PDA

View Full Version : Women in combat debate yields a minor measure



thedrifter
01-17-06, 12:55 PM
January 23, 2006
Women in combat debate yields a minor measure
DoD must give 30 days’ notice before changes
By Rick Maze
Times staff writer

A year of congressional debate over the role of women in combat — a debate that grew quite pointed at times — ended with lawmakers placing only a modest limitation on the Pentagon.

Under a compromise included in the 2006 defense authorization bill, lawmakers require the military to provide 30 days’ notice before making any change in ground-combat exclusion rules for female service members.

There are no indications that any policy changes are being considered, so the 30-day-notice requirement has no immediate impact other than to mark the end of a controversy that began last year over concerns that women deployed as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom were in direct ground combat roles, a change in the combat exclusion policy set in 1994.

At issue was whether the Army, and possibly the Marine Corps, was putting women into direct combat units in Iraq.

Initially, the House Armed Services Committee voted last spring to specifically exclude women from forward combat units, but the House of Representatives, under pressure from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Army officials, watered down the bill provision to only demand 60 days of advance notice before any changes were made in the combat exclusion policy.

The requirement for advance notice was further cut to 30 days in negotiations with the Senate.

The 30-day rule, recommended by the Defense Department, is not 30 calendar days, but 30 “legislative” days in which Congress is in continuous session, with no more than three days of break between meetings.

Given that the congressional calendar has frequent weeklong breaks, this may happen only four or five times a year.

‘It’s not satisfactory’

Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness, who blew the whistle on the fact some female soldiers were being assigned to forward combat support companies in apparent violation of the 1994 policy, said she is unhappy with the outcome.

“It is not satisfactory,” she said. “It is an unacceptable situation. It is unfair to women and unfair to men.”

Donnelly said she generally supports Rumsfeld but believes he is making a mistake in this case.

“He intervened in what should have been a congressional debate when there is obvious evidence that the combat exclusion law is not being followed,” she said.

“They are in violation of the law right now,” Donnelly said, referring to the possibility that women are being assigned or attached to company-level units that would put them in direct combat roles.

Donnelly was referring to the fact that the Army, and possibly the Marine Corps, has women assigned or attached to units that would place them in direct ground combat — but without violating the law, because the women would be withdrawn from the units before being deployed.

Donnelly said she calls this a “beam me up” strategy that hurts both men and women by placing women in peacetime jobs that they would not fill in war.

Getting more information

Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., the House Armed Services Committee chairman, and Rep. John McHugh, R-N.Y., chairman of the committee’s military personnel panel, have talked of getting more information about how the Army and Marine Corps are dealing with the combat exclusion law.

Donnelly said she hopes that involves extensive hearings because she believes the military is using double-talk to mask the fact the combat exclusion policy has been changed.

By law, women may not be assigned to combat support companies where they would be at risk of direct combat.

Donnelly said the military is skirting the policy by permanently assigning women to a higher-level unit, such as a brigade, then attaching for duties to one of the barred lower-level units.

Ellie

hrscowboy
01-17-06, 05:40 PM
When are women going to understand that No U.S. Taxpayers want women in combat... Do they not understand the word NO...

greensideout
01-17-06, 08:00 PM
....and why would women WANT to be in combat? It just creates more problems to deal with for their leaders.

CHOPPER7199
01-18-06, 01:32 AM
Ok, We Join To Do A Job. Women Also, I Would Not Like A Grunt Feeling Up My Lady On A Search Of Weapons If I Lived There. I Think Women Should Do The Checking On Women, Only Right Thing To Do. So Its In Combat All Around. I Believe Alot Of Our Women In Uniform Want To Do Their Part No Matter What It Is They Do.

jinelson
01-18-06, 02:35 AM
Thanks Chops you beat me to it. OORAHH!!! ya old grunt well put.

hrscowboy
01-18-06, 06:34 AM
I dont have a problem with them being in the uniform what so ever i do have a problem with them being in combat thats my 2 cents..

mrbsox
01-18-06, 06:50 AM
Perhaps the tough 'question de'jure' is to;

DEFINE FORWARD COMBAT UNITS !!

With todays (Gen IV) battle field, there is no FORWARD line of combat. There is no FORWARD unit in combat.

As I recall from several news posts, everyone does patrols... gurnts, arty, logistics, motor T...
You used to know an '03' was the line, every one else was back up.

So... if an admin clerk in a motor T convoy gets into a firefight (jessica flinch), does that mean she is in a forward combat unit or not ???

