Women to be cleared for combat roles (Page 4)

Haven't read through entire thread but think about this. How is a 125-135 lb woman going to hump 40 lbs of armor, 60-80 lbs rucksack(back pack) 15-20 lbs of ammunition and weapon and 10 lbs of hydration? Can she carry a mortar base plate along with this? Just wondering.

What kind of drama would you think could go on at a remote FOB (Forward Operating Base) with say 20-25 18-22 yr old males and 3 18-22 yr old females?

Is she going to be able to drag a 160-180 lb male behind a wall? Want to yeah, Can, dont know.

Well there was once a time where America couldn't stomach the thought of its daughters coming home in body bags.

It looks like after 12 years of war we are getting used to it. 

I guess that is what is meant by progress...

Is she going to be able to drag a 160-180 lb male behind a wall? Want to yeah, Can, dont know.

why is that any more tragic than our sons dying at war?

People, do not mistake "combat" and the "battlefield" for what this order is dealing with. It is NOT dealing with the idea of keeping women OUT of or IN combat, it is about opening up certain job specialities for women that weren't previously open. it wasn't even "unofficial" that we were in combat before, but rather the job specialities I just mentioned. Those specialities happen to be ones with the explicit missions of "closing with and destroying the enemy." HOWEVER, that doesn't mean you haven't had thousands of women in direct combat roles in Iraq and Afghanistan already. As a Military Police officer, my primary mission was not to close with and destroy the enemy. BUT, if in the course of securing roads, identifying IEDs, operating checkpoints, and serving as a quick reaction force for logistic units caught in an enemy attack, we would and DID encounter the enemy on SCORES of occassions. Those bullet holes in my truck were real. Those slivers of AK-47 rounds I pulled out of my pant leg (but thankfully NOT my leg) were real. The bullets I sent downrange at the enemy were real. The rounds my soldiers fired at the enemy when I told them to were real. The 4 Purple Heart my 2 male and 1 female (she got two) Soldiers received were real. The Bronze Star with V device for Valor that our medic (SHE) received was real. The combat actions badges that we wear, with pride, on our uniforms are real.  Women HAVE been in the thick of combat for the past 11 years. I have seen more combat than some of my male counterparts who have served in Infantry, Armor, and Field Artillery units.  And while, previously, we couldn't be directly assigned to Infantry units, you COULD be "attached." Just like my platoon and I were from Oct-Dec '04 during the offensive in Fallujah. There we did counter mortar/counter rocket patrols with a heavy infantry platoon and cav scout platoon. I am a woman. I have been in combat, HEAVY combat. And I am not expection to that and have many a close female friends who saw more than I did.

Most of the conjectures in this thread about military life are just that, conjectures. Does sexual assault happen in the military? Unfortunately. You know what helps prevent that--the command climate and leadership that is in the place. In my 35 months as a Platoon Leader and 19 months as a Company Commander, my unit did not have ONE case of sexual assault of any type.  We did have a couple of dirt bags that may have been capable of such, but we didn't let them remain in the Army--and by we, I mean my male First Sergeant and I. 

Allowing women in combat is not the issue the order addressed, it's allowing women in combat designated roles. The switch wasn't suddenly turned on yesterday and women aren't in the infantry today. Significant study and work has yet to be done on how to implement it, and the current timeline for full implementation appears to be 2016.  I did not advocate one way or the other for it because, frankly, I was already doing everything like that as an MP. Are there significant implementation implications that the military must address?  Yes, but I have already seen some of the work that they are doing on such. And you know what, UNLIKE when they first allowed women into the Academies in the mid 70's, they actually have women leaders working on these issues (alongside men) to address the totality of it.  And do not assume that just because a woman volunteered to be in the military that it makes them a hard left leaning feminist.  Some are, some are not. Most are just patriots who want to serve their country, be leaders, and provide for their families. We come from all sides of the political spectrum, and our primary goal is serve, NOT make a statement.    

And shame on some of you for stereotyping the type of male soldiers we have. Are there some knuckle dragging, testosterone driven yahoos that make life for everyone hard? YES, there are. But there are also many of the finest gentlemen with character unlike what you often see in the civilian world and who have no issue working with their female counterparts and crushing the idiots who act otherwise.  The view from my foxhole is that the good outnumber the bad, and the more of the good we get into leadership positions, the better the command climates will be and the less any of the bad stuff against male or female will occur.  But do not think the military can ever become immune to societal ills.  There is nothing that we are faced with that isn't reflected in greater numbers and scope in the civilian world.  Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines come from that society. So before questioning the military as the root of why some of the ills in the military happen--question society and address that first.  We can always be better as a military. We are always striving to be better. We will never be perfect. But find me somew workplace that is. I have always felt safe because of two things: the great people I have served with whom I knew had my back (male and female), and the knowledge that is anyone tried anything with me, they were going to regret it.

