Repost: Co-Ed Combat
The ban on women serving in combat positions is supposed to be lifted, word has it. Pasted in just below is a previous post from me about that referencing a professor I respect who's given that topic a serious, science-based look.
I've always had a pretty simplistic view on women in the military: If men have to die for our country, women should not be immune. Well, it seems that it's not that simple.
Kingsley Browne, a Wayne State law prof I know from evolutionary psych conferences, has written an excellent book, Co-ed Combat: The New Evidence That Women Shouldn't Fight the Nation's Wars, which I recommend.
His viewpoint -- that women are physically and psychologically ill-suited for combat positions -- is going to be very controversial, but his claims in the book are well-supported by psych and military data on male-female differences.
An example from the book -- page 67, from the section, "Many Noncombat Tasks Also Require Strength":
A 1985 study found that "while clear majorities of women (more than 90 percent in some cases) failed to meet the physical standards for eight critical shipboard tasks, virtually all the men passed (in most cases 100 percent)." One percent of women but 96 percent of men, for example, could carry water pumps to the scene of a fire or flooded compartment. As one former Navy officer with damage-control experience sardonically noted, "When your air-conditioned seat in front of a radar console is a smoking hole in the deck, you grab some shoring or a pump and apply some serious strength and stamina to the problem at hand." If the ship has a crew that is 20 percent women, the damage-control enterprise starts off in nearly the same position it would be in if the initial emergency rendered 20 percent of the crew incapable of assistance.
Yes, these are generalizations in these studies -- but they are generally true, and thus worthy of attention vis a vis what women's role in the armed forces should be. In short -- and forget your personal prejudices, because Browne's got the data -- more men are likely die if women are in combat situations. (More about that in the Newsweek link at the bottom of the post.)
Browne's blogging about the book this week at Volokh.com. Here's most of his first post:
Co-ed Combat starts from the premise that policies concerning sexual integration of combat forces should be measured first by their effects on military effectiveness. Other goals, such as expansion of women's opportunities, must give way to the extent that they impair combat effectiveness. Although the premise is contestable, it is a foundation upon which virtually all political discussions of the role of women in the military rests. Advocates of sexual integration of combat forces seldom argue that military effectiveness must be traded off against equal-opportunity concerns; instead, they contend that there is no tradeoff at all.Under policies in place since early in the Clinton administration, women are permitted to serve on warships (other than submarines) and in combat aviation. They are still barred from "direct ground combat," however, including positions that "collocate" with (that is, operate side-by-side) ground-combat units. The Army seems to be violating the collocation rule routinely in Iraq, a practice that results in increased combat exposure for women, and some argue for completely scrapping the bar on women in ground combat.
I argue that those who believe there are no substantial tradeoffs involved in including women in combat roles are wrong. Inclusion of women in those roles results in a segment of the force that is physically weaker, more prone to injury (both physical and psychological), less physically aggressive, able to withstand less pain, less willing to take physical risks, less motivated to kill, less likely to be available to deploy when ordered to (partly, but not exclusively because of pregnancy), more expensive to recruit, and less likely to remain in the service even for the length of their initial contracts. Officers and NCOs must reassign physical tasks (or do them themselves) because women cannot get them done fast enough, if at all.
The fact that women, in general, are less effective warriors is only part of the problem. The more fundamental problem comes from the mixing of men and women in combat forces, which creates a variety of problems for reasons rooted in our evolutionary history. Women frequently are placed in units with men who do not trust the women with their lives and who do not bond with women the way that they do with other men.
The groups into which women are introduced become less disciplined and more subject to conflict related to sexual jealousy and sexual frustration, and men receive less rigorous training because of women's presence. Officers and NCOs must divert attention from their central missions to cope with the "drama" that sexual integration brings. Men, who traditionally have been drawn to the military because of its appeal to their masculinity, now find that the military tries to cure them of it to make the environment more comfortable for women.
Against these impairments of the military's ability to wage war, what are the benefits to the military of full combat integration? One possible benefit is an increase in the recruiting pool. Contrary to rhetoric, however, the pool is not "doubled" in any meaningful sense. Sexual integration of the military generally has increased the pool by only fifteen to twenty percent. Expansion of the potential pool of combat volunteers (in the ground forces, at any rate) would probably be more on the order of one percent at most.
