View Full Version : Is the US military ready for women on the frontline?
The Guardian UK ran this article 29th of April, which personally I find confusing: they are in - they are not in - they are on the front line unofficially-?
Is the US military ready for women on the frontline?
Since the American revolution, women have toiled alongside men in America's armed forces. Their jobs, however, remained entirely outside the realm of combat. Women in earlier wars served as nurses, civil service pilots, cooks and mechanics, among other positions. Since 2001, the roles of women in the military have changed. More than 225,000 women have deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, and women now comprise 15% of America's armed forces. Many of these women served unofficially in combat roles. Women in the navy have, for the first time, served aboard submarines. An estimated 144 women fighting in these two wars have died."
"This week's two-pronged marine corps announcement is of a similar nature: women (who comprise a mere 10% of the marines) can now participate in its gruelling infantry officer course, a three-month programme that's the necessary precursor to joining the infantry. But there's a catch: once women complete the programme, they still won't actually be allowed to join the infantry. Another 40 women will be assigned to roles previously held exclusively by men. But again, none of those roles will entail combat service."[/I]
"An astounding 3,192 women reported a sexual assault in 2011, according to a Pentagon report issued last year. Even worse? That figure is only 13.5% of the total assaults on women that likely occurred. Regardless of combat exposure, recent studies have concluded that deployed women in Iraq and Afghanistan are more than twice as vulnerable to post-traumatic stress disorder than their male peers. Women are also much less likely to qualify for disability benefits related to physical injury or trauma. Why? Because "officially" they aren't exposed to combat."
Read more:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/apr/26/us-military-women-marines
denuseri
05-13-2012, 11:47 AM
That this announcement even qualifies as a milestone is indicative of a larger problem as far as gender equality within the armed forces is concerned. There should be no question that American women are entirely able to serve closer to the front lines – and even on them.
Well I know the US Air force already has sentry snipers. Though I personally don't think it will prove a good idea to put us on the actual front line.
The real question is not whether women have the capacity to serve to a greater extent, (actually that's still very much in question, one can want to do something all day long but it still doesn't mean one can do it) it is whether the US military, both in its policies and its prejudices, has the capacity for them to do so. Since the American revolution, women have toiled alongside men in America's armed forces. Their jobs, however, remained entirely outside the realm of combat. Women in earlier wars served as nurses, civil service pilots, cooks and mechanics, among other positions. Since 2001, the roles of women in the military have changed. More than 225,000 women have deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, and women now comprise 15% of America's armed forces. Many of these women served unofficially in combat roles. Women in the navy have, for the first time, served aboard submarines. An estimated 144 women fighting in these two wars have died.
I can see us serving in roles that do not require us to go on 10 mile route marches packing 80 pound rucksacks.
Historically, the limitations imposed on women have been justified by top brass for a single primary reason: a woman's physical and psychological stamina simply could not withstand the rigours of direct combat. (this article counterpoints itself with this presumption later) But today, even the department of defence has recognised – at least on paper – the archaic nature of this presumption. A recent report (https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:AQDHfvZ5jwQJ:www.defense.gov/news/WISR_Report_to_Congress.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgHtt6vCwpN68uGfbbd6fz5BtYsE7VqZzl-v0WOkkfFsu-WzwpFLdiG0DDFPrJuQnvd7khHRmIIndl5yPiNxIceP9ueVnS5x m_TI7ZtJDzA-7WIP8pDkx6FYf2GTmt8-_WMfJHZ&sig=AHIEtbQBZ6VfhOyZnUUoS6Db4JhX9iSMNA) from the office of the undersecretary of defence recommended "the elimination of gender-restricted assignment". That report also mandated the development of "gender-neutral physical standards" so that women could be evaluated head-to-head with their male colleagues. (unfortunately this almost allays means lowering the overall standard to accommodate women at least in the gross physical areas... additionally where the standard cant be lowered: for instance female candidates for Army officer basic, also routinely receive unwarranted scores simply to be allowed to pass so the Army can meet its quota of women officers)
In conjunction with that report, Pentagon officials earlier this year announced plans (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/10/us/pentagon-to-loosen-restrictions-on-women-in-combat.html) to open an estimated 14,000 additional military jobs to women – many of them of a more dangerous nature than what is allowed now (but top brass stopped short of permitted women to serve in combat, offering as rationale little more than that they continued to study the prospect).
They might do better to study the Israeli model, they have after all had women serving in a far wider variety of roles for a longer time.
