Bush Pentagon Moving To Force Women Into Land Combat

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 01:15 PM
link   
Because of the deteriorating situation in Iraq, and the obscene lack of troops needed for this clusterfuKK, RUmsfeld's DoD is resorting to this new tactic (placing female troops into ground combat). Is there a law or a rule Rumsfeld has not or will not break?
And, he refuses to consult with congress and the President, on top of it. IF Bush were actually in charge and understood what was actually going on, he would shut Rumsfeld down immediately. But he's not, so he can't. And congress? Fuhgeddabouddit.


It's bad enuff that our women in uniform are already in harm's way. But to go even further, placing them alongside their male counterparts in offensive and defensive actions, is foolish in the extreme. Female soldiers are serving with excellence; however, there are factors that should seriously be considered regarding this new approach. Bottom line is this: Can women endure the same physical riggors as their male counterparts in the field and in the heat of combat? I'd say maybe 2% could. The rest physically can't.

If women want to be in ground combat units that's one thing. But forcing them, assigning them to it is a whole different ballgame. Women in combat roles should be forced to pass the men's physical fitness standards, otherwise, no way. If they can't meet those same requirements, they're putting everyone else's lives in danger.



BUSH PENTAGON MOVING TO FORCE WOMEN INTO LAND COMBAT
12/9/2004 9:44:00 AM

Officials Ignore DoD Rules, Congressional Notification Law
The United States Army plans to force female soldiers into land combat units, despite current regulations and a law requiring prior notice to Congress. CMR has learned that some Army leaders believe there might not be enough male soldiers to fill the new “unit of action” combat brigades. They are therefore making incremental changes in policy that will soon force young unprepared women—many of them mothers—to fight in land combat.


Information and official briefing documents obtained by CMR indicate that the soon-to-deploy Third Infantry Division is ignoring a Defense Department rule that exempts female soldiers from support units that collocate with land combat troops such as the infantry. Defense Department and Army officials have also violated a law requiring prior notice to Congress if rules affecting female soldiers are changed.


Left unchallenged, these actions could quickly affect all land combat units, including Special Operations Forces and the Marine Corps.


Since March of 2004, both civilian and uniformed Army officials have been trying in various ways to gender-integrate sub-units of combined infantry/armor “units of action” (UA) combat brigades in the 3rd Infantry Division.


Strategies tried so far have involved violation of current rules governing the assignment of female soldiers in land combat units, unilateral redefinition of those rules, or implementation of inefficient organizational plans that would sacrifice the advantages of self-contained, modular organizations in the Army’s new combat brigades.


In pursuing these shortsighted courses of action, the Army has already violated current regulations regarding women in combat, which were established as official policy in 1994 by then-Defense Secretary Les Aspin. Officials have not provided any rationale for ignoring DoD policy, compromising the efficiency of the new units of action, or forcing female soldiers into land combat units for the first time in America’s history.
www.cmrlink.org...


This just goes to show how off the rails and "off the mark" Rummy and Wolfowitz of Arabia are.



Edit: changed out the all CAPS title.

[edit on 19-12-2004 by Seekerof]




posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 02:24 PM
link   
I feel that having women in combat on the battlerfield will make men be more conscious about them and will make them more vulnerable of their own safety while worrying about the safety of their fellow female soldiers.

Now, that Rumsfeld is going to do this without proper authorization is indeed mind bugging and wrong.



posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 02:55 PM
link   
It is an all volunteer army, therefore, none are 'forced' to do anything.
Everyone volunteers. If you don't want to risk going to combat ...
don't sign up.

However, I should note that women have been, and still are, in
combat anyways. This notion that women aren't in combat is kinda'
silly. I don't understand why there is such a fuss about it. Jessica
Lynch was in combat, wasn't she? The military says 'no women in
combat'. .... but obviously we are already there.

When I went through basic training in the early 1980's, I trained
with an M16, an M60 machine gun, grenades, a grenade launcher,
and a few other weapons. I was in an all girl basic training company.
If women weren't in combat, and were not supposed to be in
combat, then why were we all trained on the biggie weapons?
Answer - because OF COURSE we were going to be in combat.

