How would placing women in direct combat positions increase combat strength of our military?

SGT Anthony Rossi — Wed, 29 Apr 2015 21:33:56 -0400

The question is NOT are women good enough to fight along side men? We all know there are some realy tough Women in our ranks.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 29 at 2015 9:45 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 29 Apr 2015 21:45:54 -0400

It wouldn't, and couldn't. That cannot be debated.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Apr 30 at 2015 7:37 AM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Thu, 30 Apr 2015 07:37:03 -0400

It doesn't have to. That's outside the scope of what Congress is trying to do.

Opening Combat Roles is not about Combat Effectiveness. It's about Equal Opportunity.

It's not about Equal Representation (which we don't have anyways 85% male, 15% female). It's not about Combat Effectiveness. It's about ensuring that Americans are guaranteed the Protections enshrined in the Constitution, unless there is an insurmountable reason why they cannot be.

People who keep getting wrapped up in the "how this will increase" mindset forget that mathematically there aren't enough women in service to affect it one way or another. Women's physical differences, combined with their actual representation will result in less than a statistical blip on the radar, when it comes to Combat Effectiveness.

Add in the fact that, the military as a whole is fairly efficient, and as close to a meritocracy as you can get, and we just weed out under-performers. If you can't pull your weight, we don't use you.

Asking "How will allowing women..." is the equivalent of asking "How will allowing a 5'5" Audie Murphy increase Combat Effectiveness?"

Response by SSG Kenneth Lanning made Apr 30 at 2015 7:43 AM

SSG Kenneth Lanning — Thu, 30 Apr 2015 07:43:50 -0400

It wouldn't do a thing...though I still question how your average female will perform the duties of cannoneer #1 in the back of an M109 howitzer.

Response by LTC Yinon Weiss made Apr 30 at 2015 8:39 AM

LTC Yinon Weiss — Thu, 30 Apr 2015 08:39:21 -0400

You can ask the same question about any group of people. How would placing people from northwest Kansas (for example) increase the strength of the military? How would placing people who happen to be 5'6" increase the strength of the military? How is adding a given minority group strengthening the military? The military is strengthened by letting the best people do the job. I don't think it matters who it is. If they meet the standards and are qualified, why hold them back because of your personal bias for who you prefer?

Response by SFC Douglas Duckett made Apr 30 at 2015 9:00 AM

SFC Douglas Duckett — Thu, 30 Apr 2015 09:00:49 -0400

It is a long read, but here is my argument against letting women serve in Infantry units.

