Enlisted Women Opposed To Combat

[thedrifter]

Enlisted Women Opposed To Combat

Elaine Donnelly, Center for Military Readiness
Monday, July 21, 2003

Feminist activists and their friends in the media keep insisting that military women strongly desire the “opportunity” to serve in land combat units. But is that true?
Opinion surveys done by the Army indicate that the majority of military women are strongly opposed to combat assignments -- especially if it means being forced into combat on an “equal” basis with men.

According to the General Accounting Office (GAO), quoting a study done by the Rand Corporation in 1998, only 10 percent of female privates and corporals agreed that “women should be treated exactly like men and serve in the combat arms just like men.”

The Army Research Institute (ARI), in a series of surveys since 1993, also found that most military women want nothing to do with combat assignments. In 2001, for example, Question #60 in the ARI “Sample Survey of Military Personnel” asked military people whether women should be assigned to direct ground combat (DGC), which was defined as” engaging an enemy on the ground with individual or crew-served weapons, while being exposed to hostile fire and to a high probability of direct physical contact with the hostile force’s personnel.”

ARI asked whether current policy “should be changed so that females can also be ‘involuntarily assigned’ [to combat units].” The results, which should have given the Army pause, indicated that only one-tenth of enlisted women (10 percent) wanted the Army to force female soldiers into combat units on an involuntary basis. The figure for enlisted men -- many of whom were found in a more detailed independent survey to be in favor of women in combat for vindictive reasons -- was 23 percent.

A bar graph slide prepared by ARI further indicated that among enlisted personnel, low percentages in favor of women in combat on the same basis as men “had remained stable since the fall of 1993.” Among female and male officers, levels of support -- 19 percent and 20 percent, respectively—were higher but far less than a majority. Even when ARI’s questionnaire inquired about combat assignments on a voluntary basis -- a hypothetical idea that is not a workable option --responses in favor were not much higher.

Voluntary Combat

Only 26 percent of enlisted women were in favor of voluntary combat for women, as opposed to 16 percent of the men. Only 29 percent and 12 percent of female and male officers, respectively, were in favor of voluntary combat assignments for women.

When the question was asked in terms of “voluntary [combat] assignments for both males and females,” percentages in favor ranged from a high of 31 percent (enlisted women) to a low of 7 percent(male officers).

None of these figures reflected a groundswell of support for the feminist agenda being advocated by the former Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services.

Until the DACOWITS Charter was allowed to expire in 2002, the committee operated as a tax-funded feminist lobby for women in combat, primarily composed of civilian women. A few ambitious female officers assigned to advise the DACOWITS seemed primarily motivated by careerism and the potential opportunity for a future woman to become Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

What Do Women Want ?

Clearly, dismal survey results on the women in combat issue presented a problem for Pentagon feminists. The answer to the problem was simple. If you don’t want to hear the answer, stop asking the question.

In the year 2002, the ARI survey dropped the question about women in combat, and substituted queries about less consequential matters, such as the opinions of military personnel regarding personal computers and the Internet. The omission sends the clear message that Army officials simply do not care what men and women think about new combat rules under which they must live—and possibly die.

Is there any other major defense issue that is handled by Pentagon officials with politically correct blinders firmly in place? “After action” reports about every aspect of the Battle of Iraq are being examined and discussed publicly.

By contrast, data on certain “sensitive” matters, such as the number of personnel losses and evacuations that occurred during the war due to pregnancy or inadequate dependent care plans has not been “captured” yet.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is trying to transform the military into a stronger, more cohesive and flexible force that can be deployed anywhere faster. All the more reason to insist that the right questions be asked about the extent and length of predictable personnel losses in all of the services.

America is defended not by ships, planes, and high-tech weapons on land, but by young men and women who volunteer to serve their country. Their views should be respected and not ignored. Even if polls and surveys among military personnel showed overwhelming majorities in support of women in combat, President George W. Bush must direct the Pentagon to implement sound priorities that put the interests of national security first.


