BREAKING: Panetta removes military ban on women in combat, opening thousands of front line positions

Originally posted by InTheLight
reply to post by Logarock

 

I'm not arguing with you, I am simply posting articles about female combat soliders worldwide and what they have to say. BTW since you didn't read any of the articles, they are 'thrilled' about this.

I really have to ask something here. Is this a personal cause for you in driving the point home?

I'm not being snarky and I mean this as a legitimate and serious question. I've been on my share of threads like this but page after page after page you've stood out as perhaps the strongest and most determined advocate of putting women in combat positions to directly kill and die like everyone else on the battlefield that I think I've seen outside of media talking heads.

So the question I really have here is... Are you serving or do you plan to serve and take advantage of this new policy? It seems to me, anyone advocating what will eventually get women put into places they DID NOT necessarily want or ask for would be a little ...odd... if not doing so with personal stakes in the issue?

Listen (key here) and watch the video in this news article. I'm just reporting the updated news on this; just call me a poster who likes to keep everyone informed as I am about this.

www.kare11.com...

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


I have to admit I never even thought to ask this question.

It darkens the soul to even consider that one would argue to put others "in harms way" without being willing to join them.

I know thats not what you meant, but it is where my mind automatically went after reading your post.

reply to post by InTheLight

I hadn't asked for a video link to hear other's opinions again. I've heard that for years as noted by what I said in being a part of threads like this many times before. I'd asked your own PERSONAL stake in this, since you've essentially left a foot print the size of a T-Rex on the last several pages. I'd think to see the singular focus you're devoting that you may be serving at the moment and have a real personal stake to seeing this all come out....at least I'd hope?

Otherwise, it's volunteering others to fight with both foreseeable and unforeseen consequences likely to come that at least make it a point to ponder in that way.

It's also got me curious how you're dismissing virtually every argument and logic put forward by those who have been there, done that and spent their time in combat and on the battlefield. That isn't me....I haven't. I base my opinions and form my thoughts on this issue, in large part, from those who have though. So...personal stake?

* Just to double check myself and make sure I wasn't being over dramatic or imagining things..I went and counted. the thread has a little over 320 messages ...and 59 of them are yours. That's what I keyed on for being curious about the source of the devotion for this topic?

reply to post by InTheLight


Here's more information on what people are saying about this. The times they are a changing.

www.ibtimes.com...

reply to post by 200Plus


What should darken each of our souls is the worry female combat soliders may have certain fellow comrades that won't protect their backs and have violent intentions towards them.

So, it seems my post count on this thread is suspect to all sorts of accusations rather than it's true intent, being to share the news. I'll leave everyone with the first thought in mind.

I am a retired Special Forces Officer and former enlisted man to boot with experience as an 11B, 97B, 18C, 35E and 18A in combat.

I just want to put something into perspective for people in general and InTheLight in particular.

Less than one percent of the US population have ever served a day in the military.

it is not surprising to me that the "majority" of Americans are all for it. However, to be frank the "majority" of Americans and even the "majority" military personnel have no real idea what extended combat operations are like and the demands they put on people.

Only 10% of those that have served have ever experienced extended continuous combat operations. We hardly have long missions nowadays of continuous combat - more short duration type things; 96 hours then head back for showers and a hot meal. I for one doubt no military member’s courage, I have seen a registered nurse (female) fight valiantly in a firefight, and we have numerous examples of women getting medals for valor and such. However, these are one off incidents not extended combat operations.

All that said, perhaps the face of combat is changing and we will no longer have to worry about extended combat operations. I am just glad I don't have to face the leadership challenges that are going to shake out of this "feel good" social experiment. A lot of good men are going to have their careers ended (through all the drama and conflict this will create) so that a few women can "get their chance". I suppose to some that is a fair trade to me it's a questionable one.

On the issue of SF and women - the failure rate for men in selection is 70%. Also, of note is that peer ratings and evaluations are a key part of this selection. Most people who are not selected make the physical standards but are peered out... They will have to seriously consider the weight of these peer ratings as most guys will peer women in the bottom regardless of their physical ability. Because being on an SF team is not so much being able as it is being acceptable - fitting in, not creating drama and friction in the cohesion.

The peer standards will have to change (be removed or given less weight in the selection) for women to have any chance of making it - which is counter to having the best...

It is going to be a nightmare for the military leadership - period. Is it really worth the drama?