Claim
The rigors of combat do not change. Combat is a constant variable. Physical ability is paramount when faced with ever-changing and fluid combat actions. One’s ability to rapidly move, shoot, and communicate while conducting operations is a must in order to enhance the mission; not hamper it. The practice of disallowing women in infantry units should continue.
Support
Infantry units have been the backbone of Armies since the dawn of time. The Infantry's primary role is close combat, which may occur in any type of mission, in any theater, or environment. Characterized by extreme violence and physiological shock, close combat is callous and unforgiving. Its dimensions are measured in minutes and meters, and its consequences are final. Close combat stresses every aspect of the physical, mental, and spiritual features of the human dimension. To this end, Infantrymen are specially selected, trained, and led.
Infantrymen are soldiers who are specifically trained for the role of fighting on foot to engage the enemy face to face and have historically borne the brunt of the casualties during combat operations. Infantry units have more physically demanding training than other branches of armies, and place a greater emphasis on discipline, fitness, physical strength and aggression.
The Infantry is unique because its core competency is founded on the individual Soldier—the Infantry rifleman. While other branches tend to focus on weapon systems and platforms to accomplish their mission, the Infantry alone relies almost exclusively on the human dimension of the individual rifleman to close with and destroy the enemy. This Soldier-centric approach fosters an environment that places the highest value on individual discipline, personal
initiative, and performance-oriented leadership. The Infantry ethos is encapsulated by its motto: Follow Me!
According to PEW Social and Demographic Trends; Since 1973, when the United States military ended conscription and established an all-volunteer force, the number of women serving in the Army on active duty has risen dramatically. The share of women among the enlisted ranks has increased seven-fold, from 2% to 14%.
The decades-long debate over changing roles of women in the military reached a turning point in 2011 when Congress directed the Pentagon to take a hard look at policies that restrict female service members. In February, the Defense Department relaxed some restrictions, moving women closer to combat, but a fuller review of combat jobs is under way.
The current popular social trend is that of total and unequivocal equality. Some individuals feel that by not assigning women to combat units, the female Solder’s career is hampered. They feel she cannot obtain the same recognition, assignments, or status that her male counterpart can achieve. Currently, female army officers make up 7% of the “general” (Flag Level) officer corps.
The process of integrating women in the Army has been slow and cumbersome and is being pushed by social matters over practical ones. Integrating women into the Infantry is not a task that should even be considered just so the few can “rise” to the top.
Marine Capt. Katie Petronio authored a published article titled “Get Over It! We Are Not All Created Equal.” And is quoted telling MSNBC that “Infantry is one of those fields we need to leave alone.”
The rigors of combat never change; they are a constant variable that individuals must be physically, mentally, and morally ready to handle. The current Army Physical Fitness standards for Soldiers 22 – 26 years of age are different for male and female.
Integration should be based on a Soldiers ability to perform the required physical task with the required equipment. Separate testing standards for men and women do not accurately reflect or simulate the actual requirements.
The rigors of combat never change; According to U.S. Army Soldier Systems Center-Natick, a fighting load should be held to less than 48 pounds, according to the field manual. The next level, approach March load, adds a light rucksack and should not exceed 72 pounds. In the worst-case scenario, emergency approach march loads require a larger rucksack, raising the total weight to 120-150 pounds.
After reviewing the data, the average rifleman's fighting load was 63 pounds, which meant he was carrying on average 36 percent of his body weight before strapping on a rucksack. The average approach march load was 96 pounds or 55 percent of average rifleman's body weight, and the emergency approach march load average was 127 pounds or 71 percent of average rifleman's body weight.
The rigors of combat never change; efficiency, some women will be able to meet the required standards, but most will not. While integration of women into combat is possible for those qualified, the small number versus the additional logistical, regulatory and disciplinary costs associated with integration do not make it a worthwhile move. The needs of the many should outweigh the needs of the few.

Warrant
No one questions why there aren't any females in the NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, etc. Olympic athletes are the elite of the elite. No one questions why the women compete against women and men against men. Those are great sports and achievements. But lives and missions aren't on the line. In combat, if you move slower one day, you don't get bumped off the medal stand, you could die or get someone else killed.
The readiness of our combat units and the security of our nation depend on making policies that are based off of sound science, not social engineering. The integration of women into infantry units must be based on rational sound data. Less attention should be made of the social engineering organizations. Put the country’s needs first, not the needs of a few individuals or groups. Women should not be allowed to be in infantry units.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 30 at 2015 10:45 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 30 Apr 2015 10:45:58 -0400

I am usually against many of my female peers on this one. I don’t think we belong in a male combat unit. Which is hypocritical of me, because while I was in I would have loved to try… but I don’t think we belong in them. As a whole, women in the military have yet prove that we are equal to a male in combat scenarios. There are MOS’ out there that females can join that are close enough to the combat lines without fully crossing over. This is not a field where we should conform to the need to be politically correct and the feminist needs for equal opportunity.

Because its more than about if a girl can PT like the males, can she ruck, can she shoot… can she hold her own… because most of us can do all that… what we can’t do in a combat arms unit is earn the trust and gain the camaraderie of males who don’t want us there and to fight with us.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 30 at 2015 11:27 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 30 Apr 2015 11:27:43 -0400

I think the question that should be asked is "How will it decrease combat strength?".

Response by SGT Dylan Epp made Apr 30 at 2015 12:34 PM

SGT Dylan Epp — Thu, 30 Apr 2015 12:34:00 -0400

One or Two women in a line unit would do absolutely nothing but decrease that units cohesion and mission readiness. Now if the CST program became a MOS and attached teams to the various SF groups, Ranger Batts and SEAL team I believe that would increase the strength of our military.

Response by SGT Jeremiah B. made Apr 30 at 2015 12:35 PM

SGT Jeremiah B. — Thu, 30 Apr 2015 12:35:47 -0400

It's the wrong question as it requires assumptions. The question is really how would disallowing anyone capable of meeting the standards and doing the job increase combat strength? The answer is "It wouldn't."

