US mulls ban on women in combat

[dplax]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4560847.stm

[shamrock_uk]

Interesting! Would tie in well with that other thread about sex equality in the Forces too.

It sounds to me like the Republicans are pressing for a withdrawal of primarily non-combat roles, at least in theory? Drivers, medics etc.

Personally I have no problems with women performing roles like these, but I guess that with the emphasis more on highly mobile conflict and guerilla fighting that supply lines being attacked is more of an issue...

[Spelca]

I always thought that women were able to get the same positions as men. Does this mean that they're only allowed non-fighting positions? [img]graemlins/uhoh1.gif[/img]

[Chewbacca]

We might as well ban them from the highways and even the work-place while we are at it. They might as well stay at home in the kitchen where its not dangerous and it's their place after all.*


*This is pure sarcasm that implies I think the forces of chauvinism are at work here, only it is also for political gains. Dead soldiers in the thousands look bad enough, but dead female soldiers look even worst.

Of course without female soldiers we wouldn't have had the Jessica Lynch story and all the feel good patrioric PR with the the fancy pentagon vidoes of the rescue that arose from her POW/Hospital situation.

I think all them ladies proudly serving our Nation need to have a big Bra Burning party and do a little marching. What these Republicans propose is regressive. They act like Sufferage and the resulting Constitutional amendment and civil rights laws never happened.

[ 05-18-2005, 10:10 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

[Azred]

Why shouldn't women be allowed to be in front-line combat positions? If a woman can pass the same physical requirements that men must meet--and many of them can--then there is no reason not to allow them equal access to the front line.

[mad=dog]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with women being killed in combat. It is the ultimate level of equality in a sense.
I specifically said killed in combat. It was no error. Because this is the root of the "problem". Female frontline soldiers get killed just as often as their male counterparts. I am totally pro sexual equality all the way, but there is simply something deep inside me that resents a woman getting killed in combat. I cannot explain why. Casualties are hard to bear as it is.

[Illumina Drathiran'ar]

Originally posted by mad=dog: I am totally pro sexual equality all the way, but there is simply something deep inside me that resents a woman getting killed in combat. I cannot explain why.

Mm... Makes sense. When was the last time women had any say in going to war in the first place? It's a male-dominated industry... War and politics.
Ah well.

[Felix The Assassin]

Originally posted by Spelca: I always thought that women were able to get the same positions as men. Does this mean that they're only allowed non-fighting positions? [img]graemlins/uhoh1.gif[/img]

Women are not allowed in the big 3! Armor = Tanks, Infantry = Grunts, and Combat Engineers = Mine field clearing! They have advanced into roles of Air Defense Artillery, Field Artillery, Gunners on Attack Helicopters, maybe pilots as well, but I've never met one.

The new transformation of the Army will bring onto the battle filed a UA (Unit of Action) no longer tasked organized from 3 Bns from within a single Bde, but a single organic unit. Each Bn will have some type of heavy force, Heavy Armor = Tank, or Medium Armor = Stryker, with Infantry and Engineers, all under one roof. Currently females serve in non combatant roles within a combat Bde. In the future they will not, as each unit will be a single system type combat unit.

Currently however, in the theater, the battle field is no longer linear, but very fluid, and volatile. Therefore females in traditional roles are being engaged because there is no line in the sand that points toward the enemy. The enemy understands our 'traditional' battle role, and uses his tactics to engage us from a wussy's hidden role.

As of 3 days ago the count was 35 female KIA. This does not go good with politicians, even thou they preach one thing, they still practice another. And in order to remain in office, they will do 'whatever' it takes.

I personally do not like females in non-combat roles within a combat Bde. I think they should not be on the front line. And if that means they 'cannot' be part of a combat Bde or a new UA, then so be it. You can call it chavunist, you can call it whatever, but in my experience I know what the presence of a female can do to the snergy of a combat unit. And even worse, what the loss of a female can do to the entire unit!

And don't forget to Honor The Fallen

[/)eathKiller]

I'd also like to point out that women are already being legally unequal to men in the US system. Need I evoke the word "Draft" ?

I know this is getting a litle off topic but..

I find it amazing that women aren't legally obligated to sign up for the military draft while I, as unfit for combat duty as I am, had to.

I say we lift the frontline ban and start thinking about draft cards while we're at it. I don't understand why chauvinism still exists in the highest levels of our government. When are these old people going to die so folks my age can step in, already?

[Morgeruat]

Originally posted by /)eathKiller: When are these old people going to die so folks my age can step in, already?

Well it won't be because the "Commander in Chief" leads them into battle, the last one to personally lead troops while in office was George Washington during the Whiskey Rebellion.