If it is not numbers that women bring, then it must be something unique to women, but it is not obvious that women qua women would bring much in the way of specific benefits to the combat forces. In short, no one argues that eliminating the combat exclusion would unleash the whirlwind on America's enemies.
I should emphasize that my arguments are not an indictment of military women, although I do not believe that many women are suited to combat, especially, but not only, ground combat. But, in researching my book, I was struck by the high regard that most military men I spoke with have for military women outside the combat context - even though most of these men opposed women's participation in combat. One can simultaneously appreciate military women's service to their country and also believe that all-male combat forces are more effective than mixed-sex ones.
The argument that full integration would be effective rests on a number of assumptions, including:
• That the high-tech nature of modern warfare means that the sexes no longer differ much in combat-relevant ways
• That as long as a woman possesses the individual physical and psychological attributes of an effective soldier, her inclusion in a combat unit would not impair its effectiveness
• That the primary obstacle to integration are men's "masculinist" attitudes, which can be overcome with adequate training and leadership.
All of these assumptions are flawed, in my opinion, and, as a result, the costs and difficulties of sexual integration of combat forces are often substantially underestimated.
Here's Browne's Newsweek interview with Martha Brandt.
That was interesting, thank you.
I've never been in the military, so what would I know? But it sounds realistic. Maybe you could write to Professor Browne and ask him if his thoughts have changed since 2007?
Re: "That the high-tech nature of modern warfare means that the sexes no longer differ much in combat-relevant ways", I will say that in 2007, I was working on what was then the "largest and most ambitious planned acquisition program in the Army's history" which intended to use computers and software to replace inches and tons of tank armor and make much of the battle field somehow smart and able to be fought with push buttons and joysticks.
It ended up wasting huge amounts of money and getting cancelled of course.
jerry at January 24, 2013 1:24 AM
He makes some interesting points, and I don't doubt that integration would bring some problems.
But I've always had a really simple view on this issue - and the same scenario has played out many times, colour integration of the armed forces (and the Marine Corps fought that one the hardest of any), gays in the military, women as firefighters, police, whatever - just do this.
Set a standard. Anyone who passes that standard is accepted. The rest will work itself out, as it has done many times before.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if that did lead to a 80/20 split in sexes in combat personnel, for lots of the reasons Professor Browne describes. But they'll be 20% you can count on.
After all, Audie Murphy was 5'5". And won the Medal of Honor.
Ltw at January 24, 2013 4:21 AM
Ah, Ltw, I agree. However, it won't be allowed to end there, because the 80/20 split (and I believe you are being overly optimistic) is unfair.
So, like affirmative action, or like the present military physical fitness requirements, standards will be sacrificed on the altar of equality. If you believe these standards are somehow arbitrary, do a little investigation about the combat load of an infantryman and get back to me.
We'll only lose one war this way. We'd better hope the nation survives.
MarkD at January 24, 2013 5:58 AM
Have you ever noticed that a large majority of CMHs are awarded to them posthumously? There has never been a multiple CMHs awarded to one person?
The CMH is generally awarded for a one time event.
The day to day slog in combat is different. Carrying about 75 pounds of beans and bullets up the hillsides of Afghanistan is hard for guys to do. Then there are the days and nights with limited sleep, crappy food, and constant stress.
If they keep to the same standards that are there now, I'd be accepting of it. But if they lower the standards, we will have a less effective force.
Jim P. at January 24, 2013 6:11 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/01/24/repost_co-ed_co.html#comment-3578300">comment from Jim P.After all, Audie Murphy was 5'5". And won the Medal of Honor.
Men have more muscle mass than women. My friend Sergeant Heather used to sniff at self-defense courses for women, saying that in a situation where there's real peril, a guy could probably kick any woman's ass, including hers, with ease. She recommends keychain pepper spray and running.
Amy Alkon at January 24, 2013 6:26 AM
When I saw my son's video from boot camp, there were women. The women had long hair, pulled back. The guys had shaved heads. If they are truly "equal", why were the women's heads not shaved? Or the guys allowed to have long hair, pulled back?
Then, there's having periods. Are you going to call a halt in combat because you have to change your pad or tampon? What a mess.
Nursey at January 24, 2013 6:46 AM
I'm living in a dream world MarkD. Where you can actually set standards and stick to them. Standards I know damn well I wouldn't pass. I certainly don't believe they are arbitrary. That was not my point. And why am I being "optimistic" with my 80/20 split? I don't care what it ends up being. I'm not here to push 'there should be more'. I don't care. I also don't care if some women do make it. Whatever the ratio ends up being.
