Secretary Panetta's Decision to Allow Women in Combat Roles

6 posts / 0 new
Last post
Bobbi
Bobbi's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/14/2011
Hat Tips: 712
Posts: 95
Secretary Panetta's Decision to Allow Women in Combat Roles

Greetings Fellow Turdites,

I was pleasantly surprised by Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta's decision to allow women in combat MOS's (Military Occupational Specialties).  I wholeheartedly support this decision.  Many women enlist in the military hoping to serve their country and I believe this is a step forward for them.

I enlisted in God's United States Army at the tender age of 19 in 1976.  Now, don't get me wrong.  I was not some GI Jane gung-ho type.  I was more of a 'Private Benjamin' type cream puff that couldn't even remember my left from my right.  In fact, my Drill Sergeant singled me out and gave me a rock to carry around in my fatigue's  pocket so I would remember.  And that helped me get through and complete basic training and go on to train in my selected MOS - 63Hotel - Automotive Repairman.  I learned many invaluable life lessons that I still rely on to this day.  I think ALL young folks should be required to serve in the military - in fact,  I hope Secretary Panetta takes the next logical step and requires all women to register at the age of 18 for Selective Service - the same as our young men in this country are required to do.

To all the Sandra Fluke's of this country that insist the government provide them with free birth control, I say march your butt on down to your local recruiter's office - the military is happy to provide you with free birth control in return for your service.

To all the women that would sport bumper stickers that state "Women Lead The Way” on their SUV's, I say march your butt on down to your local recruiter's office - the military is always looking for leaders and ready to reward you (if serving your country is not reward enough).

Your thoughts are welcome!

Jager06
Jager06's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/15/2011
Hat Tips: 960
Posts: 123
Women in Combat

My experiences are somewhat different than Bobbi's.

I had several women tell me they could do everything I was doing as a Junior NCO in Special Operations. This was at a co-ed military leadership course that was mandatory for promotion. Army for those wondering which branch.

As the tactical leader for the final field training exercise (FTX) I approved the women who wanted to, to take over traditionally male roles.

What I observed validated the U.S. Military's prior position on women in combat.

I felt bad for the women who were trying to be something they could not. I honestly felt bad for them. But the bottom line is this:

A 120 lb woman decided she would be the M-60 gunner for the exercise. So you take 45 lbs (very light combat load) and add to that a 26 lb machine gun, and a basic load of 600 rounds of belted ammunition, another 25-30 lbs. This is in a training environment, so it is very light compared to my combat experiences. Another woman chose to be her Assistant Gunner (AG) and picked up her M-4, 15 mags, smoke grenades, spare barrel and tripod for the M-60. About another 45 lbs.

Next event was carrying that equipment out 10 miles on foot to the training site. Those poor young ladies did not make it 2 miles before they collapsed. That training event took place 20 years ago.

My last combat tour was 6 years ago, almost to the day of this writing.

As an Infantry Leader in combat my basic load without food or water, day tripping patrols on foot was substantially heavier than what the ladies in the example I gave wore or carried.

Do I think women should stay off the front lines? Yes, and I especially disagree with them being integrated into all male units. What this does to unit cohesion cannot be measured and anyone who says it is not an issue is a liar and fool looking to lose the next war.

I would support women only combat units. I have seen examples of these women only units, and they are fearsome, brutal. For example, Executive Outcomes, a private force, had several companies of women. They were very effective. The affects of their chosen lifestyle had taken its toll on them as well. After dealing with them and developing a formal relationship within the boundaries of my mission, they began to be a bit more talkative and free with answering my questions of them. None of them menstruated, many of them had lost the sense of self they said they once had. The physical and hormonal changes from the drenching of their bodies in fight or flight hormones for years at a time had taken its toll and they ability to be nurturing had been destroyed along with many of their feminine physical attributes and emotional tendencies. I was shocked by their brutality in combat and their inability to find pity or commiserate with survivors of their onslaught. Amongst male units, there is a respect for the enemy garnered that if you find yourself among them, having vanquished them, a certain level of honor and respect for their lives yet exists. I did not observe this in the women. This was contrary to anything I might have expected, but there it is.

If a woman chooses to subject herself to those stresses and rigors and sacrifice the nurturing life normally reserved for women, so be it. I am all for it, it is a choice for them alone.

But there are reasons for thousands of years of precedent. No ones political or Darwinian ideologies can change those reasons, and I suspect we will be continuing to re-learn lessons forgotten long ago. Lessons about collectivism, human nature and social structures that seem to be once again bombarding us, as though not experimenting with this is somehow evidence of mental deficiency or inability to "progress". I suspect it is rather a willingness not to repeat the mistakes of the past, and concomitant bloodshed that always follows such foolishness.

