As you know I have no military experience and therefore I am limited in my ability to access the wisdom of women in combat roles.
"Sentry" has certainly painted a picture that even I can understand and I don't think it is wise to have women in combat.
That was my initial thought but because of my lack of personal experience I felt I probably should not voice an opinion on this subject.
Sentry said everything that should ever need to be said on this subject.
Thanks for posting it.
I would like to point out that tjhis is one persons perspective. Furthermore, male Soldiers die trying to save male Soldiers as well. I continue to point out that this is a first line supervisor issue. This can work if we let it. The only barriors are us. I say again, I fought with a female Soldier at my side in Somolia. She was able to shoot move and communicate just as well if not better than the male Soldiers. This is about letting go of age old perceptions and not letting reality a cahnce...
It's a New World, Charlie Brown. I been tryin to tell everybody that for several years now.
Not that it makes a hoot, but the Commies have been incorporating women in combat roles since WWII.
"I would like to point out that tjhis is one persons perspective."
Good point, but HMJC, let me ask just one question:
Which parts of "Sentry's" chronicle of inefficiency and chaos is UNTRUE?
Her entire "testimonial" has the absolute ring of truth for me. Plus - in my military experience - it has ALWAYS been the case that when females were introduced into a previously all-male "domain," the standards were "watered-down." 100% of the time.
So my point is: We have a military which is recognized as the best in the world. (Even if it isn't, it's said often enough that almost the entire United States population probably believes it.) Everyone assumes that when we make changes to anything - especially our military - it ought to be for the BETTER. When you introduce inefficiency and chaos into any system, you are NOT making it better.
Sure, HMJC - it might "work" - but at what price - in military efficiency and in United States combat dead?
That's my point. This social experiment - IMHO - represents a "New World" that only someone interested in degrading our military would want. The Russians probably think it is a good idea. So do the Chinese. Al Qaeda probably LOVES it.
This "one person's perspective" is repeated over and over and over again in the "testimonials" I see from women who have BEEN THERE (or as close to "there" as is possible under our current system). I value their opinions far more than any "special interest group" or consituency that wants to chalk up another "gain" in their battle against the enemy - i.e., anyone who doesn't agree with them.
And Jimmy, I'm not sure the "communist way" is one we ought to be emulating. I don't see them making any significant gains since WWII. The lost in Afghanistan; they lost in Chechnya. Shoot, they probably would have been on the losing side in WWII if the United States hadn't been pounding Hitler from the West with our all-male combat forces.
No - IMHO - Sentry speaks TRUTH. Progress is defined by Webster as a "betterment" of something. This social experiment will NOT make our military any better; it will digress. And that - as a society and as a country - is something we shouldn't want.
...one final thought:
For military purposes - no matter how many of them might wish otherwise:
Women ARE NOT men.
..which is exactly "Sentry's" point.
I do want to stress that I am in no way in favor of diluting our fighting forces. I would think you would have to concede that there is quite a bit of disparity and not meeting the standard with male Soldiers. I lived it and had to spend a lot of time make Soldier issues. This comes down to the standards not being lowered and leaders just that.
I agree with Chief MVB and Sentry 99.9%. Before we send our women to combat with men, how about desegregating sports first ie track and field baseball, basketball before you even think about sending them out for the ultimate sacrifice of combat missions. It's not disrespectful or denegrating, it's just common sense.
...and Funky has hit the nail on the head. But that "common sense" is only common sense to somebody who - when it relates to the military service - has the experience to understand what IS "common sense." Here's another way to look at it:
With a big enough hammer, I can pound a square peg into a round hole. But - once I do that - so what? What does that achieve? And is my result actually one which is necessary or desirable?
The argument that nobody is making in favor of women in traditionally male combat positions is that the combat effectiveness (read: "battlefield power") of the United States military will be better with females displacing males in combat units. Why isn't this argument being made? Because it's NOT TRUE!!! As I said above and highlighted by "Sentry's" testimonial: concessions and compromises have been and will be made whenever you introduce females into the profession of death. There ARE physical differences, and there ARE psychological differences that demand this. It is undeniable, but it is being ignored. Why7
Because "social equality" is all that is important. But as I said, I believe that this, too, will pass. It may take 10 years or an armed conflict to bring the problems to a head, but it will eventually happen.
But then we won't be saying "Bush lied and people died." We'll be saying the "Progressive left cried and people died."
Or at least I will.
The truth be told, I ain't a hankerin for this to happen; women in combat roles nor endorsing the Commie way. It could in fact erode combat efficiency via sexual liasons in squads. i.e. you gonna cover your buddy's back or your lover's?
I'm a Lefty. But I say let the men do the killing.
I have never been in combat as some of you to know what their duties would even be like but it seems that most think it would be too much physically for a female.
I dealt with the prison systems for many years. There are many female officers. I will admit I never felt as safe with a female officer as I did with a male one. I just didn't.
And one particular story always stands out in my mind. Brian Nichols. The guy who shot the judge and 2 more in Atlanta. He had one female officer escorting him to court.
Who made that crazy decision? He had to be left uncuffed to enter the courthouse. Nichols is a big guy. Of course he could have overtaken her. That whole tragedy really could have been avoided.
I don't understand why she even thought it was ok for her to be with him alone. Why did it not make her feel unsafe? Especially after they found 2 shanks on him the day before the shootings.
The Sheriff's Dept defended it saying she was qualified to escort him. Yeah, she may have had the proper training and certificates on the wall. But that did not change the fact that this inmate was way way stronger than her and could and did overcome her.
Anyway that story always comes to mind when it comes to men being stronger than women. But again, I don't know much about combat to know myself if a woman could endure it. Physically and emotionally.
I agree with Jimmy, I was in the Navy and know when that ship leaves its home port people are hooking up left and right married or not. So yeah being lovers could be a problem.
Good points from all. It looks like the armed services will be considering all the issues (especially the Marines).
We'll have to see how it turns out in about 10 years or so.