In the meantime, as an officer in this United States Army (not as a male or a female, but as an officer) with 11 years of commissioned service and 15 total years in uniform, I will continue to do my best to lead properly, to impact my sphere of influence the best that I am able, to create command climates and work enviornments that foster ingenuity and creativity, to grow leaders of character who excel in peacetime and war, to demonstrate how developing trust and cohesion amongst each other in units leads to greater success both collectively and individually than pursuing personal ambitions (be they worthy or criminal), and to always lead by example. My current position gives me access to many of America's future leaders, and I can assure you that those of us officers that are here are pouring our heart and souls into mentoring, molding, and shaping them into the they type of leader of character that will best serve this country and who will take the mantle of honor of leading America's Sons and Daughters with the utmost seriousness and committment to doing the right thing.

I will not debate with anyone here. This is my statement on this. Do not speculate upon what you do not know, and newspaper articles are not the fullness of information.

I ran to make popcorn as soon as I saw the topic.   I'm on my 2nd bag.

Just to be clear......there is no way you could know me and not think I would fight to the death to keep someone from being victimized in any way....I hate people who hurt others with every fiber of my being.  

That being said......the reality is there is always some idiot, or group of idiots, almost always men, who will take advantage of any situation where they think they can exploit others, especially women.....it's why the statistics of women being sexually assaulted in the military are so far above the general population.  

Why make it worse?  Why make me, and the overwhelming majority of men like me, have to deal with those morons in the middle of fighting a war?  

You can argue all you want that it's not right, and I agree.....but the reality is what it is.  More women in combat means more women sexually assaulted.  Why go there?

Ahhhh.... men making decisions on behalf of and purporting to speak for women. So condescending, so chauvinistic, so clueless.

While we're at it, I think we should prevent women from wearing makeup while on base, or styling their hair, or anything that might stir up a not-so-good impulse in a man. More women looking good means more women sexually assaulted. Why go there?

Haven't read through entire thread but think about this. How is a 125-135 lb woman going to hump 40 lbs of armor, 60-80 lbs rucksack(back pack) 15-20 lbs of ammunition and weapon and 10 lbs of hydration? Can she carry a mortar base plate along with this? Just wondering.

What kind of drama would you think could go on at a remote FOB (Forward Operating Base) with say 20-25 18-22 yr old males and 3 18-22 yr old females?

Is she going to be able to drag a 160-180 lb male behind a wall? Want to yeah, Can, dont know.

Haven't read through entire thread but think about this. How is a 125-135 lb woman going to hump 40 lbs of armor, 60-80 lbs rucksack(back pack) 15-20 lbs of ammunition and weapon and 10 lbs of hydration? Can she carry a mortar base plate along with this? Just wondering.

What kind of drama would you think could go on at a remote FOB (Forward Operating Base) with say 20-25 18-22 yr old males and 3 18-22 yr old females?

Is she going to be able to drag a 160-180 lb male behind a wall? Want to yeah, Can, dont know.

why is that any more tragic than our sons dying at war?

Explain how a 125-135 lb man would do the same.

 Typical US Army Ranger

Average age: 24

Average height/weight

: 69"/174 pounds

Military training

: Basic Combat Training and Advanced Individual Training, Basic Airborne Course (3 weeks), U.S. Army Ranger School (2 months), Ranger First Responder Medical Training (1 week), Primary Leadership Development Course (4 weeks)

Experience

: Operation Enduring Freedom/ Operation Iraqi Freedom x 1-4, Joint Readiness Training Center rotation x 1, Joint Readiness Exercise x 1, live fire exercises x 25

Rank

: About half are specialists (pay grade E-4)

Army Physical Fitness Test Score

: 275 out of 300 Awards: Expert Infantryman Badge, Combat Infantryman Badge, Army Commendation Medal, Army Achievement Medal, Global War on Terror Expeditionary and Service medals, Ranger Tab, Parachutists Badge

Other Statistics

: Less than half are married; average number of children is 1.75; most have some college; more than half are Ranger qualified (

How did you make that conclusion in my comment....everything about war is tragic, isn't it?