Jim P, yes I know a majority of CMH awards are posthumous. Same for (I'm Australian) the Victoria Cross, the equivalent for most Commonwealth countries. My mention of Audie Murphy was a bit tongue in cheek, they were exceptional circumstances - manpower shortage, someone who kept nagging to go to the front, why the hell not? He deserved his medals, but in these times of relatively small professional armies, no, he wouldn't get a look in.
I did say, precisely and clearly I thought, that standards shouldn't be lowered. But that an arbitrary restriction (lack of penis) should be removed. And whatever the split ends up being is what it is. Might be 99/1, 95/5, 80/20, whatever. After that everything else is just detail.
An instructive example is "the Selection" for British SAS recruits. Most people don't make it. But there is no shame attached to having tried and failed. *Everyone* knows it's fucking tough, but they encourage people to give it a go. Why not do the same with women?
Ltw at January 24, 2013 6:46 AM
I have opposed this from the start, knowing that units like thr Shore Intermediate Maintenance Activity in Mayport fills up with pregnant women whenever a carrier was scheduled to deploy.
I really wish meddlers would recognize that military service IS NOT JUST ANOTHER GOVERNMENT JOB.
If you want it to fail, then act like it is.
I support the commission of an all- female submarine command. After all, WAAFs were very effective on their own.
Radwaste at January 24, 2013 6:53 AM
Men have more muscle mass than women.
True, Amy, but Audie Murphy was underweight as well. 110 pounds when he first tried to enlist. I'm pretty certain that without the 50 cal machine gun he was using (from a burning tank destroyer) when he won his CMH, you could probably have kicked his ass.
In general, your friend's advice is good. All sensible self-defense courses (for men or women) recommend running as soon as possible. Create some separation, then get out of there - if you can.
Ltw at January 24, 2013 6:59 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/01/24/repost_co-ed_co.html#comment-3578413">comment from LtwOn the other hand, the 8-year-old girl who lives behind me could kick this guy's ass and still have plenty of energy to serve tea to her Barbies afterward:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilad_Shalit
Amy Alkon at January 24, 2013 7:06 AM
My smaller size and muscle mass is why I have a gun and know how to use it. A 357 is an excellent equalizer. But I'm with Kingsley, I suspect they'd lower the standards to get more women in which makes for a crappier military force and men just don't treat women the same. There's the tendency to protect and worry that they're not keeping up as well as other interpersonal factors. An all female "band of sisters" would get around that but I sure as hell wouldn't want to be part of that...working in a dept of women at the university is bad enough! :-)
Catherine at January 24, 2013 7:08 AM
My big worry is that it gives the enemy a huge opening to practice asymmetric warfare. Imagine what happens when the enemy captures a mixed unit of American soldiers. What are they going to do? Harm and threaten the women, of course. There's several tactics they might take: rape and torture the women while forcing the men to watch, in order to extract intelligence or just break the men's spirits. Rape the women and publish the videos in order to stir up ant-war sentiment in the U.S. Or kidnap the women and try to force the U.S. government to ransom them.
"in a situation where there's real peril, a guy could probably kick any woman's ass,"
Subject to the 90/10 rule, that's probably true. Lately I've noticed that time and time again, TV shows and movies portray petite women easily defeating big burly men in hand-to-hand combat. Besides the fact that it gives young women wildly unrealistic expectations, it's just plain ridiculous and it destroys the credibility of the plot line.
"It ended up wasting huge amounts of money and getting cancelled of course."
I think I vaguely remember that program... it started with an F and it had a C and an S in it.
Cousin Dave at January 24, 2013 7:10 AM
This isn't about fairness or feminine capabilities. It's an antiwar project. Liberals presume that having a few women scarred as horribly as
Ty will, in some magical Disney kind of way, remind us that war is unhealthy for children and other living things.
Crid [Cridcomment at gmail] at January 24, 2013 7:13 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/01/24/repost_co-ed_co.html#comment-3578420">comment from CatherineCatherine, one of my great surprises in life is that your gun is not pink. (I know Catherine well.)
Amy Alkon at January 24, 2013 7:13 AM
JimP,
19 men have been awarded the MOH twice. (7 of them were Marines, ooo-rah.) None of those second awards, however, has occurred since the end of WWI.
