menstruate. My prospects for living a "normal" womans life are slim...but I love combat, because hey, I'm good at it. I can beat the crap out of any man I've ever met and I can pass all of Lusatian's tests no problem. On what grounds should I be prevented from following the career I have chosen?
The problem with generalization is that it ignores the outer limits of the bell curve.
Again playing devil's advocate as I haven't formally declared a position on this one yet:
Even with your scenario, Earl, you can't get around the 'no privacy available in a foxhole' issue or the adverse affect on a platoon when the element of sex is brought in. From a purely sociological point of view, marriages for instance are stressed enough during long periods of deployment. It is unreasonable to believe that stress isn't greatly increased by the constant temptation working (and sleeping) side by side with a sexually attractive coworker. Or the social and military stress when a combat soldier gets pregnant.
And while I think there should be a constitutional amendment separating the military from political correctness, I cannot in my wildest dreams imagine the American public accepting a criteria that a woman must be 'ugly as a mud fence and repulsive to men' in order to be acceptable for front lines combat.
Let's send FoxFyre to Iraq. People would lay down their arms just to have her shut up.
Traditionally, the majority of people have made a cultural decision that women should be protected rather than asked to share the protecting.