This week's two-pronged marine corps announcement is of a similar nature: women (who comprise a mere 10% of the marines) can now participate in its gruelling infantry officer course, a three-month programme that's the necessary precursor to joining the infantry. But there's a catch: once women complete the programme, they still won't actually be allowed to join the infantry. Another 40 women will be assigned to roles previously held exclusively by men. But again, none of those roles will entail combat service. No doubt, any advancements in the regulations that govern women in the military is cause for celebration. But the sluggishness of the Pentagon's progress is difficult to understand, and also incredibly frustrating especially when, unofficially, women have increasingly found themselves in the very combat roles they're barred from. "Women are being shot at, are being killed, are being attached to these combat arms units," Anu Bhagwati, executive director of the Service Women's Action Network, told the BBC (http://servicewomen.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/SWAN.mp4). "The policy has to catch up to reality."
I agree they should get better training especially in base defense and convoy defensive roles...but I believe honestly that they would be a determent to unit integrity in front line "infantry" capacities (something also determined by others who have tested out women serving in such capacities)
Before it does, however, the military would be wise to make additional changes to accommodate any enhanced role for women in the armed services. For decades important issues that pertain to women in the context of military service – sexual assault, reactions to trauma and compensation, among others – have not been assigned the attention they both require and deserve. An astounding 3,192 women reported a sexual assault in 2011 (http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CFUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fservicewomen.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F04%2FSAPRO-briefing-report-4_17_12.pdf&ei=hySZT_eOLZK5hAfCn_j3BQ&usg=AFQjCNFe4rNau8LXsbbtzu3bEOIZNbEq3w), according to a Pentagon report issued last year. Even worse? That figure is only 13.5% of the total assaults on women that likely occurred. Regardless of combat exposure, recent studies have concluded that deployed women in Iraq and Afghanistan are more than twice as vulnerable to post-traumatic stress disorder than their male peers. (most likely because we are not as evolutionarily suited to the environment is my guess) Women are also much less likely to qualify for disability benefits related to physical injury or trauma. Why? Because "officially" they aren't exposed to combat.
No doubt, thousands of enlisted women would tell the US military that they're more than ready to serve their country in the same capacity as men. Whether the military is ready for women, however, remains an open question.
Also whether or not we are ready, honestly ready our selves should be too.
"...unofficially, women have increasingly found themselves in the very combat roles they're barred from."
Can anyone explain this to me??? Do they just sort of accidentially land on the front line? Does it mean as in if the front line suddenly shifts fast or something like that?
"They might do better to study the Israeli model, they have after all had women serving in a far wider variety of roles for a longer time."
Agreed. Also in Canada and a few other countries I cannot remember now - ehm, I do not know if women are on the front line in DK forces, but I think so. Yes, it would be illuminating with info about how that works, for the women, and for the men.
OK, yes, the Danish Afghani forces have women at the front, the first died in 2006. The interviews and blogs I have seen from their male collegues is yes to women at the front, no to qutas. Not all men can, not all women can.
In 2009 there was at least one female infantery woman group leader. She say ability is important, not gender. Ability means life or death for the solider and his or her mates.
"Should the British military allow women into frontline combat roles?The Australian army is planning to let women serve in frontline combat units, as they already do in nations such as New Zealand, Italy and Canada"
Email guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 27 September 2011 10.45 BST
Poll:
68.9% Yes, it's about time there was gender equality in warfare
31.1% No, it would be disruptive and dangerous
Does anyone know if they are in in UK forces?
Punish_her
05-13-2012, 06:28 PM
"...unofficially, women have increasingly found themselves in the very combat roles they're barred from."
Can anyone explain this to me??? Do they just sort of accidentially land on the front line? Does it mean as in if the front line suddenly shifts fast or something like that?
front line essentially refers to infantry and grunt units. if you're a lady transportation officer, and you're just supposed to deliver some supplies from point a to point b and you get ambushed, you'll stilll have to fight. its very prevelant now that the front line is almost nonexist in conflicts like afghanistan and what the iraq war was
front line essentially refers to infantry and grunt units. if you're a lady transportation officer, and you're just supposed to deliver some supplies from point a to point b and you get ambushed, you'll stilll have to fight. its very prevelant now that the front line is almost nonexist in conflicts like afghanistan and what the iraq war was
I see, thanks.
Having gotten some info I feel I can discuss this now. Not that I am in favour of war, but more than I am in favour of choice, whenever possible.
Well I know the US Air force already has sentry snipers. Though I personally don't think it will prove a good idea to put us on the actual front line.