Tom Custer had 2 of them, for two actions at the tag end of the Civil War. However, in general, you are correct - the majority of the awards since 1918 have been posthumous.
Grey Ghost at January 24, 2013 8:09 AM
The push to have women in combat is just a means to give women more promotion opportunities at the General Officer level.
The only way to accomplish this is to maintain the gender normed curve for physical performance standards. Much like the reduced ASVAB test score requirements for the technical fields that were lowered to accomodate "disadvantaged" groups and allow them access to these career fields.
As evidenced by the performance of our military (at the strategic level, not the tactical) since 1976, our military posture is no longer about winning. It is all about feeling good about ourselves.
Much like the rest of our overprotected and weakened society at large.
Azenogoth at January 24, 2013 8:53 AM
> The push to have women in combat is
> just a means to give women more
> promotion opportunities at the General
> Officer level.
I suspect you'd be amazed, just jaw-droppingly stunned, at how little America and her elected representatives care about the mundane obsessions of government careerists, be they women in the military or anywhere else…
…That disinterest is the best explanation for facing this nightmare.
Feminism, righteous or goofy, is not the problem.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at January 24, 2013 9:41 AM
"An all female "band of sisters" would get around that..." Catherine@7:08
That brings to mind the female sniper teams on the Eastern Front in WW2. Being of Czech heritage, I'll mention Czech national heroine Marie Ljalkova, who sent 35 Nazis straight to hell with her rifle:
http://www.ceskapozice.cz/en/news/society/famous-czech-wwii-era-lady-sniper-dies-aged-90
Here's a video interview of Lidiya Gudovantseva talking about some of her 76 confirmed kills:
http://www.military.com/video/specialties-and-personnel/snipers/wwii-russian-female-snipers/663088355001/
The video mentions the top female sniper, Lyudmila Pavlichenko (309 kills). There's lots about her on the web.
These women didn't do what they did to advance feminist dogma or their careers. It was a matter of national survival against the Nazis. Nonetheless, if women could hunt & kill that many Nazis 70 years ago, then women should be able to hunt & kill Taliban today.
Browne's book and blog post are based on the premise of full co-ed integration - the ridiculous notion that men & women are interchangeable cogs in the military machine. Instead of listing all the things that women can't do (or can't do as well as men), it might help to think about what women can do, and to deploy them accordingly.
Martin at January 24, 2013 9:45 AM
These are the same "sky will fall" arguments once used to keep women out of law enforcement roles. Here's what happened:
Only women that want to be cops, become cops. This is a minority. Passive women rarely succeed.
Women pass the same standards as men although some have relaxed in recent years, I passed those original standards and I am small.
Women develop their own effective style of combat...and we all get in fights and firefights as cops.
Women tend to be more strategic in conflicts (largely because of our respect for potential disadvantages).
Women have, as cops in specialist positions, had greater success than many men (and not necessarily in sexual assault or child abuse investigations.)
Women have served in combat forever. Some very successful Russian snipers come to mind. They were known for being able to calculate a shot with less emotion, contrary to conventional wisdom. Hawaiian women fought alongside men in wars that were contests of brute strength and brutality.
Tracy at January 24, 2013 10:24 AM
The Israeli's make this work, so what do they do? OTOH they are pretty serious about warefare, and they have conscription, where we have a volunteer force.
How long will it be, before a Fluke type woman gets into the Army just so she can right a perceived wrong, by lawsuit and agitation?
I would have to agree, this is about pacifying the armed forces from the civilian perspective. For all the women currently serving in all sorts of operations, they are proof, that many things CAN be done... but once you put this integration into civilian hands, you have a steaming pile of expectation and pie in the sky thinking involved, and that is going to be bad.
And Ltw, you are forgetting the other side of an 80/20 rule. That 20% requires 80% of the energy/funding/work, to make it function.
The eastern snipers, and other women in WWII were well known, but it is a little different to be defending your country during a world war, versus serving in an all volunteer force, where you are being sent to distant lands on the say-so of your CinC. It's not impossible to send women to Mali or Syria should there ever be direct US intervention, but it isn't easy.
If a woman volunteers for a job, and has physical qual for it, outstanding and Fate be with Ye.
But. What happens when women aren't interested in sacrificing their entire worklives and having no children to climb the ladder to CEO in the US.