Response by MSG Morgan Fiszel, CPCM, CFCM made Apr 30 at 2015 1:12 PM

MSG Morgan Fiszel, CPCM, CFCM — Thu, 30 Apr 2015 13:12:48 -0400

Additional talent to pull from. I have met some females that were much better leaders than some of the male leaders I have had. Instead of having 4 dudes to chose from, now you have 4 dudes and a female (5). Let the best leader lead.

Response by SPC Angel Guma made Apr 30 at 2015 2:13 PM

SPC Angel Guma — Thu, 30 Apr 2015 14:13:55 -0400

More bodies = more rifles = more rounds going down range.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 30 at 2015 4:39 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 30 Apr 2015 16:39:52 -0400

I am a tanker, I had to fill out the survey asking if I thought females could seMOS'S n my MOS. Let me take a moment to explain my answers.
First let me say the Israeli Army already does it, and they (Israeli Armor Corps) are some of the most devastating out there. A combination of the equipment and the training does it. Plus how their whole environment of raising their children.
Now, for here, the survey asked, do I think females could do the job I do on tanks? I said no, the physical aspects of the job are in fact too rigorous. The follow on question was do I feel all MALES could do this job, the answer? No, once again the demands too rigorous. My MOS is ridiculously heavy, has to be. When you are out there on your own, YOU have to replace track when it breaks. It is to the point that I doubt I have what it takes anymore, I am more than ready to take a knee and recruit for a while.
So as far as "increasing the Combat Strength", I would have to say it would be negligent. Here is why, take MOS's which would require that added physical attributes like I mentioned and will preclude male and female alike, then you simply have a Soldier.
However, the women I have known in the military have been prone to use monthly problems as excuses for things, the counter argument, I am the headquarters PSG and I have a bunch of turds that constantly have appointments, so not much difference there.
So we are back to simply a soldier. However NO impact on combat power one way or the other.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Apr 30 at 2015 7:44 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Thu, 30 Apr 2015 19:44:22 -0400

Increase the pool of fighters. I don't know by how much. The Kurds have an all female brigade that is hard core. They would blow themselves up before being captured.

Response by SFC Joseph James made May 1 at 2015 2:00 PM

SFC Joseph James — Fri, 01 May 2015 14:00:48 -0400

Many other militaries allow women into combat roles. Israeli IDF for one. It does not make them weak. Now if said (insert person type here) cannot carry a buddy out of harm's way than I an issue.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 2 at 2015 11:42 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 02 May 2015 11:42:44 -0400

This has truly become a circus even with the prestigious Ranger School. Once again, it is not about gender that makes a soldier/leader great. As a non-commisioned officer, I have a constant commitment to my country, soldiers, and my wartime mission. Many soldiers serve honorably without the poster child glamor that continues to overshadow our great forces. Realize whatever gender you are, come ready to live up to the Army Values, and execute. Anything else is unacceptable.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made May 3 at 2015 10:37 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 03 May 2015 10:37:04 -0400

That's the giant white elephant, no one can support the integration with any kind of empirical data in regards to contribution over the current state. SOCOM has been surveying the ranks lately and there is talk of adding women to the SFQC but, no one has been able to say what we will gain with women in the ranks, especially since our current and near future conflicts all take place in Islamic, misogynistic cultures.
The fact that no one can offer anything for an answer except "a larger pool to recruit from" is indicative that we are just doing it just to do it. The message I get is "here ya go, you have a woman for your team now and that makes you better". No one can say why you are now more effective just that you are because now you have a woman. Forced gender integration is just as sexist as gender segregation is. I know this is going to annoy plenty of people out there but this call for "equal and included" needs to start with getting rid of the male and female PT scales before anyone will really take this seriously.

Response by Amn Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 30 at 2015 3:17 AM

Amn Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 30 Sep 2015 03:17:03 -0400

I just feel as a woman myself i could and would fight but it is harder r for a mother to shoot a child for some reason but at the same time when it comes down to u or the person child or adult you are going to defend yourself as i know i would

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Sep 30 at 2015 12:25 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Wed, 30 Sep 2015 12:25:36 -0400

I think it depends on which MOS they go into to include what tasks must be completed. I am not against women in combat arms, but I am against sending them to a job that will cause a high probability of broken bodies.