thedrifter
10-27-04, 06:29 AM
10-25-2004
Another Misguided Female-in-Combat Plan
By Ray Starmann
The headline blazed across the front page of The Washington Times on Friday, Oct. 22: “U.S. Army to lift ban on women in combat.” The article stated, “The U.S. Army is negotiating with the Pentagon’s civilian leaders a plan to eliminate a women-in-combat ban so it can place mixed-sex support companies within war fighting units, starting with a division going to Iraq in January.”
After all, shouldn’t everyone have an equal opportunity to serve? Last week, a grandmother graduated from Sandhurst, the ancient and famed British military academy. God help us all. What’s next; crippled, pregnant lesbians in the SAS?
I quickly popped two antacid tablets and continued reading. The paper noted that the Army wants to allow female soldiers to serve in so-called Forward Support Companies that are “collocate” with actual combat units. Army spokesman Lt. Col. Chris Rodney explained, “We imagined a more linear combat environment. Now, with the nature of asymmetrical threats, we have to re-look at that policy. The Army is not seeking to lift the ban on women in direct combat units, such as infantry or armor.”
Talk about a distinction without a difference.
The underlying reality behind this initiative is stark: This is an act of utter desperation, such as Josef Stalin ordering Soviet women to the front against the German Army in the dark winter of 1941. We simply do not have enough troops to support our current missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. And, if we move on Iran and/or Syria, where are we going to get the soldiers and Marines?
The Bush administration still proudly proclaims that we have enough troops. After all, the president insists, if the commanders on the ground wanted more troops they’d ask Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, right? Sure they would; if they want to forfeit their seven-figure defense contractor jobs and PX parking spaces after they retire.
Despite initial opposition from Rumsfeld, Congress has given (forced upon) the Army permission for a “temporary” increase in its end-strength by 30,000 billets. Meanwhile, Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker is moving to implement a real reform by reorganizing the Army into new brigade-sized combat formations that will increase the overall number of troops who are trained to fight. But these reforms will take years to have a true impact.
It seems that a combination of political correctness and the messy situation in Iraq have tempted Army Department officials to impose the quick fix of allowing female soldiers that much closer to combat.
To quote Army spokesman Rodney again, “We imagined a more linear combat environment. Now, with the nature of asymmetrical threats, we have to re-look at that policy.” Translation: We got ourselves into a guerilla conflict we didn’t expect, and since the whole country is a shooting gallery anyway, this is a perfect time to move the bar ahead for women in combat.
There are two main problems with this thesis: physical problems and morale problems. Anyone who has been in combat for more than ten seconds knows what a physically brutal business it is. The toughest and best-trained people are winners. The losers are retrieved with a spatula and carried away in Ziploc bags. Women are just not as physically strong as men. They have an extremely difficult time carrying or cannot carry standard combat loads that range from 50 to 200 pounds. They have basic problems with simple combat tasks such as loading and chambering the .50 caliber machine gun. They cannot throw grenades as far as men, nor can they run as fast. Women have a difficult time carrying ammo cans containing 5.56 and 7.62mm rounds. Many cannot lift, much less carry, a 155mm artillery round. These facts have been proven over and over again.
In combat, any type of physical deficiency will get you killed or wounded within seconds. Many will argue that since women will not actually be in the combat arms, then they will not be in harm’s way. Nothing could be farther from the truth. A quartermaster company supporting an infantry brigade is going to be in combat. A maintenance company supporting an armor brigade is going to be in combat.
Pfc. Jessica Lynch and her fellow female soldiers in the 507th Maintenance Co. discovered this harsh reality last year in Nasiriyah. Initial news reports that inaccurately depicted Lynch’s “John Wayne” stand against the Iraqis were quickly impeached, but the Army did succeed in suppressing reports of how brutally Lynch was treated as a POW (See “Exposing the Lies about Pfc. Lynch,” DefenseWatch, Oct. 4, 2004).
We cannot ignore that harsh reality: Women POW’s are treated more brutally than their male counterparts. Because of their physical deficiencies, women also have less of a chance of escaping from their captors than men do.
Troop morale is the second great dilemma. Military units function on morale, esprit de corps and that hard-to-define but integral combat multiplier, fighting spirit. Men in military units form strong bonds that transcend time and anything they will ever experience in the civilian world. The introduction of women in any military unit literally throws a mental wrench into this bonding or esprit de corps. Suddenly, men who only thought of repairing tank engines now spend their days pondering ways to have sex with the blonde in their platoon, trying to cope with a female first sergeant giving them orders, and the fact that they have just knocked-up their sexy brunette commander.
The Israelis had women in all of their units until the Six-Day War in 1967. They soon discovered that male soldiers were spending more time trying to protect women in combat than actually engaging the enemy. After the successful end to the war, Israel re-assigned women to administrative positions.
The solution: Women should always be allowed to serve in a variety of capacities in the Army. They can serve in support units, but only in those units far from any combat zone. They can be doctors, lawyers, adjutants, CID investigators, intelligence collectors and in the finance corps. They can be aviators and combat arms instructors.
Every life in the military is precious. It is a fact many of this nation’s civilian leaders have forgotten or never learned. Are the lives of our female soldiers worth the satisfaction gleaned by people who have never heard a shot fired in anger?
I think not.