Elaine Donnelly is president of the Center for Military Readiness. The Center's web site it at http://www.cmrlink.org.



Sempers,

Roger

[JChristin]

Here is one Woman Marine NOT opposed to serving in the front lines. Not all women in the military share the tea-for-two attitude expressed in the above article.

semper fi,
jchristin

[leroy8541]

We all know JChristin is in the 10% that want to slit the throat of an enemy infantry man. I'll bet if the poll included the men in the infantry how many of you actually want to engage the enemy the numbers would be pretty low. Alot of what Grunts say, and how they actually feel are different, especially those of us who have actually been there and done that.

[richgitz]

I have very mixed feelings on this subject. I know the Womans
Movement want the females to be equal. I know for sure that
in combat, I would not want a female in a foxhole with me. I
think it would be hard to access a situation if you had a woman
with you. Being from the old school men always looked out for
women. If my daughter would have decided to enter the service,
I would not want a hand full of women deciding that she should
be in a Foxhole. Combat should be left the men. I know that someone won't like what I have said, but these are my views.

[greensideout]

JChristin.

What the hell is a front line? You want to serve there? What is it?
How about standing in a fighting trench in crap water up to your armpits with who knows what floting or swimming by or onto you!
How about the lums going off and everything you see is moving?
How about the enemy trying to overrun your camp with 10 to 1?
How about going into a hot LZ with all those ******** trying to kill you and all you want to do is make it home, in one piece? I always thought it would be nice to have a full body on my return home.It did not happen for many!

You want to serve on the front line, whatever it is?
Why don't you just watch a movie---that might fulfill you fantasy!

[ivalis]

Hell, I'm against sending men involuntarily to combat. I'm convinced the volunteers would rethink their enthusiasm once involved.

[MillRatUSMC]

"COMMON SENSE" In the 21st century...
If there lessons to be learned from 11 Sept 2001 and Iraqi Freedom.
There's no front lines and the pace of war is as fast as attacking column.
As soon as an woman crossed the Kuwait/Iraq border, she was in combat.
Some have been injured and some have died as a result of injuries suffered during an ambush.
One lost part of both her legs the same day that PFC Jessica Lynch was captured.
The lost of part of both legs was dued to crushing injuries.
She's a single parent.
There's also a report that four Army personnel are being charged with mistreating/torturing their POW's two are women.
One is only 5' 4" in height.
Which brings me to the subject of POW's.
There's evidents of mistreating our POW's , possibly the killing of our POW's.
But the world expects us to treat the Iraqi's with kid gloves.
This killing of a soldier a day, has to stop.
Wonder if any of those soldiers killed were women?
Would this satisfy the " feminists movement"?
Women getting killed by some they're there to safeguard.
Wome have to many personal needs that would be hard to take care in combat sitution.
I'm glad that I didn't have face this issue while I was active.

Semper Fidelis
Ricardo

[firstsgtmike]

Ivalis,

Enthuisiasm has nothing to do with it. You put the non-enthuisiastic up front. If they don't want to shoot back, neither do pebble filled cans on a barbed wire perimeter fence line. They both serve the same purpose.

"For those enthusiastic about living, HERE THEY COME!"

The non-enthuisiastic also make great mine-field detectors.

(Non-enthusiastic is another catagory of conscientious objectors.)

The difference is, those who will kill to survive, and those who choose not to. Both rights are protected by the Constitution.

Who am I to argue with the Constitutoin of the United States?

I choose not to deprive anyone of their constitutional rights. I just demand that they practice their beliefs.

[ivalis]

Sorry Mike, I have yet to read a post that made less sense.

[firstsgtmike]

The sense of it is that it means TEAMWORK, and the team works together. A good team leader uses the assets available in the best manner possible to get the job done.

He is aware of the strengths and weaknesses of each team member and uses that knowledge to get maximum utilization from each member of the team. Each member is called upon to do the thing that he can do best to support the team effort.

