Women In Combat: Rep. Sanchez Says Yes.

[BlueShoe]

More social engineering by the left. Rep. Loretta Sanchez, D-Santa Ana, Ca, wants women to have the same combat assignments as men. Not long ago, women were approved for submarine duty, in spite of much opposition and controversy. Now they should get combat slots alongside of men? While the effort by Sanchez seems to be stalled for now, the implication for the future is disturbing. When will they accept that women are woefully unsuited for combat, both physically and emotionally?
www.totalbuzz.freedomblogging.com/2010/05/19/sanchez-let-women-fight-in-combat/35259 (http://www.totalbuzz.freedomblogging.com/2010/05/19/sanchez-let-women-fight-in-combat/35259)

[Robert Goren]

They basically have been for years. Talk to anyone who has been to Iraq.

[lsbets]

I had 32 female soldiers in my company, and they most definitely saw combat. Just like the 122 males I had, some were not cut out to be soldiers, most were good, and a few were standouts. The vast majority of women in my company were very well suited for combat both physically and emotionally. Until you have served side by side with women in combat, you are completely unqualified to make judgments regarding their fitness and your comment is an insult to all of the brave women who have laid their asses on the line in Iraq and Afghanistan in part to defend your right to free speech, including the freedom to insult them and their efforts.

[NJ Stinks]

I had 32 female soldiers in my company, and they most definitely saw combat. Just like the 122 males I had, some were not cut out to be soldiers, most were good, and a few were standouts. The vast majority of women in my company were very well suited for combat both physically and emotionally. Until you have served side by side with women in combat, you are completely unqualified to make judgments regarding their fitness and your comment is an insult to all of the brave women who have laid their asses on the line in Iraq and Afghanistan in part to defend your right to free speech, including the freedom to insult them and their efforts.

BlueShoe wasn't the only one who felt that way. I thought the same thing until you just set me straight.

[BlueShoe]

The patriotism and dedication to duty of women members of the armed forces is not being questioned, only their ability to withstand the sheer sustained terror of being in combat situations. Women are not as strong as men and do not have their endurance. No amount of social engineering is ever going to change that. Many career military men that have spoken off of the record, without fear of damaging their careers, have long been displeased with the increased presence of women, and surely would be opposed to them in combat. War is not an Equal Opportunity Employer, the winners are the bigest, toughest men with the best weapons.

[BluegrassProf]

The patriotism and dedication to duty of women members of the armed forces is not being questioned, only their ability to withstand the sheer sustained terror of being in combat situations. Women are not as strong as men and do not have their endurance. No amount of social engineering is ever going to change that. Many career military men that have spoken off of the record, without fear of damaging their careers, have long been displeased with the increased presence of women, and surely would be opposed to them in combat. War is not an Equal Opportunity Employer, the winners are the bigest, toughest men with the best weapons.Whew...man, some super-ballsy stuff in there.

Here's hoping you don't get your ass kicked by any number of legitimately badass ladies. :ThmbUp:

[BlueShoe]

Here's hoping you don't get your ass kicked by any number of legitimately badass ladies. :ThmbUp:
My concern is that American women will die in a situation that is beyond their abilities to cope with, or that they might get the men that they serve with killed for the same reasons.

[lsbets]

The patriotism and dedication to duty of women members of the armed forces is not being questioned, only their ability to withstand the sheer sustained terror of being in combat situations. Women are not as strong as men and do not have their endurance. No amount of social engineering is ever going to change that. Many career military men that have spoken off of the record, without fear of damaging their careers, have long been displeased with the increased presence of women, and surely would be opposed to them in combat. War is not an Equal Opportunity Employer, the winners are the bigest, toughest men with the best weapons.

Sorry, I guess 13 months of convoy duty driving primarily in Baghdad, Fallujah, and Balad doesn't qualify as facing the sheer sustained terror of combat situations. Silly me, I thought having a female Mk-19 gunner with deadly aim might have qualified. I remember talking to her about how she would scare the hell out of any guys she met back home if she told them what she did overseas. Or putting another in for a valor award after she ran across an open road in the middle of a monster ambush to try and save a contracted truck driver she never met, only to find him dead in the cab of his truck, and then having to run back across the road with bullets hitting the ground all around her to get back in her vehicle and get the hell out of the kill zone might qualify as seeing the sheer terror of combat. Or the medic who cared for two soldiers wounded in an IED attack until the medevac choppers could arrive while facing direct and indirect fire. Damn, too bad none of them had to face real combat.

I've seen them in action in combat. They belong there as much as any male soldier I had. If I had to call 10 people tomorrow to go to war with me, 3 of them would be female. It was a damned honor to command them, and your words reek of ignorance.

[ddog]

shoe ......Sadly like most all his views he is getting them from some 1940 movie.

[bigmack]

I've seen them in action in combat. They belong there as much as any male soldier I had. If I had to call 10 people tomorrow to go to war with me, 3 of them would be female.
Unless I read bogus data, treatment rate for PTSD of women from combat is 40%+. That's significant.

They may have been brave but the question is; are they cut out for it.

I know... It depends on the definition of 'cut'

[GameTheory]

The main thing that would worry me is what would happen to women soldiers that get captured by enemies.

[delayjf]

Sorry, I guess 13 months of convoy duty
I am not questioning their bravery or patriotism but riding in a convoy is one thing - humping (forced march) the Afgan mountains is another. When I was in the Marine Corps, about 80% of the Women Marines could not finish the long humps we often conducted - and they weren't required to carry their packs.