I'd still like to see the old WAC (woman's army corp) come back.
All the women in the same unit. All the men in other units. It's
better. We women were not as physically strong as the men.
We all wanted to serve our country, but honestly, we weren't
as physically able as the guys. I remember that I had a jeep
in the motor pool (the Chaplain's jeep) that I was responsible
for. I was 5'7 and 105 pounds. I couldn't get the tire off that
jeep for anything ... I wasn't strong enough. When I did my
monthy PM on the jeep, I'd always go over to where the tankers
were working on their jeeps and get them to help. I couldn't do
it. ... Yep. ... WAC would be the best. We could serve our
country, and not be a weak link.


[edit on 12/19/2004 by FlyersFan]



posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 04:52 PM
link   
Well I don't see anything wrong with women wanting to fight but as now the role of the women in the arm forces is not very define and also is protected.

Now as for Jessica, she was not in a combat role or unit she was in a supply line, when they were attack and occurs they do have the right to engage under attack.

I remember it was quite some controversy about that incident.



posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043


Now as for Jessica, she was not in a combat role or unit she was in a supply line, when they were attack and occurs they do have the right to engage under attack.


Your absolutly right Marg. Jessica Lynch was NOT filling a combat role. She was a supply personel She was never supposed to see actual combat, even though she was trained for it in boot camp.

I think Women are quite capable of handeling themselves in a combat role. However, I dont think men are capable of handeling women in a cambat role. Men would start becoming to emotinally involved with women of thier combat unit. Im not saying they would fall in love or anything like that. But rather, a man would feel an added responsibility to protect the women of combat. The Russians ran in to the same problem in WWII with thier sniper teams. Its a little known, but well documented fact that the Russians used women to fill many sniper roles during the war. The sniper teams kept running into problems when the genders were mixed in the teams, but when they started outting the same gender on the same team, the women outperformed the men in thier snioer roles more often than not.

The women are capable. Its the men that cant handle a women in combat.



posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kidfinger
I think Women are quite capable of handeling themselves in a combat role. However, I dont think men are capable of handeling women in a cambat role. a man would feel an added responsibility to protect the women of combat.
The women are capable. Its the men that cant handle a women in combat.
t

And that is my point, women are capable of handling the front just like any men, but the role of men and women in our society has become so defined that men will always have that duty of taking care of the female.

Its nothing wrong with that but when it comes to a battlefield is does.



posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 07:40 PM
link   
Equal rights issue here?
Mis-informed a bit there, ECK.
Try this:


Several important policy changes have been made since the Persian Gulf War most notably President Clinton's signing of the military bill ending combat exclusion for women on combatant ships and fighter planes.


You didn't have a problem with it then, did you?
From the same article:


But there is a majority of the American public, especially American military families, who encourage and even support women playing an enhanced role in the armed services.

As the times change and more opportunities are presented to women to serve in the armed forces, many experts believe that the U.S. will eventually include women in combat missions. The Iraq War will provide U.S. women soldiers with the chance to prove their opposition wrong.

Women in Combat: Women Join the Men in the Fight for Freedom

Seems that you wish women to not have those "opportunities" to "prove" wrong those proponents against women being in land combat? Oh, wait, your one of those proponents against, eh?





seekerof



posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Seems that you wish women to not have those "opportunities" to "prove" wrong those proponents against women being in land combat? Oh, wait, your one of those proponents against, eh?



Seems more like he is upset that a woman will soon be able to do every job he used to do.



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 08:47 AM
link   

I remember that I had a jeep
in the motor pool (the Chaplain's jeep) that I was responsible
for. I was 5'7 and 105 pounds. I couldn't get the tire off that
jeep for anything ... I wasn't strong enough.



You shoulda had a buddy hold the wrench while you stood on it, and then jumped up and down, onnit.



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof


Seems that you wish women to not have those "opportunities" to "prove" wrong those proponents against women being in land combat? Oh, wait, your one of those proponents against, eh?

seekerof


You didn't consider what I said. If you were wounded and needed to be hauled to safety, do you actually believe a 120 lb female, with at least 40-60 lbs of equipment strapped onto her, could pick you up and/or drag you to safety? I'd bet good money you'd feel a lot better if that soldier was a 180 lb guy.

The bottom line is this, women are very capable of many things, combat included, if they must; however, most women are simply not compatible with combat and the conditions. Then there's the whole range of female health issues to consider. Women, biologically, don't fare as well in harsh and filthy conditions. That's reality.

I've always said, if women want to perform in combat roles, let them pass the men's physical standards. If they could, I wouldn't have a problem with it. The truth is, however, most can't; and most don't even want to.