Somehow it is a discriminatory problem that needs a legislative cure, based on percentages. Has nothing to do with the fact that there aren't enough interested, qualified women.
If you think that will be different in the military, you are dreaming. How long will it be before the Officer Corps is criticized for not having a specific percentage of women in it, and what will have to be done to make that happen?
This isn't the end of the world, but the perverse incentives being served here, are going to cause issues. A Lot of them.
SwissArmyD at January 24, 2013 11:07 AM
The physical standards should be the physical standards and that's that. If people can meet them, people can meet them. If there are some military tasks that don't need as much brute strength, well, ok, make the standards for that job lower.
The one argument in favor of different standards that I've heard that makes sense, is that the standards meet the same level of commitment and effort on the part of the person. Some of the standards aren't because that job needs the strength, but because they want to see a certain level of dedication from the person applying. Well ok. Figure out which jobs those are.
My BIL was whining that he had to do military service and women didn't, that it hurt him career-wise to take time off and women should have to take time off from their careers as well. Note he and his wife have 3 kids.
NicoleK at January 24, 2013 11:25 AM
This has been an interesting read for me. I am curious about the claim that women are less able to withstand pain? Is this true? Is it tested? Is there a study to reference? I'd really like to know.
Meloni at January 24, 2013 11:58 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/01/24/repost_co-ed_co.html#comment-3578658">comment from MeloniSorry, interviewing cops and transcribing -- no time to look it up -- but perhaps you can use "Search Inside This Book" feature on Amazon if you'd like to find. Also Scholar.Google.com -- some studies will be available as PDFs (put out by researchers on their sites so journalists don't have to irritate them by asking for them all the time.
Amy Alkon at January 24, 2013 12:14 PM
Thanks! And sorry I wasn't trying to have you all research for me--just thought somebody might have that knowledge at their fingertips.
I'll buy and read the book; it will probably be addressed.
Pain tolerance has been a topic of interest to me for awhile, but I just haven't had the time to read up on it.
Meloni at January 24, 2013 12:25 PM
The military women that belong in the military, are the first to say that most women in the military, do not belong there.
Its a cold hard truth. I've been doing it 14 years as of this May, and anyone saying that the physical requirements have changed, is saying it from behind a desk in an airconditioned office miles and miles away from any of the boots on ground WORK.
My little sister became a Marine, but being ridiculously physically capable runs in my family, we're kinda lucky that way.
But most women are radically weaker and much much slower. You can sit down and just watch a physical fitness test. If there are 10 women in it, 1, MAYBE 2, will keep up with the men, the rest will drag ass at the back.
During deployments, I usually worked night shift, in part because they needed a big guy to escort the female soldiers at night back to their quarters after their shift ended.
If someone requires an escort to stay safe, even while armed they lack mental and or physical capacity to defend themselves, let alone perform under combat conditions.
And don't get me started on the sucking of life out of the organization, sensitivity training, EO...god, in equal opportunity we're told it doesn't matter what you say or do, its what she thought about it.
I don't need to point out that this has resulted in great difficulty speaking to, training, and dear god...disciplining, female soldiers.
Do I really need to talk about how many provably false rape or harassment cases I've seen since I came in?
Or the number of female soldiers trying to get knocked up before a unit deploys so that they don't have to go?
A few women do very well, they're assets, I have two great ones working for me now.
But they are exceptional, and that has made them exceptions to the rule.
Most, vary between toxic and worthless.
I understand if someone doesn't like what I've written.
But not liking it does not change my experience.
Robert at January 24, 2013 1:23 PM
I admit that my only Army experience consisted of basic training in 2004, but it was really eye-opening. In my opinion, men and women (or, more accurately, boys and girls, considering the maturity level I observed), should absolutely not serve together. My company was 50/50 genderwise, and the hormonal drama and fraternization were hugely distracting and shockingly (at least to me) rampant.
Also, as many commenters have pointed out, women are just not as strong as men. A lot of exercises involved the men having to physically hoist women over obstacles that they (the men) could easily overcome on their own. If I were a man, I would be pretty concerned or at least resentful.
And, yes, getting your period in the field is a huge bitch. Also every female soldier has considered getting pregnant to avoid deployment. Most of them are still decent people, though, which is why it doesn't happen more often.