Because of physical strength, you mean? I saw this book by a Danish top military person who thought that the immediate lesser strength was evened out by more stamina. It being a Danish book I can only quot eit like this:
oberst Lars R. Møller,
»Kvinder i kamp«, (women in fight)
"argumenterer obersten for, at kvinder med lethed kan klare mænd i åben kamp. f.eks. med et karateslag til adamsæblet, og at de i øvrigt kan være så aggressive, at de gamle argumenter mod kvinder ved fronten hermed skulle være ryddet af banen. Mænd har argumenteret med mandens stærkere fysik, men Møller indvender, at kvinder til gengæld er mere udholdende og viser med eksempler, at kvindelige soldater både under den amerikanske borgerkrig og i de kinesiske kommunisters lange march har udholdt strabadser, som de fleste mænd ikke kan."
"the oberst argues that women easily can handle men in open combat, for instance with a karate hit to the throat, and that they btw can be so aggressive, that the old arguments against women at the front hereby should be out of the way. Men have argued on the basis of men's bigger strength, but Møller argues that during the American civil war and in the long march of the Chineese communists women have withstood hardship that most men could not."
http://www.b.dk/boeger/kvinder-ved-fronten
It is well known that in revolutions and resistance movements women are there, but whether this makes a difference to the a military operation I could not say.
[I can see us serving in roles that do not require us to go on 10 mile route marches packing 80 pound rucksacks.
I do not know that the 10 miles would be a problem, but maybe the 80 pund rucksack might. Do people really carry that around? Does not look like it from the reportages I have seen from Afghanistan.
They might do better to study the Israeli model, they have after all had women serving in a far wider variety of roles for a longer time.
Well, I know now that many countries other than Israel do this - Canada, Italy, Denmark, some African countries, Russia, New Zealand
Australia apparently opened up september last year
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/28/world/asia/australia-will-allow-women-to-serve-in-frontline-combat.html?_r=1
They can't all be wrong, surely?
I agree they should get better training especially in base defense and convoy defensive roles...but I believe honestly that they would be a determent to unit integrity in front line "infantry" capacities (something also determined by others who have tested out women serving in such capacities)
Apparently this is one reason women want to be regular - they end up in fighting situations without having had the proper training so yes, that would be good.
I do not know what the determent is?
Others countries do not find it so, and Danish male soldier do not seem to find it so, at least not the ones who's blog and comments I have read.
Also whether or not we are ready, honestly ready our selves should be too.
I am sure they now their own minds.
Punish_her
05-14-2012, 01:42 PM
everytime this argument comes up, there always comes this "strength vs stamina argument." people tend to assume that women have greater capacity for endurance events. this is not true. we can look at it physiologically, where men have larger hearts and lungs relative to body size (which means they can pump more blood and oxygen around to sustain physicalactivity better) as well as more red blood cells, hemoglobin,and platelets. and these are not slight differences, they're sometimes 50% greater than females. all of these put together translate into greater strength, speed, endurance, and even pain tolerance than women. for proof, look at world record times in any foot race, and the men outperform women considerably. furthermore, because women have lower levels of bone density, they are more prone to stress factures and injury
Demon_Goddess_165
05-14-2012, 02:56 PM
Personally I say throw out the entire argument as to weather or not women are physically capable of getting the job done. If you look at the over all health of the individuals enlisting these days... Well let me just suggest you type the words "To fat to fight" into any search engine and I hope my point will be made for me.
Soo setting aside the who's got bigger muscles, the individual who trains the most, there are a few other points to consider; Training, psychological stability, societal gender roles, sleeping arrangements, and SEX. I’ll just say a little on each and try not to get all ranty. And before I do so let me just say that this is my take on the issue nothing more, nothing less.
Training: There’s no reason why women shouldn’t be receiving the same training as men do. By setting a double standard for women we are doing a disservice to everyone involved. I believe that the real argument show be weather or not we maintain the same standards for fighting soldiers as we do for non-combatant soldiers. *but that goes back to the issue of conditioning and physical fitness.* Man, woman, or hermaphrodite it really doesn’t matter. In the field you all have to get over the same obstacles and cover the same ground so it doesn’t make sense to have different expectations in training. I say lets get rid of Gender-Norming!
“The more you sweat and bleed in training the less dead you’ll get in the field. Always treat training like it’s the real thing and the real thing will become another training exercise.” Unnamed soldier.
Psychological stability: No one is ready for the horror that comes with taking the life of another person. If anything society makes it more socially acceptable for women to seek out the psychological help to deal with the stress and trauma associated with combat.