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HAND


Seems more like he is upset that a woman will soon be able to do every job he used to do.


You have no idea how far off you are, junior.



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 09:03 AM
link   
Those concerns aside, the reality is women are in combat. Since the Gulf War, at least, there have been no real front line and rear as we've known in the past. That doesn't mean women should be sent into infantry, tho, for example. Drill Sgts should be a lot harder on the girls now, train them better and stress just what kind of dangers they actually will face, unlike most who came before them.

[edit on 19-09-2003 by EastCoastKid]



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
When I did my
monthy PM on the jeep, I'd always go over to where the tankers
were working on their jeeps and get them to help.

[edit on 12/19/2004 by FlyersFan]

Now that ladies and gentlemen is smart thinking.



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by FlyersFan
When I did my
monthy PM on the jeep, I'd always go over to where the tankers
were working on their jeeps and get them to help.

[edit on 12/19/2004 by FlyersFan]

Now that ladies and gentlemen is smart thinking.


One question.. What if they had not been there? FlyersFan woulda been SOL. That was the original point. No offense, FF

Don't misunderstand.. there are a lot of guys who can't hang. Half our guys wouldn't go to Airborne/Air Assualt schools. Their rationale: Why would I jump out of a perfectly good aircraft?!
I did it. But then, I'm just crazy as hell.



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
One question.. What if they had not been there? FlyersFan woulda been SOL. That was the original point. No offense, FF

Yeah but she got a bunch of tankers to help her didnt she? (no offence FF)
Thats good officer level thinking.


Don't misunderstand.. there are a lot of guys who can't hang. Half our guys wouldn't go to Airborne/Air Assualt schools. Their rationale: Why would I jump out of a perfectly good aircraft?!
I did it. But then, I'm just crazy as hell.

Air assualts are fast and furios, HALO drops!
Yeah same with royals and navy (strangely though...)



posted on Jan, 5 2005 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
One question.. What if they had not been there? FlyersFan woulda been SOL. That was the original point. No offense, FF

Yeah but she got a bunch of tankers to help her didnt she? (no offence FF)
Thats good officer level thinking.


Good thinking? Sure. But what I said was, what if they weren't there? Then what? She would've had to do it, or be not fully mission capable.



posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid


Good thinking? Sure. But what I said was, what if they weren't there? Then what? She would've had to do it, or be not fully mission capable.

Ah, good point.
Point is that she was thinking with her head not with her biceps.



posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by EastCoastKid


Good thinking? Sure. But what I said was, what if they weren't there? Then what? She would've had to do it, or be not fully mission capable.

Ah, good point.
Point is that she was thinking with her head not with her biceps.


Sometimes in the military ya gotta have the brawn. If those guys weren't there, she'd be screwed - unless she could figure out a different way to get it done.



posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 04:30 PM
link   
ECK, I've done that before, hold the wrench down with some tape and glue and jump on the mother, the dang nut was rusted on and couldn't get it off. But I didn't have big strong men to help me.. just me, and not strong, well, arm wise anyways, I bet i could out bike anyone here, both speed and distance, unless one of you is Armstrong, then I'd lose, but other then that....

Well, women can fight, but men, in this enviroment, have been taught to protect women, if the women are there fighting, what are they protecting?



posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser
ECK, I've done that before, hold the wrench down with some tape and glue and jump on the mother, the dang nut was rusted on and couldn't get it off. But I didn't have big strong men to help me..


Sounds like you used your big, strong brain.



I bet i could out bike anyone here, both speed and distance, unless one of you is Armstrong, then I'd lose, but other then that....


I know you could beat the hell outta me and my cigarette-smokin' ass at this point.
New Years Resolution: Get my a$$ back into the gym.



Well, women can fight, but men, in this enviroment, have been taught to protect women, if the women are there fighting, what are they protecting?


I don't care what anyone sez, most men are gonna do whatever they can to look out for the women they're with. It's natural. But, just the same, if the girl's an expert shot, or something else, they'll let her do her thing. It's hard, though.

One thing that gets downplayed: It's more difficult for women in the field health-wise. Men are just better equipped physically to live in that harsh environment. For example, what happens if a woman gets some kind of infection? She'll have to either suffer or get evacced. Men don't have those problems.

I'm not dissing women in combat, just discussing the various issues surrounding it.





new topics
top topics
 
0

log in

join