Best Wishes,

Jager06

IveBeenDrinkin
IveBeenDrinkin's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/18/2011
Hat Tips: 232
Posts: 27
20 men and 20 women

Given a group of 20 men and 20 women, the society can recover if the women are preserved and just one of the men survives. A single surviving male can impregnate all the women and recover the population quickly.

The reverse is not true . If only a single woman survives it would take 9 months per child, one at a time, even if all 20 men survive.

The point is that women are the reproductive bottleneck of society, while men are relatively disposable at the societal level. 

Lethal combat is a waste of a woman's life that also wipes out the next generation. Every woman killed wipes out not just her, but all future generations that could come from her. The loss of men does not have nearly the same impact.

While Bobbi seems to think the military exists to help her become a better person, women in combat is a sign of terminal decadence in a society in which narcissistic desires and self-gratification are considered more important than reality. Of course the problem starts much earlier with the basic problem being why there is a society so confused it could even produce women who would want to waste themselves in combat. Perhaps we wouldn't want such women to be mothers anyway.

Also disagree with motives for joining military; the all-volunteer military is largely mercenary, with ~70% there for the benefits: medical, housing, free college tuition, job training, etc. A welfare state with command-control structure.

My relatives are bolting as fast as they can in whatever way they can, even those who re-upped last summer.  Starting in 2009, they were basically forbidden from enforcing discipline on troops under their command. With the military going full-tilt pro-homosexual, they say it is rapidly becoming chaotic. Women in combat will add to this.

These changes do not come from some sober merit assessment. They are a set of mechanisms consciously designed to reduce the capability of the US military. You didn't expect Marxist left-wingers to  do anything to increase military effectiveness once they had control did you?  The military is now mostly a command-control system to impose destructive social fantasies on people who cannot oppose it due to the chain of command.

The heavily politicized Pentagon is now too busy planning gay pride parades, handling sexual harassment and pregnancy problems, and ending the careers of commanders they believe will not take orders to fire on US citizens, to be concerned about much else. Precisely the dream of leftists everywhere, now rapidly being realized.

IveBeenDrinkin
IveBeenDrinkin's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/18/2011
Hat Tips: 232
Posts: 27
Bobbi wrote: I enlisted in

Bobbi wrote:

I enlisted in God's United States Army at the tender age of 19 in 1976.  Now, don't get me wrong.  I was not some GI Jane gung-ho type.  I was more of a 'Private Benjamin' type cream puff that couldn't even remember my left from my right. Your thoughts are welcome!

Also, the odd reference to "God's United States Army", and the attempt to associate with a non-threatening fantasy character like the fictitious Private Benjamin movie rings hollow. More like something from a propaganda effort where you are trying to build rapport with what you think the audience believes without understanding why they believe it.

"Let's see ... most people opposed to what I want are conservative Christians. Conservative Christians believe what they do because they are stupid and think God tells them, but if I mention God they will think I am one of them, then they will be more likely to be influenced by what I say ..."

Bobbi
Bobbi's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/14/2011
Hat Tips: 712
Posts: 95
Thank you for your thoughts

I have read and re-read your comment and thank you so much for your thoughts.  Yes, you are right that women are physically constrained by what they can and cannot do.

I am intrigued by your suggestion of a 'women only combat unit'.  This is most interesting, in that I wonder if you would also condone a 'gay only combat unit' based on the current administration's ruling that gays in the military are AOK.  I guess my final question is this:  Which are you more comfortable with in your foxhole?  A woman or a homosexual?

Bobbi
Bobbi's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/14/2011
Hat Tips: 712
Posts: 95
Wow, where to start

First, let me thank you for your thoughts.  Incredible and thought provoking.

Let me start by saying that I did not enlist in the military thinking it would help me become a better person.  I enlisted because I exist in a family that has served and I felt the call to duty based on that.  I was eligible for the GI Bill but never actually used it.  And in reference to your post below further psychoanalyzing me - I refer to it as 'God's US Army' because that is what all us recruits called it back in 1976 - nothing nefarious there.

So, you disagree with an all-volunteer army?  What would you prefer - the draft re-instated?

And why do you insist it is beneath a woman to serve and therefore compromise (according to you) her ability to also bear and raise children?  I find this to be self-defeating - is it not the best example a woman can give to her children?  i.e., service to defend this country is commendable.

Where else will our children get this important concept?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Syndicate contentComments for "Secretary Panetta's Decision to Allow Women in Combat Roles"