Maybe not by INTENT, but it puts her into a battle field with no forward lines of definition. It's a two edged sword.

I don't agree with women in combat, but reckognize the necessity of them being present for 'search' duties, etc. You can't have your cake AND eat it too.

It's a reality. It's a fact. We nned to accept it, like it or not.

$.02

Terry

Phantom Blooper
01-18-06, 08:11 AM
You can't have your cake AND eat it too.

Well Terry whats the sense in having the cake if you can't eat it? The temptation of the palate. This cliche always bothered me. Unless one is on a diet eat that cake. Or do push back and push your fat ass away from the table.It's like milk.It does the body good. It has everthing in it depending on the type that the USDA recomends for the daily allowance in the food group

Semper-Fi! "Never Forget" Chuck Hall

junker316
01-18-06, 08:12 AM
Here it is in a nut shell. Believe it or not Women are already in Combat situations. They Deploy with the Wing, The ACE, and other elements of the MEUs. They face the same hardship as men during combat. From my own Experience I have watched as these same " hard combat " Females then used thier gender against doing certain duties. Claiming that they could be raped or assaulted by the men. I watched as the men of my Unit had to not only pull the Gaurd Duty and Fire Watch for themselves but also for the Women because the Females might get " Assaulted " if the females did it. I watched as the Men had to perform differently than the females and how far the men had to travel to the showers compared to the females being positioned next to everything, I do mean right next to the showers and a stone's throw from everything else. BECAUSE of the special treatment it brought resentment towards the females with us. When I questioned the reason for these actions I was told that it didn't effect me. Which it really did since I was also pulling duties and having to pull extra duties that the females could have been doing. There were two females that refused the special treatment out of the 12 and did everything that the males were made to do.

Also during Combat the enemy will target a Woman before a man. The reason being that in America most men are raised to protect a female at all cost. Therefore when a female is wounded a man will try to rescue her, not that if a man was hurt that the rescue attempt wouldn't happen, at a faster rate than if it was another male. I wouldn't mind seeing a female in combat but under the same standards as the males are being held. If they can provee that they are worth thier weight then have them join in on the combat. If they can't then have them stay out of the way.

jryanjack
01-18-06, 02:53 PM
Junker has a point - in the one unit I served in that had women - they were really more trouble then they were worth, for the most part - there was one WM Sgt who did not take any special treatment and did her job better then most of the men who had the same role. However, when we deployed we had to set up their GP tents (it was a headquarters unit after all) as they could not set up a GP tent. Then we had to surround the tent in concentina wire (this was in Camp Lejune!) so that no one could sneak in, and then we had to post a male Marine guard. All of this while they watched.

If women want to be in combat then they should have to live to the same standards, otherwise stay in support units.

CHOPPER7199
01-19-06, 02:39 PM
Hmm, Wire, Guard, Gee, No Off Limits Sign Would Do? Corps Must Be Getting Soft On The Bad Guys. Things Were Different Yrs. Ago I Recall. One Would Not Dare To Be Caught In Off Limits Territory Unless Off Base . Let Alone On Base. Punishment Was Delt With Harshly. A "no" Meant "no"

junker316
01-19-06, 05:14 PM
A no means no now as well. It is just harder when you have the opposite sex also pushing the issue and when caught screams otherwise. The males that were caught were deealt with swiftly and harshly, mostly pulling extra duties and filling sandbags. The females when caught were sent to their tents and talked to the next day about getting pregnant while in combat and losing their place in the unit. No extra duties...no major punishment because a male might assault them. Yet most females that were caught were then caught many more times. Nothing really happened to them afterwards. a minor write up or a simple slap on the wrist. It didn't matter that they were married or not. The male was placed before a phone, if he was married, and had to explain to his spouse why he cheated on her and commited adultery. Concidering that the males out numbered the females, the females had a huge choice of whom they wished to get nasty with on which day. That to me was one major standard that was not upheld for both sexes. The male was fried and even the spouses in the rear would help them to empty the house before he got home. The females...well if their spouses ever found out then it was after they were home.

greensideout
01-19-06, 05:18 PM
Why have to deal with "off limits" etc. Have the females fourm their own battalion and that ends all the problems. They set up their own tents, pull their own guard duty, defend their own positions, go out on their own patrol---well you got it by now.
Bottom line, hump their own gear all the way.

CHOPPER7199
01-19-06, 07:42 PM
Gso, Totally Agree On That. Seems That Theres No More Hard Core Women Officers To Lay Down The Law Or Take Things Into Account If They Get Away With Chit.