My comment was about our society and social norms. The feminist have won. A women's life is no longer more valuable than a man's in our society. The old-fashioned saying of "women and children first" no longer applies and is to be viewed with scorn and chauvinism. What is more gender equal that a government that sends both its sons and daughters to the front lines to be slaughtered in the name of Country? That is progress(ivism) right?

I absolutely know that a bullet shot from a rifle held by a woman is just as deadly as one held by a man. I don't question that a qualified women is as good as a soldier as an equally qualified man. I was never in the military so I will leave it up to the Generals to figure out the best way to kill and break things.

But what is the bigger picture here and what does it say about a society that is comfortable with its daughters coming home in body bags, good or bad? 

How did you make that conclusion in my comment....everything about war is tragic, isn't it?

My comment was about our society and social norms. The feminist have won. A women's life is no longer more valuable than a man's in our society. The old-fashioned saying of "women and children first" no longer applies and is to be viewed with scorn and chauvinism. What is more gender equal that a government that sends both its sons and daughters to the front lines to be slaughtered in the name of Country? That is progress(ivism) right?

I absolutely know that a bullet shot from a rifle held by a woman is just as deadly as one held by a man. I don't question that a qualified women is as good as a soldier as an equally qualified man. I was never in the military so I will leave it up to the Generals to figure out the best way to kill and break things.

But what is the bigger picture here and what does it say about a society that is comfortable with its daughters coming home in body bags, good or bad? 

How did you make that conclusion in my comment....everything about war is tragic, isn't it?

My comment was about our society and social norms. The feminist have won. A women's life is no longer more valuable than a man's in our society. The old-fashioned saying of "women and children first" no longer applies and is to be viewed with scorn and chauvinism. What is more gender equal that a government that sends both its sons and daughters to the front lines to be slaughtered in the name of Country? That is progress(ivism) right?

I absolutely know that a bullet shot from a rifle held by a woman is just as deadly as one held by a man. I don't question that a qualified women is as good as a soldier as an equally qualified man. I was never in the military so I will leave it up to the Generals to figure out the best way to kill and break things.

But what is the bigger picture here and what does it say about a society that is comfortable with its daughters coming home in body bags, good or bad? 

This might come as a shock to you but not all women are 5'6" weighing 125 or so, some of us are actually quite capable of picking up that 160-180 lb man and carrying him across the courtyard.  Whereas I know some men who are not capable of such a feat.  They made the same arguments about women in the fire service and as police officers.  I may not have the top end capacity for strength that most of my male counterparts do but how many are acting/working at the max of their strength capacity?

Very valid and something I recognize. I could, and did, carry that much gear on more than one occasion and training schools. However, I fully expect if women are going to be doing these roles, that they meet the same standards and pass the same training programs as the men. 

But, it happens. There are weaker people and stronger ones. I was in better shape than many of my male counterparts. And no, I couldn't drag them terribly far for very long...because they were fat and out of shape. It happens. There are fat women in the military too. BUT, during training for their jobs, the women should have to pass the same training. If they can't, they get reclassed.  

People, do not mistake "combat" and the "battlefield" for what this order is dealing with. It is NOT dealing with the idea of keeping women OUT of or IN combat, it is about opening up certain job specialities for women that weren't previously open. it wasn't even "unofficial" that we were in combat before, but rather the job specialities I just mentioned. Those specialities happen to be ones with the explicit missions of "closing with and destroying the enemy." HOWEVER, that doesn't mean you haven't had thousands of women in direct combat roles in Iraq and Afghanistan already. As a Military Police officer, my primary mission was not to close with and destroy the enemy. BUT, if in the course of securing roads, identifying IEDs, operating checkpoints, and serving as a quick reaction force for logistic units caught in an enemy attack, we would and DID encounter the enemy on SCORES of occassions. Those bullet holes in my truck were real. Those slivers of AK-47 rounds I pulled out of my pant leg (but thankfully NOT my leg) were real. The bullets I sent downrange at the enemy were real. The rounds my soldiers fired at the enemy when I told them to were real. The 4 Purple Heart my 2 male and 1 female (she got two) Soldiers received were real. The Bronze Star with V device for Valor that our medic (SHE) received was real. The combat actions badges that we wear, with pride, on our uniforms are real.  Women HAVE been in the thick of combat for the past 11 years. I have seen more combat than some of my male counterparts who have served in Infantry, Armor, and Field Artillery units.  And while, previously, we couldn't be directly assigned to Infantry units, you COULD be "attached." Just like my platoon and I were from Oct-Dec '04 during the offensive in Fallujah. There we did counter mortar/counter rocket patrols with a heavy infantry platoon and cav scout platoon. I am a woman. I have been in combat, HEAVY combat. And I am not expection to that and have many a close female friends who saw more than I did.