Ray Starmann is a Contributing Editor of DefenseWatch. He can be reached at thrillerwriter39@verizon.net. Send Feedback responses to dwfeedback@yahoo.com.
http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=DefenseWatch.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=673&rnd=499.0057003182952
Ellie
Another Misguided Female-in-Combat Plan
By Ray Starmann
The headline blazed across the front page of The Washington Times on Friday, Oct. 22: “U.S. Army to lift ban on women in combat.” The article stated, “The U.S. Army is negotiating with the Pentagon’s civilian leaders a plan to eliminate a women-in-combat ban so it can place mixed-sex support companies within war fighting units, starting with a division going to Iraq in January.”
After all, shouldn’t everyone have an equal opportunity to serve? Last week, a grandmother graduated from Sandhurst, the ancient and famed British military academy. God help us all. What’s next; crippled, pregnant lesbians in the SAS?
I quickly popped two antacid tablets and continued reading. The paper noted that the Army wants to allow female soldiers to serve in so-called Forward Support Companies that are “collocate” with actual combat units. Army spokesman Lt. Col. Chris Rodney explained, “We imagined a more linear combat environment. Now, with the nature of asymmetrical threats, we have to re-look at that policy. The Army is not seeking to lift the ban on women in direct combat units, such as infantry or armor.”
Talk about a distinction without a difference.
The underlying reality behind this initiative is stark: This is an act of utter desperation, such as Josef Stalin ordering Soviet women to the front against the German Army in the dark winter of 1941. We simply do not have enough troops to support our current missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. And, if we move on Iran and/or Syria, where are we going to get the soldiers and Marines?
The Bush administration still proudly proclaims that we have enough troops. After all, the president insists, if the commanders on the ground wanted more troops they’d ask Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, right? Sure they would; if they want to forfeit their seven-figure defense contractor jobs and PX parking spaces after they retire.
Despite initial opposition from Rumsfeld, Congress has given (forced upon) the Army permission for a “temporary” increase in its end-strength by 30,000 billets. Meanwhile, Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker is moving to implement a real reform by reorganizing the Army into new brigade-sized combat formations that will increase the overall number of troops who are trained to fight. But these reforms will take years to have a true impact.
It seems that a combination of political correctness and the messy situation in Iraq have tempted Army Department officials to impose the quick fix of allowing female soldiers that much closer to combat.
To quote Army spokesman Rodney again, “We imagined a more linear combat environment. Now, with the nature of asymmetrical threats, we have to re-look at that policy.” Translation: We got ourselves into a guerilla conflict we didn’t expect, and since the whole country is a shooting gallery anyway, this is a perfect time to move the bar ahead for women in combat.
There are two main problems with this thesis: physical problems and morale problems. Anyone who has been in combat for more than ten seconds knows what a physically brutal business it is. The toughest and best-trained people are winners. The losers are retrieved with a spatula and carried away in Ziploc bags. Women are just not as physically strong as men. They have an extremely difficult time carrying or cannot carry standard combat loads that range from 50 to 200 pounds. They have basic problems with simple combat tasks such as loading and chambering the .50 caliber machine gun. They cannot throw grenades as far as men, nor can they run as fast. Women have a difficult time carrying ammo cans containing 5.56 and 7.62mm rounds. Many cannot lift, much less carry, a 155mm artillery round. These facts have been proven over and over again.
In combat, any type of physical deficiency will get you killed or wounded within seconds. Many will argue that since women will not actually be in the combat arms, then they will not be in harm’s way. Nothing could be farther from the truth. A quartermaster company supporting an infantry brigade is going to be in combat. A maintenance company supporting an armor brigade is going to be in combat.
Pfc. Jessica Lynch and her fellow female soldiers in the 507th Maintenance Co. discovered this harsh reality last year in Nasiriyah. Initial news reports that inaccurately depicted Lynch’s “John Wayne” stand against the Iraqis were quickly impeached, but the Army did succeed in suppressing reports of how brutally Lynch was treated as a POW (See “Exposing the Lies about Pfc. Lynch,” DefenseWatch, Oct. 4, 2004).
We cannot ignore that harsh reality: Women POW’s are treated more brutally than their male counterparts. Because of their physical deficiencies, women also have less of a chance of escaping from their captors than men do.
Troop morale is the second great dilemma. Military units function on morale, esprit de corps and that hard-to-define but integral combat multiplier, fighting spirit. Men in military units form strong bonds that transcend time and anything they will ever experience in the civilian world. The introduction of women in any military unit literally throws a mental wrench into this bonding or esprit de corps. Suddenly, men who only thought of repairing tank engines now spend their days pondering ways to have sex with the blonde in their platoon, trying to cope with a female first sergeant giving them orders, and the fact that they have just knocked-up their sexy brunette commander.
The Israelis had women in all of their units until the Six-Day War in 1967. They soon discovered that male soldiers were spending more time trying to protect women in combat than actually engaging the enemy. After the successful end to the war, Israel re-assigned women to administrative positions.
The solution: Women should always be allowed to serve in a variety of capacities in the Army. They can serve in support units, but only in those units far from any combat zone. They can be doctors, lawyers, adjutants, CID investigators, intelligence collectors and in the finance corps. They can be aviators and combat arms instructors.
Every life in the military is precious. It is a fact many of this nation’s civilian leaders have forgotten or never learned. Are the lives of our female soldiers worth the satisfaction gleaned by people who have never heard a shot fired in anger?
I think not.
Ray Starmann is a Contributing Editor of DefenseWatch. He can be reached at thrillerwriter39@verizon.net. Send Feedback responses to dwfeedback@yahoo.com.
http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=DefenseWatch.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=673&rnd=499.0057003182952
Ellie