Originally posted by InTheLight
reply to post by InTheLight

 

Here's more information on what people are saying about this. The times they are a changing.

www.ibtimes.com...

I see here that you believe all this is good and that women can do the vast majority of combat rolls. The problem is your whole belief is based on internet articles. This is a common problem here on ATS where people will defend to their grave an idea that is totally developed by their ability to pick and chose internet articles that fit their belief. The internet is great, but when that is all you have to go on, it really doesn't come close to actual experience in the subject. Also a person tends to be bias as they search and only read things that aligns with what they think is right.

The only thing you do when you link an article that is aligned with your beliefs is to reinforce just your own beliefs. It does little to influence those that have actually experienced combat. You link 25 articles and say see I'm right, where many of us truly know what war is like and disagree.

Even a country like Israel that has mandatory enlistment for men and women do not put women in combat roles. They tried it for about three years and dropped it. I also touched on a subject that now women can be drafted into combat roles against their will, so do you like that scenario? You see it all as greater choices for women and I see it as the opposite. There are biological reasons why men are bigger and stronger, more aggressive, willing to kill etc than women. A big part of that is the testosterone in our bodies. This drives us to be as we are, and estrogen drives women to be as they are.

So with all that said I would just like you to look at the other side of this issue too of what negatives might be a part of it all, and also look at yourself and ask if back when you were 18 if being drafted and handed a gun and 100 pounds of gear and told to fight would have worked out for you or not. That is ultimately the end result to all this

.

Originally posted by InTheLight
reply to post by LennayTheUndead

 

I am simply posting information on female soliders and their point of view, who are actively in combat roles for everyone's informational purposes, which you obviously didn't bother to read, which BTW you are free to choose not to read...note the phrase 'free to choose.

I've read it. OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN! It's the only thing you have been saying. You are refusing to acknowledge that I have been there, done that....seen the very thing you are describing, which is women actively serving in "combat roles"....you don't know what you are talking about, because you are insistent that a "combat role" is a forward, ground infantry unit and it is not. The women I have served with in Iraq, struggled to serve in their "combat roles"....there is absolutely no way in hell they would last in an infantry unit. They would not last in a Cav unit. They would not last in a Recon unit. Some would. That's fine, and I've never disputed that. The fact however, is that the majority (keep in mind less than 1 percent of this population has SEEN combat, in any way shape or form) of women in this country, would be a liability in direct forward combat operations. If you wish to continue to disregard, ignore, downgrade and chastise the knowledge of those of us such as myself, who have served in combat roles with women, that are separate from the combat we are discussing when discussing women being allowed in combat units, then you truly are either failing to comprehend what is being discussed so much that you should just keep your opinion to yourself, because it is wrong, or you are trolling. There is no in between.

Originally posted by InTheLight
reply to post by Logarock

 

My evaluation of the articles I posted match the journalists' evaluations, as well as the U.S. military PTB that agree that women are not only capable and valuable assets, but they deserve equal rights, hence the removal of the ban. I know it's hard for you but shooting the messenger won't change anything.

Your evaluation doesn't mean a whole lot when it's put up against the "evaluations" of those of us who have served and have seen what we are talking about with our own eyes.

Journalists evaluations don't mean a whole lot when they are put up against the "evaluations" of those of us who have served and have seen what we are talking about with our own eyes.

And the "US Military Powers That Be" are some of the most out of touch people in the world in terms of what is ACTUALLY happening on the ground in any theater of combat operations. Just stop with your nonsense.

Originally posted by InTheLight
reply to post by cavtrooper7

 

Until there is peace in the world, which may never be - let's face it - we will need qualified people on the frontlines who will be highly trained in combat fighting and if a woman can handle it (physically and psychologically), why oppose it? I'm not getting what the problem is here.

edit on 26-1-2013 by InTheLight because: (no reason given)

The point is we DO need the MOST qualified people. Not "more" close to qualified people....

Originally posted by InTheLight
reply to post by Logarock

 

So are the female combat soliders in the articles I posted, yet you refuse to acknowledge what they have to say.

I can see the women entering into this area of the military will have many difficulties to surmount with attitudes the way they exist, if left the way it is (similar to the law enforcement problems).

Hopefully, with the weeding out of the existing 'problem children', as the male officers call them in some articles I have seen, and all military women and men reporting abuses and deviant behaviour, great improvements for the system and all soldiers can be achieved.