Most of the conjectures in this thread about military life are just that, conjectures. Does sexual assault happen in the military? Unfortunately. You know what helps prevent that--the command climate and leadership that is in the place. In my 35 months as a Platoon Leader and 19 months as a Company Commander, my unit did not have ONE case of sexual assault of any type.  We did have a couple of dirt bags that may have been capable of such, but we didn't let them remain in the Army--and by we, I mean my male First Sergeant and I. 

Allowing women in combat is not the issue the order addressed, it's allowing women in combat designated roles. The switch wasn't suddenly turned on yesterday and women aren't in the infantry today. Significant study and work has yet to be done on how to implement it, and the current timeline for full implementation appears to be 2016.  I did not advocate one way or the other for it because, frankly, I was already doing everything like that as an MP. Are there significant implementation implications that the military must address?  Yes, but I have already seen some of the work that they are doing on such. And you know what, UNLIKE when they first allowed women into the Academies in the mid 70's, they actually have women leaders working on these issues (alongside men) to address the totality of it.  And do not assume that just because a woman volunteered to be in the military that it makes them a hard left leaning feminist.  Some are, some are not. Most are just patriots who want to serve their country, be leaders, and provide for their families. We come from all sides of the political spectrum, and our primary goal is serve, NOT make a statement.    

And shame on some of you for stereotyping the type of male soldiers we have. Are there some knuckle dragging, testosterone driven yahoos that make life for everyone hard? YES, there are. But there are also many of the finest gentlemen with character unlike what you often see in the civilian world and who have no issue working with their female counterparts and crushing the idiots who act otherwise.  The view from my foxhole is that the good outnumber the bad, and the more of the good we get into leadership positions, the better the command climates will be and the less any of the bad stuff against male or female will occur.  But do not think the military can ever become immune to societal ills.  There is nothing that we are faced with that isn't reflected in greater numbers and scope in the civilian world.  Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines come from that society. So before questioning the military as the root of why some of the ills in the military happen--question society and address that first.  We can always be better as a military. We are always striving to be better. We will never be perfect. But find me somew workplace that is. I have always felt safe because of two things: the great people I have served with whom I knew had my back (male and female), and the knowledge that is anyone tried anything with me, they were going to regret it.

In the meantime, as an officer in this United States Army (not as a male or a female, but as an officer) with 11 years of commissioned service and 15 total years in uniform, I will continue to do my best to lead properly, to impact my sphere of influence the best that I am able, to create command climates and work enviornments that foster ingenuity and creativity, to grow leaders of character who excel in peacetime and war, to demonstrate how developing trust and cohesion amongst each other in units leads to greater success both collectively and individually than pursuing personal ambitions (be they worthy or criminal), and to always lead by example. My current position gives me access to many of America's future leaders, and I can assure you that those of us officers that are here are pouring our heart and souls into mentoring, molding, and shaping them into the they type of leader of character that will best serve this country and who will take the mantle of honor of leading America's Sons and Daughters with the utmost seriousness and committment to doing the right thing.

I will not debate with anyone here. This is my statement on this. Do not speculate upon what you do not know, and newspaper articles are not the fullness of information.

i'm saying i don't like war no matter who is dying for no reason.  why does it make a difference if it is sons or daughters?  i don't agree with "women and children first."  really, according to some in this thread, women are so useless and helpless and distracting, why would you WANT us to survive?  why is it important for a woman's life to be more valuable than a man?  i don't agree with that at all.  when i say i want equal rights, i mean it.

Explain how a 125-135 lb man would do the same.

Soldiers who are under      the minimum weight limit must be referred for a medical evaluation.

Soldiers who exceed          the weight charts are measured for body-fat. Those who exceed the Army          body-fat standards are enrolled in the Army Weight Management Program.          Those in the weight management program must lose between 3 and 8 pounds          per month until they meet body-fat standards. Those who fail to make      satisfactory progress are subject to involuntary discharge.

Individuals who exceed          body-fat standards are ineligible for promotion, professional military          education, most non-mandatory training schools, and reenlistment