Societal Gender Roles: This and sex are the real issues faced with women in combat. (In my opinion.) The real issue with women in combat is how men react to women in combat. If a man and a women are injured the medic is more likely to check the woman first and to spend more time treating a women that they will a man. In a rescue situation take the injured, take the children, take the women, then take the men. Apply that logic to combat in reverse and you’d never see a single woman carrying a gun.
Sleeping Arrangements: When you’ve got limited or no tents in the field, bunks, rooms, ect. do you place women in the same barracks as men or do you need to have speical housing arrangments for them? Same goes for showers and the head. Well do you let openly gay men sleep in a room full of straight men or do you put them in the women’s barracks? Can’t we all be adults and keep it in our respective pants?
SEX: Sex is always an issue and you always have to deal with it front lines or not. As long as everyone is smart about things and no one gets pregnant lets just treat it with a giant rule of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. And throw in a Don’t let it fuck up your ability to do your job any more so than is humanly unavoidable.
Let me just close this out with passing along someone else’s thoughts on the subject.
“When the bullets start flying I want and need two things from the person next to me and one of them sure as hell isn’t a swinging cock. Trust, in the individual and in the training they’ve received, and that training, oh and that they've got the cojones to use said training. I want the best trained, most experienced person for the job at my side. I don’t need to be worrying about them fucking up and I sure as hell won’t be thinking about pussy when someone’s got a gun pointed in my general direction and is pulling the trigger.”
everytime this argument comes up, there always comes this "strength vs stamina argument." people tend to assume that women have greater capacity for endurance events. this is not true. we can look at it physiologically, where men have larger hearts and lungs relative to body size (which means they can pump more blood and oxygen around to sustain physicalactivity better) as well as more red blood cells, hemoglobin,and platelets. and these are not slight differences, they're sometimes 50% greater than females. all of these put together translate into greater strength, speed, endurance, and even pain tolerance than women. for proof, look at world record times in any foot race, and the men outperform women considerably. furthermore, because women have lower levels of bone density, they are more prone to stress factures and injury
According to this book I mentioned this is not an argument, but an observation.
Sorry to be late but I am travelling at the moment and pc access is sort of on-and-off.
Training: Societal Gender Roles: This and sex are the real issues faced with women in combat. (In my opinion.) The real issue with women in combat is how men react to women in combat. If a man and a women are injured the medic is more likely to check the woman first and to spend more time treating a women that they will a man.
But if women were normally there in combat situations, don't you think the their porfessionel instincts would take over, and they would take the most injured first?
In a rescue situation take the injured, take the children, take the women, then take the men. Apply that logic to combat in reverse and you’d never see a single woman carrying a gun.
I don't understand.
Sleeping Arrangements: When you’ve got limited or no tents in the field, bunks, rooms, ect. do you place women in the same barracks as men or do you need to have speical housing arrangments for them? Same goes for showers and the head. Well do you let openly gay men sleep in a room full of straight men or do you put them in the women’s barracks? Can’t we all be adults and keep it in our respective pants?
I don't see why not. Same argument as before, you get used to it.
“When the bullets start flying I want and need two things from the person next to me and one of them sure as hell isn’t a swinging cock. Trust, in the individual and in the training they’ve received, and that training, oh and that they've got the cojones to use said training. I want the best trained, most experienced person for the job at my side. I don’t need to be worrying about them fucking up and I sure as hell won’t be thinking about pussy when someone’s got a gun pointed in my general direction and is pulling the trigger.”
Precisely what they said on the Danish blogs I read.
The Novice
05-19-2012, 04:59 AM
As a veteran of the United States Marine Corps the problem with women in combat is the Puritan hang up Americans have about sex. The idea of mixing up the sexes is foreign to most of us. Now my problem with women in combat is I was taught, by my single mother and 2 older sisters that women should be protected. So as a leader ordering a women into a situation that would put her in harms way would be difficult for me. I was in the infantry and most of the men I served with did not like the idea of women in combat. But with the type of wars we are fighting now and in the future it has happened and will happen again. So they should be trained the same as men to deal with it, and those that can not should be removed from the service, just like the men that cannot handle it.
Thorne
05-19-2012, 07:36 AM
As a veteran of the United States Marine Corps the problem with women in combat is the Puritan hang up Americans have about sex. The idea of mixing up the sexes is foreign to most of us.
This is the whole problem in a nutshell. American men, especially, are taught that women are fragile, needing to be protected, unable to think for themselves, the whole phony bag of crap. If we stop segregating kids, let the girls and the boys play ball together, let them grow to understand and respect one another and teach the boys, especially, that women are not JUST sex objects, then the majority of the problems of having women in combat will disappear.
Now my problem with women in combat is I was taught, by my single mother and 2 older sisters that women should be protected. So as a leader ordering a women into a situation that would put her in harms way would be difficult for me.