You are aware of the fact that women have NEVER been held to the same physical standard as men in the United States Military? Aren't you? Do you know why that is?





Because if they were held to the men's standard, across the board, very few women would even be SERVING in the military as desk jockeys or medics...let alone Infantrymen...

Originally posted by InTheLight
reply to post by Logarock

 

You are confused. Why not just accept the unban as reality and move on?

edit on 26-1-2013 by InTheLight because: (no reason given)

My guess would be because he is prior service, has seen what war is, and knows what a liability it is to put women in forward combat operations...All you have essentially said in this thread is "to hell with what any experts, people with this very experience that is being discussed, know to be fact....they should just deal with the increased risk of being killed in combat because they had to depend on soldiers who (try as you might to want to believe this is about "qualified" women...)were simply not AS QUALIFIED AS THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN.....

Originally posted by InTheLight
reply to post by Logarock

 

I'm not arguing with you, I am simply posting articles about female combat soliders worldwide and what they have to say. BTW since you didn't read any of the articles, they are 'thrilled' about this.

There aren't any female "combat soldiers" worldwide....and to discredit you again, every single service member I have discussed this with, and we are talking about veterans of foreign wars...is not the least bit supportive of this moronic decision. There is a vast difference between equality and stupidity....I know you are on the side of the latter...

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by InTheLight
reply to post by gangdumstyle

 

That would be her decision not yours.

Do you think a woman like yourself could take orders from a man in a line company? Could you take yelling from a man, in combat, without being offended? Could you take direction and criticism from male peers? You know you cant fall back on that "its her decision" mind set when you have a responsibility for another persons life.

You already indicated that you would have conditions for watching someones, a mans, back if he didnt talk to you properly. You think I want a woman like you watching my back? You shouldnt be anywhere near men in a life and death situation with an attitude like that. And further if they do put females in ground units they need to test for these sort and weed them out.

I'm anxious to hear of the first woman who is "beaten" in Ranger, Sapper or Special Forces School, then we can listen to idiots argue about how grotesque men in the military are....and the standard will lower again so as not to imply we are "beating women"....

Originally posted by 200Plus
reply to post by Logarock

 

You can"t fight opinion with experience. You have 99% of the facts on your side, but only that 1% matters to some people.

Let them try and let them pass or fail. Even with a lower standard, there are ways to get them out of combat units (as we both know). Even men that do not have "the gear" to serve, fall by the wayside when it's crunch time. Why should women be any different.

You are not going to change her mind, but good luck to you.

And when the few women who can meet the same physical standard as men, but do not possess the fortitude to be infantry soldiers, or the ability to be a killer by trade, are removed from their units, we will hear this all over again, about sexism.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


I would just like to commend you on your contributions to this thread. You should give a class on critical thinking....a lot of people here could use it...

Originally posted by InTheLight
reply to post by 200Plus

 

What should darken each of our souls is the worry female combat soliders may have certain fellow comrades that won't protect their backs and have violent intentions towards them.

So, it seems my post count on this thread is suspect to all sorts of accusations rather than it's true intent, being to share the news. I'll leave everyone with the first thought in mind.

edit on 26-1-2013 by InTheLight because: (no reason given)

I'll continue the education with a response to this post....You wouldn't know this, but in combat, if your comrade is wounded. If you comrade is pinned down. If you comrade is up # creek without a paddle...Your first priority is your mission. If you refuse to understand how integrating women into these situations (again, FORWARD combat operations), puts every single man in their respective units at a much higher, unnecessary risk (as we have been doing this war fighting thing for years, pretty well at that) then it is you who is refusing to worry about MALE combat soldiers being unprotected, or protected less than they should be. You'd be hard pressed to find a single soldier in the military that would willingly let their brother or sister in arms die. Which is precisely why it is imperative that women are nowhere near the real battlefield, not the logistical one...it seems to me that you aren't comprehending that 1 dead soldier is better than 2 dead soldiers....

Don't women go through the same exact boot camp and basic training? If they are already rucking with 40+ lbs over rough terrain for that, why are they suddenly going to become unable to do so when overseas?!

reply to post by InTheLight


Before I post what I really want to, I'm going to ask you to explain this.

Did you seriously just imply that I would cause harm, or allow to come to harm, a fellow service member?