Isbets, I be interested in the relationship problems that you experienced in Iraq. In Somalia, we sent home 30 female Marines home due to pregnancy. I know the problem got so bad in the navy back in the 90, they mandated pregnancy testing prior to deployment - until Sen Dianne Feinstein put an end to the practice.

It's one thing to put one or two career oriented Naval Academy grads on a sub - quite another to put 18 year old enlisted recruits. You mix 18-19 year old men and women together in close living conditions and your going to get sex relationships and all that come with it. I'm in favor of keeping the status quo.

[lsbets]

I am not questioning their bravery or patriotism but riding in a convoy is one thing - humping (forced march) the Afgan mountains is another. When I was in the Marine Corps, about 80% of the Women Marines could not finish the long humps we often conducted - and they weren't required to carry their packs.

Isbets, I be interested in the relationship problems that you experienced in Iraq. In Somalia, we sent home 30 female Marines home due to pregnancy. I know the problem got so bad in the navy back in the 90, they mandated pregnancy testing prior to deployment - until Sen Dianne Feinstein put an end to the practice.

It's one thing to put one or two career oriented Naval Academy grads on a sub - quite another to put 18 year old enlisted recruits. You mix 18-19 year old men and women together in close living conditions and your going to get sex relationships and all that come with it. I'm in favor of keeping the status quo.

The status quo is women are in combat.

We sent one female home pregnant - a married sergeant major got her pregnant. I have more of an issue with his lack of morality than with her being pregnant.

[delayjf]

We sent one female home pregnant - a married sergeant major got her pregnant. I have more of an issue with his lack of morality than with her being pregnant.

Agreed, was the SGM disciplined in any manner? If not he should have been -unfortunately, that would also mean that both he and the female would now have to be replaced. This type of thing is the price we pay for integrating the services. And you are right, due to the nature of the conflict, women are being put into combat situations, the question Sanchez raises is do we march women off to the front lines along side the men. To that I say no.

[delayjf]

From the Article:

But because they are not officially listed as being in combat such work doesn’t go on their service records and it impedes them when it comes to promotions, she explained.

“We have women human resources generals. We have women do the law generals’’ but not women who can reach the highest command levels because of their lack of combat experience, she said.

This is an easy fix, women who have served in combat should be recongnized just like the men. The second paragraph shows what a buffoon Sanchez is. Putting women in direct combat roles just so one or two might to be promoted is idiotic IMO.

[lsbets]

Agreed, was the SGM disciplined in any manner? If not he should have been -unfortunately, that would also mean that both he and the female would now have to be replaced. This type of thing is the price we pay for integrating the services. And you are right, due to the nature of the conflict, women are being put into combat situations, the question Sanchez raises is do we march women off to the front lines along side the men. To that I say no.

The front lines in Iraq were (I say were because its basically over now) anywhere outside the wire. As soon as you left the gate you were on the front lines. That is my point - in the asymmetrical conflicts we are currently fighting, women are in combat everyday and doing an outstanding job. The days of two armies lining up against each other across a battlefield are long gone.

[mostpost]

I had 32 female soldiers in my company, and they most definitely saw combat. Just like the 122 males I had, some were not cut out to be soldiers, most were good, and a few were standouts. The vast majority of women in my company were very well suited for combat both physically and emotionally. Until you have served side by side with women in combat, you are completely unqualified to make judgments regarding their fitness and your comment is an insult to all of the brave women who have laid their asses on the line in Iraq and Afghanistan in part to defend your right to free speech, including the freedom to insult them and their efforts.
For once I agree with you 100%. Courage is not gender specific. :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[GameTheory]

The front lines in Iraq were (I say were because its basically over now) anywhere outside the wire. As soon as you left the gate you were on the front lines. That is my point - in the asymmetrical conflicts we are currently fighting, women are in combat everyday and doing an outstanding job. The days of two armies lining up against each other across a battlefield are long gone.True. If women are in uniform serving anywhere near a hot zone, they better be "combat-ready" because they could be under attack at any moment. So the real question is whether they should be part of the spearhead into new areas, joining in the first wave of a major offensive, etc.

Do you think simple stuff like less capability for upper body strength, etc, is relevant in today's armed forces? I don't see any reason why women can't serve on ships, subs, be fighter pilots, etc, but are there areas left that simply require raw strength that might be less suitable? Is a woman less likely to be able to physically pick up an incapacitated (and heavy) comrade and get them to safety? If we have women in equal roles, can we resist the pressure to accordingly lower the physical standards so that more women will make the cut? (If examples from domestic life, like fire departments, are valid analogies, then the answer if no -- pressure wins and standards are lowered.)

And what about the possibility of capture? Any prisoner might be tortured or beaten or whatever, but with women the possibility of rape (possibly repeatedly) just for the fun of the captors seems a strong possibility, or even execution given that the current enemy would probably be "offended" (for lack of a better term) at the mere idea of a woman on the opposing combat force. (Are we ready to see the video of that?) Or maybe any solider captured in the current conflicts can pretty much expect unspeakable horrors and death?

[delayjf]

The days of two armies lining up against each other across a battlefield are long gone.

That is certainly the case now, but the first gulf war and the "shock and awe" campaign were current examples of two armies facing each other. The battle of Fallujah was a infantry slug feast with both sides fighting it out building to building.

The campaign in Afghanistan is very infantry centric, again, an environment that would accentuate a woman’s physical limitations.

[bigmack]

Year old article about females in combat & PTSD,
http://www.bu.edu/today/2009/01/06/when-mommy-comes-marching-home

[Buckeye]

whatever. "I'd take a women over a man in combat any day?"

Not.

Some women are better at combat than men? true. But most women are not.

Those women who can fight should be allowed to do so. It's a competence question not a sex question.