But if you are trained to understand that women are just as capable of protecting themselves as you are your attitude would be different. And I would hope that ordering anyone into such a position would be difficult. Yes, it has to be done, but it should never be done callously.
I was in the infantry and most of the men I served with did not like the idea of women in combat.
Again, this speaks to their upbringing, a fault within themselves and not within the women.
So they should be trained the same as men to deal with it, and those that can not should be removed from the service, just like the men that cannot handle it.
Yes. True equality. Assign tasks that match up with their skills. You don't make the clumsy dork, who can't find his ass unless he falls on it, into a sniper!
A major problem with the military leadership is the question of how to deal with women being captured by the enemy. But again, much of that problem is in our puritanical, Victorian upbringing. I would hope that any female combatants which our forces captured would be treated fairly, just as male combatants. And we should expect the same for any of our forces who are captured, and be ready to bring down the condemnation of the world on those who fail to honor that ideal. Including our own.
Punish_her
05-19-2012, 10:43 AM
According to this book I mentioned this is not an argument, but an observation.
a provely wrong one
Punish_her
05-19-2012, 10:59 AM
A major problem with the military leadership is the question of how to deal with women being captured by the enemy. But again, much of that problem is in our puritanical, Victorian upbringing. I would hope that any female combatants which our forces captured would be treated fairly, just as male combatants. And we should expect the same for any of our forces who are captured, and be ready to bring down the condemnation of the world on those who fail to honor that ideal. Including our own.
our male combatants are treated fairly? i was under the impression they had their heads cut off
Thorne
05-19-2012, 07:52 PM
our male combatants are treated fairly? i was under the impression they had their heads cut off
Not what I said! "I would hope that any female combatants which our forces captured would be treated fairly, just as male combatants." Combatants WE captured, not our combatants who have been captured. In short, I hope we are treating POW's fairly, and I hope that our troops who are captured would be treated fairly. And yes, some of them have had their heads cut off. But then, we aren't fighting military forces, but armed insurgents/terrorists/guerrilla forces.
Stealth694
05-20-2012, 01:24 PM
I believe Israel had female combatants on the front line and most of the squads had higher casualties, because the Male troops were watching out for the Female troops instead of watching for the enemy. If women want to go on the front line OK, but lets make it voluntary and not manditory.
From:wikipedia.org:
However, according to Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, author of On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society, Israeli soldiers reacted with uncontrollable protectiveness and aggression after seeing a woman wounded. Grossman also notes that Islamic militants rarely, if ever, surrender to female soldiers, lessening the IDF's ability to interrogate prisoners. On the other hand, Iraqi and Afghan civilians are often not intimidated by female soldiers. However, in such environments, having female soldiers serving within a combat unit does have the advantage of allowing for searches on female civilians. Children and women are more likely to talk to female soldiers than to male soldiers. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_military)
Punish_her
05-20-2012, 06:13 PM
Not what I said! "I would hope that any female combatants which our forces captured would be treated fairly, just as male combatants." Combatants WE captured, not our combatants who have been captured. In short, I hope we are treating POW's fairly, and I hope that our troops who are captured would be treated fairly. And yes, some of them have had their heads cut off. But then, we aren't fighting military forces, but armed insurgents/terrorists/guerrilla forces.
well that's the enemy and the reality that we face. lets also not forget the abu ghraib (no way thats spelled right) incident which included sexual humiliation of priisoners
Thorne
05-20-2012, 06:17 PM
If women want to go on the front line OK, but lets make it voluntary and not manditory.
In the US, all military service is voluntary. We just need to make sure that everyone who volunteers understands that they could be put into the front lines someday. And retrain the men to realize that the person next to them is a soldier, neither male nor female. Everyone's lives depend on that.
As for the reactions of enemy soldiers, well, since when are we expected to adjust our behavior to their prejudices? With soldiers wearing camo and body armor, helmets and camo-painted faces, how are they going to know that the soldiers they are surrendering to are male or female until AFTER they've surrendered?
Thorne
05-20-2012, 06:21 PM
lets also not forget the abu ghraib (no way thats spelled right) incident which included sexual humiliation of priisoners
Another reality we face. Such tactics have always been prevalent in warfare, on all sides of the battle. We can condemn it, and prosecute those who partake in it, but stopping it completely would require a rewriting of human nature. Especially when the easiest way to get soldiers to kill the enemy is to convince those soldiers that the enemy are not human, are evil, and are not worthy of being treated humanely.
a provely wrong one
Well, a number of countries disagree.