Its called leadership, so that the rest of the team is not required to carry dead weight. Each member WILL contribute.

[top1371]

To quote a Commandant on CSPAN a few years back:

"I don't think the women of America are ready to jump out of a foxhole and cut the head off the enemy with an entrenching tool. These are the realities of combat...."

He was speaking to congress. I believe his statement was towards women as a whole. We know there are some of the motivated and dedicated out there and I don't take anything from them.

But, I too am from the old school. I think the Corps would be a stronger place if all Non-NCO's were single and we all lived in squadbays.

Semper Fi,

Top

[Osotogary]

Let's see.
The Wing Chun System of Self Defense was reportedly developed by a Chinese Nun. This system is practiced mostly by men now-a-days.
The Naginata is practiced primarily by women in Japan.
I have read stories of Chinese women guerillas who led bands of men and woman against the invading Japanese with much success.
Women have fought well against their foes.
Then again...
I think of what one of my sons told me about a training problem he was involved with, when he was in a "Sister Service". Briefly-
Combat town, sniper in a building, go get the sniper. My son and his squad get to the house. My son takes the initiative and kicks the front door in and shoots the sniper. The instructor comes up and tells him that because of his actions alot of lives were saved but it's too bad that he was killed in the process because his backup support (a women) didn't do her job and cover his six. Needless to say, my son voiced his displeasure. It was that time that the instructor told my son that he should have joined the Marines. That story has always stuck in my mind.
I would hate to lose a son or daughter, loved one, friend because someone wasn't doing their job, be they male or female.
Ideally teamwork should not have anything to do with gender but with, as firstsgtmike said, the team leaders ability to get maximum use of each team members strengths for the good of all.
I could be full of crepe in these matters but these were just my thoughts.
Gary

[greensideout]

Osotogary wrote:

"I have read stories of Chinese women guerillas who led bands of men and women againist the invading Japanese with much success."

I think he has found the answer to the question, "should women be in combat units?" The women that we are talking about are "American" women. Bingo!---There it is!

Our culture is such that a women may, (and I believe will) still think that the man has the lead. The man is still the protector. The man will open the door and shoot the sniper. Does the women think, "MY HERO". I believe she does, even if she doesn't want too. It's our culture.

I will admit that our culture is changing, but it is a slow process. I don't think that we are ready for women in combat yet and the numbers above show it.

But then again, I might be mugged and beat by a woman tomorrow, which could blow my theory on this! LOL

[OJK]

Lest we forget - today is the 61st birthday of the WAVES (Women Accepted for Volunteer Emergency Service).

[JChristin]

Thank goodness the doors of the old school are closing.

A feminist to me represents a woman seeking permission. I have never sought permission. I naturally always assumed that whatever I wanted to do that I could and would do it. But whatever I do, it must be the best. I am your equal. That is not something I request permission. Society may of placed a few limits where and how I can serve, but not of what I can achieve.

When I was married our house was bulgarized. My two boys ran to me for protection. When the thief entered our bedroom, who stood up to him. It wasn't my husband ( he was Navy anyway) - it was me. Within several seconds I had that son-of-a-b!tch down on the floor, hands behind his back. However, the hubby did dial 911. Teamwork! Why in this world someone would try to steal from a family living in university housing is beyond me. But if "men" are the protectors, well, guess I overstepped the boundaries. Sorry - didn't mean to intrude. Perhaps I should of demurily gazed up into the eyes of my loving husband, with that all knowing look that he was our great protector, as dictated by social norms. He would handle the thief. Afterall, he was the man!

I can respect everyone's right to their opinion expressed in this trend. However, I may not repect a few of the views expressed. Hence, it always brings an added thrill when a man will write about what a woman did wrong or failed to do and use it as a statement that all women are like that, hence should be denied entry into a particular field. However, if a man on the otherhand failed in the same activity - it would not be used against him personally - or at least not in the same fashion or manner as if he were a woman. Neither would it be used to exclude all men from a particular activity.

semper fi,
jchristin