LF(CMO) said:
How many women are there serving in combat roles in the USMC? That should be proof enough.
Being in a "Combat Role" no longer defines who will see combat and who won't - that is what the whole "Three Block War" idea is about. If people want to define their argument on "Women in Combat Roles", then they have to re-adjust their argument, because OEF and OIF are clear examples that "Combat" does not pick and choose trades to affect.
Besides, most of us on these Forums have continually expounded on the "Every Soldier is a Rifleman First" mentality on these threads. It would be silly to bar women from certain trades in the Army but insist that they are "Riflemen First" and ensure that combatives are ingrained on them as part of their training regimen.
Anyways, this thread is starting to turn into a ranting opinion piece (that the subject always falls back to) - it is easy to see that there are Good Soldiers, many who've Been There and Done That and seen the Elephant, who argue for either side of the argument - so there are obviously good points for both sides.
However, as someone pointed out, this is a political issue from the Government - we, as professionals, take our orders and soldier on. Military Training Standards is a separate issue then Female integration, and it should not be something that the government should be interfering in - if it is, then it is overstepping its bounds with regards to a healthy level of civil-military relations.
I still think that were getting our Olive Drab underpants in a knot over a non-issue here. It is not as if the Military as an Institution as become "Martha Stuartized" by suddenly allowing women to do everything. The military, which hinges on aggression and violence, is still a very focussed institution, an "Alpha Male environment" (For the correlation between Males and Aggression, see Michael Ghiglieri;
The Dark Side of Man). Most females, for social and other reasons, will really have no desire to serve in the Army - the Combat Arms especially; this is reflected in the "equilibrium" that we've reached today with all doors open to Males and Females.
As Kirsten Luomala (where do I recognize that name from?
) was keen to point out, on OP APOLLO had 28 (3 Combat Arms) in a BattleGroup of about 800 (If I recall correctly). What is this, like 3.5% (even less for "Combat Roles"). Is this really such a big thing that it is going to mean the immediate collapse of combat capabilities tomorrow (which those who are against the principle seem to believe)? The lovely thing about being in a Liberal Democracy is that we've given everybody, regardless of plumbing, the ability to succeed if they wish. The nature of the job has kept things in equilibrium, with those Females who are up to the job being more then able to serve their country beside Male soldiers. The thing that we should focus on is ensuring that
Standards are kept objective, so as to ensure that everybody has an equal opportunity (as defined by Combat Requirements) to "Wash Out".
That being said, my personal views on the topic (which I'm not going to post, as they are irrelevent), my two main concerns for the military are:
1) Standards which are affected by things other then Combat Requirement - as I said before, if standards are being affected for
Any group for political purposes, then our civil-military relations are out of joint. As asserted above, "Readiness and Training Standards" and "Women in Combat Roles" are two separate issues; anyone can be "physically unable to do the job".
2) The culture of entitlement that seems to be affecting a portion of our Army. People crying about 16 hour workloads on Operation to the Ombudsman is a good example. I have a feeling this comes from a loss of focus that we had in the Post-Cold War "Peace Dividend" which was driven by people like Axworthy and Co. Soldiers, regardless of trade, should never expect 8 hour shifts, internet connection, phones, and beds - if you do, time to turn in your kit. Like "Readiness and Training Standards", I think "Institutional Mentality" is a different issue for "Women in Combat" - anyone can be a weak waste of CADPAT.
Again, I'll stress the fact that we're going nowhere with arguing about "Women in Combat Roles" anymore because, as recent operations have shown, "Women in the Army" means "Women in Combat" now - look at Kirsten L - she's a Medic who had to deploy on an Air-Assault Operation in Afghanistan. Are we going to ban women from being Medics because they may be in combat? Let's focus our energy on the real issues (like the two above that I mentioned) where we can make real gains in combat capability.
Infanteer
) but there are quite a few women in commercial aviation nowadays - and the ones I've worked with have been very capable pilots.
>