My husband served in Iraq in 2003-2004, and the best thing he can say about women in theater is that they are a distraction. Everybody knows that significant others left behind during deployment are often unfaithful, but I think a lot of people don't realize how much illicit sex occurs among the deployed. I don't know how my husband's unit accomplished anything over there; they were all having so much sex.
Sosij at January 24, 2013 2:11 PM
"I suspect you'd be amazed, just jaw-droppingly stunned, at how little America and her elected representatives care about the mundane obsessions of government careerists, be they women in the military or anywhere else…
…Feminism, righteous or goofy, is not the problem."
I think YOU would be amazed at just how much interest any number of congress critters take in the advancement of women in military service. Government careerism is thier stock and trade.
The claim being made by a number of representatives and senators is that there is too much disparity in Flag Officers between males and females. Numerous "investigative" visits and boondoggles have been made to "look into" this "problem".
Females in gerneral, but officers most especially are pandered to and protected. Thier wrongs are covered up if it could harm their career or endanger the program.
It is this same social engineering that led to the expansion of roles for females in all branches of the military. This is not all bad. It doesn't really matter what the gender of the messhall cook is. But what causes harm is the double standard, both in the physical standards and the behavioral standards.
Affirmative action is not limited to universities and other government sponsored organizations.
Azenogoth at January 24, 2013 2:31 PM
I would hump an m60, M16, 2 cans of m60 ammo, my full 200 rounds of m16 ammo, a 45 and extra rounds out to a bunker and back faster than anyone else in my Unit. I was 5'9", and weighed 140lbs.
There was maybe one female that could have even completed the run. Most all of the men could.
Part of the job is physical, the other part is mental. You have to complete your task no matter what. If you don't have the will and capacity then just lay down and hope you survive.
So I guess I'm saying don't judge the person by their size or sex, rather stick to your rules of assessment, and weed out the ones that don't fit.
Interesting that the army still has lower standards for women than men... might be why most of the women couldn't make the run...
WAC at January 24, 2013 5:29 PM
In general, I'd have to say this is a really bad idea.
Unless the American public is willing to have their daughters coming home in body bags or specifically targeted by the enemy for rape ( think the rape on the bus in India was beyond horrific?) Just imagine about how that would play out in combat... Think of Daniel Pearl. Just think about it.
Right or wrong, sexist or not... Its not a good idea, period. Men of decent societies will protect women and children as fiercely as a mother protecting her young. I think about how those fanatical religious shitheads got the pilots out of the cockpit on 911 and I don't for a second believe we are dealing with an enemy from a moral and civilized society who wouldn't use females to their fullest advantage in war.
Did I mention this was a bad idea? Ladies, please, I employee you.. Pick another battle.
Oh and what does this mean now if their is a draft? You think most women are battle ready by nature? No. They aren't suited. They will be a liability.
feebie at January 24, 2013 5:42 PM
Considering what Lara Logan suffered as a journalist, I'd say any woman captured in the Mid-East will have a very difficult time.
KateC at January 24, 2013 5:45 PM
Reminds me of the physical agility testing I took to become a firefighter. The men had to carry heavy hose rolls up and down stadium steps. The women were exempt from that test.
What does the engine crew do if the guy capable of carrying the hose roll is sick that day? Call in a guy and wait for him to get to the fire scene?
Jay at January 24, 2013 5:56 PM
Sorry Feebie, we've already buried them. From AllGov as of last April:
"The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrated how much the roles of women in the U.S. military have expanded.
During a decade’s worth of conflict, more than 283,000 women were deployed to the two countries. Hundreds of them served in harm’s way, according to casualty figures.
More than 800 female service members have been wounded in either Afghanistan or Iraq, and at least 139 have died from combat- and non-combat-related incidents. Of these, 110 died as a result of serving in Iraq, however the last thirteen have all died in Afghanistan."
http://www.allgov.com/news/us-and-the-world/139-female-soldiers-have-died-in-iraq-and-afghanistan?news=844316
SwissArmyD at January 24, 2013 6:09 PM
When 19-y.o. girls start coming home in body bags, perhaps we'll begin to re-think the whole "patriotism" business.
jefe at January 24, 2013 7:13 PM
I have no issue with women in combat. It's stupid to ban all women because many wouldn't be able to hack it. Let them take the same physical and aptitude tests as the guys, and if they pass, in they go. Simple. Plenty of guys couldn't pass it, either.
