U.S. Women in Combat Roles?

BreatheDeeply

BreatheDeeply

New member
"Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta announced that the Obama administration would allow women to be placed in positions that will expose them more directly to fighting with enemy ground forces. It is said that this will allow women to fill hundreds of thousands of combat roles from which they are currently excluded."
-CNN

So what do you think about this? Reading through the blogosphere reveals it's the usual partisan politics in the U.S. (if you're on the right you're against it, of you're on the left you're for it). But, if we leave the political B.S. out of it, what are the pros and cons for women serving in front-line combat roles in the American military?

.
 
As a female U. S. Veteran (USN, 1995-1999) I can tell you that women have been fighting in combat roles since the Revolutionary war. Women have been shot, bombed, stabbed, beaten, and died in every war, conflict, scuffle, and action this country has taken part in. To say that women have been placed in ‘safer’ locations than their male counterparts is B.S. There is no ‘safe zone’ in a war. And to say that any one of the many ladies who have served their Country, been injured, given her last breath for her country that she is not a warrior, that she is not a fighter, and that she has not given enough for her country, for her family is a true slap in the face.

Some of those amazing Women Warriors have been awarded some pretty high awards for their Honor, Courage, and Commitment.
 
On a personal level, I would have no objections to fighting alongside a female soldier on the basis of her gender. I think the idea that women somehow "cant hack it" or just arent "made for combat" are unmitigated twaddle at best; as Grey has already pointed out, women have been fighting in battle since there's BEEN battle and generally had a fine time of it. Hell, a roll-sheet of some of the most noted military commanders in history contains no small number of women.

That said, I dont think I would react well to seeing a female soldier go down next to me. I have a lot of buttons that hearing a woman screaming in pain would push for various reasons. It would be hard to hold it together if I saw that repeatedly.

On the other side of that particular coin, I recognize that as being my personal issue and I know enough not to try and project it on an entire group of people.

It also has to be considered that dozens of other countries have done this with zero ill effects. The world wont fly apart if we do it too.

My view on the military is fairly dim and I'll be interested to see what the long-term outcomes of this will be.
 
Anyone who is willing and able should he allowed regardless of gender. I spent countless hoirs fighting to be accepted by my male counterparts in ROTC because I was a woman-even though I won a full scholarahip to Westpoint that was given to the winner of Superior Cadet of the year, based upon tests including not only grades but also our physical strength. I was tied with one guy we were faster and stronger than my entire class, not just the girls. I had beter academics. He and I remained tied in the physical tests all year.
Anyone whose physically and mentally capable and is willing should be seen for that ability-not for their gender.
 
I wrote an essay on this a few years ago (it's been a hot topic for quite a while and many essayists have written about it). Conservatives have often said that having women in combat is distracting to the men, but that is just as insulting to men as it is to women. Also, there are enough women popping out babies and we're overpopulated anyway, so the argument that we need to keep women home as baby-making machines doesn't hold water anymore.

The truth is, although the rule was in place barring women in the front lines of combat, they were already there and often found themselves in combat. I have a woman friend who served in Iraq, and there is a woman in my neighborhood with two artificial legs as a result of her service in combat. This just makes it official and now no one has to hide it.
 
As a vet (1998-2003) from a combat arms MOS (armor crewman) my only concern, during that time, would be that everyone on the vehicle has to pull their weight. It's a lot of heavy lifting and the like. While I'm not saying women are weaker by any stretch (my wife is proof of that!), I am saying that I'd hope that the military would raise PT standards for women serving in a combat arms MOS to something a lot closer to the male standards.

If they want to fight, I'm all for it, as long as they can keep up to the standards we have in place already.
 
RunicWolf said:
As a vet (1998-2003) from a combat arms MOS (armor crewman) my only concern, during that time, would be that everyone on the vehicle has to pull their weight. It's a lot of heavy lifting and the like. While I'm not saying women are weaker by any stretch (my wife is proof of that!), I am saying that I'd hope that the military would raise PT standards for women serving in a combat arms MOS to something a lot closer to the male standards.

If they want to fight, I'm all for it, as long as they can keep up to the standards we have in place already.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I'm a small woman. There are things that I physically cannot do as well as a larger man can do. Along the same lines, though, a small man is also incapeable of the physical strengths of a larger man.

Job placement should be based on ability (mental and physical) not on what is or isn't between the servicemember's legs.
 
My view is pretty simple. If a woman wants to sign up, knows what she's getting into, and is willing to work as hard as the men, then she should certainly be allowed to serve in combat side-by-side with the men.

Now for a perhaps more complicated question. What if, for some reason, at some future time, the United States re-institutes the draft? Should women be subject to that?
 
The draft itself is unmitigated twaddle to begin with. I think we should sort that out before we worry if its sexist or not.
 
It's very encouraging that, finally, there's some recognition that women have as much a part in the U.S. military as men. As some have mentioned here, women have been in front-line duties for ages, it's just never been officially recognized. And as many have pointed out, it's difficult to rise in the ranks for some women because they don't have combat-role experience under their belts.

One part of me says that it has taken a long time to get to this point, with one entire political party in congress (who are stuck in the 13th century, which is why they keep losing elections) opposed to equal treatment of women. But the other part of me is just glad that fairness has finally arrived to the largest employment sector of the U.S. government.

.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top