But, I also think women should be eligible for the draft (no, most would not go into combat, there are an infinite number of support and noncombat roles women can and do fill just fine). It would complicate things, though, you'd have to have a system in which both parents in a family weren't drafted. Israels mandatory service makes more sense there, people can plan accordingly and not get it sprung on them-surprise!-after having 3 kids.
I can't imagine being gang raped, even to death, is any more unpleasant than being beheaded, or dragged to death through the streets, or ripped lomb from limb, or any of the other miriad ways to die that happen in war.
I have 3 girls and a boy. It would devastate me for ANY of them to die young in any way. I'd still be proud if any choose to serve, though.
momof4 at January 24, 2013 7:36 PM
I would be deeply, deeply resentful at men and especially women who pushed for non voluntary military service (draft) of females. Deeply.
I think it's a really bad idea for a lot of reasons. Another one is how many women problem solve. In battle? Complete clusterfuck.
Feebie at January 24, 2013 8:17 PM
I knew someone would bring the Israeli Defense Force at some point.
The IDF generally does not assign women to combat roles; they volunteer. Another difference is that Israelis are not leaving their country in any significant numbers. The positions are more fixed fortifications, not wandering through the jungle or desert.
Just saying...
Jim P. at January 24, 2013 10:01 PM
So Feebie, lemme get this straight. Young men's lives are worth LESS than young women's?
If women want the opportunity, they also must accept the responsibility. EVERYONE should have to sign up when 18. Not just us men.
Also, Jefe? The average combat soldier in Viet Nam was 19. 10X as many fine young men died there as in the last 10 years. I won't argue we are spending the blood of our children well... what exact meaning do you have for patriotism?
SwissArmyD at January 24, 2013 10:30 PM
KateC brings up an important point: A typically primitive enemy —such as the lawless hillbillies we've been fighting in Iraq & Afghanistan— who handles a captured female soldier as we might expect them to would in fact risk a disproportionate response from the American people... History may soon rebuff liberal enthusiasm for this feminine wars with tremendous irony.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at January 24, 2013 10:49 PM
One military officer's opinion of the result of women in combat in a mythical report of an unknown leader of an unnamed country recounting how they defeated the USA:
How We Lost the High-Tech War of 2007
"The Americans believed that their nation could endure the sight of women as POWs. Perhaps they were right. Whatever the case, America was shocked by what we did next: We used our infamous Boys Brigade to rape the women, and then to amputate their limbs and burn their faces. Though we let them suffer terribly, we were careful not to kill them. We told the world that our women suffered much more in the atomic catastrophe."
How We Lost the High-Tech War of 2007 (re-post from 1996 - scenario is rapidly coming true)
The Weekly Standard ^ | January 29, 1996 | Charles J. Dunlap, Jr. (Col. USAF)
This is the original article from 1996. There are later versions with only the year changing several times, and PC updated if you ask me.
The scenario makes a lot more sense today . . .
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/806682/posts
Prior to this piece, Dunlap wrote a scenario in Parameters, the Army War College journal, "The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012." Dunlap was a tech advisor on the poor remake of Seven Days in May, The Enemy Within.
Jay J. Hector at January 25, 2013 1:33 AM
In case you want to read "The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012" . . .
http://www.uwec.edu/sfpj/Origins.pdf
Jay J. Hector at January 25, 2013 2:04 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/01/24/repost_co-ed_co.html#comment-3579537">comment from SwissArmyDSo Feebie, lemme get this straight. Young men's lives are worth LESS than young women's?
To our evolved psychology, yes. It takes one man to impregnate an entire isle of women.
Perhaps this is why men risk or give their lives to save women.
Amy Alkon at January 25, 2013 5:19 AM
The New York Times ran a story a few years ago about women and injuries in sports.
Just one para from a fairly lengthy (but interesting) article:
Bottom line: women suffer sports injuries at something like eight times the rate men do, not excluding football.
Jeff Guinn at January 25, 2013 9:43 AM
"Perhaps this is why men risk or give their lives to save women." Amy.
Well, yeah... my point was, if they want full integration in the military, then they have to go ALL IN. I dun agree with it, especially on the ground [Different opinion for Flyers]... but if that's what they are pushing, they have to buy the whole thing.
SwissArmyD at January 25, 2013 10:13 AM
That's probably because men have always valued a woman with a good head on her shoulders.
If men had valued necks....
Conan the Grammarian at January 25, 2013 10:15 AM
Leave a comment