Is the public being misguided on the roles of women in the Military and their participation in combat?

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 04 Feb 2016 09:57:41 -0500

Perception is everything. With all the stories about women being allowed in combat positions got me to thinking that public perception is being misguided. The public is being misguided on the roles of women in the Army and their participation in combat. The Army has long had positions that placed women in combat. Ashley's War? Female MPs on LPOP, search and seizure ops, mounted patrols, convoy security, ready reaction force. What about those in Civil Affairs making direct contact with indigenous populations?

Response by PO2 Mark Saffell made Feb 4 at 2016 9:59 AM

PO2 Mark Saffell — Thu, 04 Feb 2016 09:59:24 -0500

YES no doubt and its all for political reasons

Response by SSG Audwin Scott made Feb 4 at 2016 10:00 AM

SSG Audwin Scott — Thu, 04 Feb 2016 10:00:53 -0500

I think the public is fueling the fire of the entire women in the military thing. Women have served for years and now it's a problem because women want a choice to choose different levels of jobs during service.

Response by SSG Audwin Scott made Feb 4 at 2016 10:01 AM

SSG Audwin Scott — Thu, 04 Feb 2016 10:01:27 -0500

Sorry what I meant to say is the media is fueling the public.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 4 at 2016 10:03 AM

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 04 Feb 2016 10:03:03 -0500

My two cents: I do not care if you are black, white, tan, green, purple with yellow polka dots, tall, short, fat, thin, male, female, or other (leave this open to interpretation). When the crap is flying, rounds are moving down range, and you are on my side working to accomplish the same mission, we are good to go. If you are pulling your weight and completing the mission, then all is good. With that said, the standards must be equally enforced for everyone. No exceptions, exemptions, or double standards.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Feb 4 at 2016 10:31 AM

MCPO Roger Collins — Thu, 04 Feb 2016 10:31:37 -0500

CPT, it has always been my position that any job that can be done effectively by anyone, regardless of their gender, should be able to try for the position. If it affects mission readiness for any reason, then there must be consideration to that also. While I agree that women have served in combat, probably ever since we decided to leave the British Protectorate and before that, there is a big difference between serving in combat and front line hand-to-hand combat that many have to do in the military. I have referenced Fallujah and the house to house combat situation, where many of the wounded had to be dragged to safety. If one carefully reviews the combat load those warriors had and the physical necessity of those involved, very few women could have done that, and the unknown as to how the troops would react to seeing a female fighter under fire alone in the street. We can't do without you, nor do most of us want to but, you are right, there are many that do not really understand what war is all about.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 4 at 2016 10:50 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 04 Feb 2016 10:50:03 -0500

I don't think the public is being misguided. Rather, I think what a member of the public perceives is just a function of how much or how little they pay attention to the war, the military and issues associated with it. For example, anyone following this issue would know that not only have women been involved in combat for a long time, but that very involvment was part of the rationale used to support eliminating the combat restrictions. But those who pay no attention to military matters may well miss the distinction between being in combat and being in combat arms MOSs.

Many of the articles I've seen explain that difference. But if someone is just a headline scanner, they may miss that. The term "being misguided" connotes an active attempt to mislead that I don't believe is there. In most cases I don't think the public has been misinformed; rather they have chosen to remain uninformed.

Response by COL Mikel J. Burroughs made Feb 4 at 2016 11:06 AM

COL Mikel J. Burroughs — Thu, 04 Feb 2016 11:06:10 -0500

CPT Private RallyPoint Member I believe for me it just comes down to setting the standards that need to be met by all service members no matter what their gender is. I believe it is a controversial subject for sure because there are the ones "for it" and there are those that are "against it". You will always have two points of view on any topic of this nature. I think that everyone has to believe in what they believe in and make their stance there, but do it in a professional manner, not demeaning! Just my opinion!

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 4 at 2016 11:27 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 04 Feb 2016 11:27:28 -0500

I think most of the media and most of the public fail to recognize the distinction between being on the in combat, and sustained service in a direct combat MOS/unit. I still maintain that there will be few who qualify for the latter. The risk vs reward was not considered well, much less the financial cost of converting all the facilities that have been built for an all male environment.

Response by Capt Tom Brown made Feb 4 at 2016 11:35 AM

Capt Tom Brown — Thu, 04 Feb 2016 11:35:26 -0500

Other tags to this issue could probably be 'politics' or 'pushing social' agendas'. Women in combat is yet another example of those being pushed on the public by political ideologues who happen to be running the country at this point in time. The ins can implement their agendas as the military has to say 'aye-aye sir' and do it. Women have filled critical combat-type roles for a long time as pointed out herein, but most liberal-types pushing 'full exposure' have no idea how bad things can get. If they did would probably hesitate to put women in those situations. The idea to register women for the draft will put their ideology to the test and maybe make them think twice.

Response by SGT William Howell made Feb 4 at 2016 12:14 PM

SGT William Howell — Thu, 04 Feb 2016 12:14:09 -0500

That picture is Leigh Anne Hester. She won the Silver Star. While I never said more than, "Hello" to her, I have spoken to her teammates about how she won the SS. She fought and killed no less than 6 people. When the Squad Leader was running low on ammo and grenades she ran back and got more and then returned to the fight. Us Kentucky Guardsmen are very proud of SSG Hester and her heroics.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Feb 4 at 2016 12:16 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Thu, 04 Feb 2016 12:16:32 -0500

The dust is still going up and won't come down for awhile.

Response by LTC John Shaw made Feb 4 at 2016 12:50 PM

LTC John Shaw — Thu, 04 Feb 2016 12:50:12 -0500

I dont believe the Services are not trying to manage the public perception. I think they are all trying to meet the mandate and it is reported.

The combat support roles have 30% women, I don't even think about the gender roles in Signal, even our CoS is female.

I can see how some people have a difficult time with the changes. The Services are going through many changes, it will impact our culture for the next thirty years

Response by CPO Frank Coluccio made Feb 4 at 2016 1:54 PM

CPO Frank Coluccio — Thu, 04 Feb 2016 13:54:05 -0500

I don't they are being misguided. I think it's a lack of knowledge and the proponents are not forthcoming with the facts about women in combat because it doesn't fit their agenda.

Response by MAJ Bill Darling made Feb 6 at 2016 2:25 AM

MAJ Bill Darling — Sat, 06 Feb 2016 02:25:58 -0500

The public clearly is a bit ignorant on this issue, mostly because such a small percentage of it has ever served and has little concept of how the military works, never mind combat operations. Unfortunately the media, films and TV shows, depict this poorly and with little nuance.

I will say, however, that the public also has an increasingly romanticized view of military women because of so many over-the-top depictions of the woman warrior in modern media. While there are genuine female heroes, those iconic characters on the big and little screens should not be confused with reality.

But I will also say that even many people within the military don't have an accurate grasp of what combat units, particularly the infantry, do and what the job entails. This is mostly due to the aforementioned reasons but also because we have had a focus on low-intensity COIN warfare for at least fourteen (if not fifty) years, which only uses some of the full spectrum of infantry capabilities, or at least to a lesser degree.

I appreciate anyone's service, no matter how long or short, especially those who went to a combat zone. While driving IED-infested roads, walking into remote villages in Indian Country, and being mortared and rocketed are all certainly dangerous and daring tasks, riding a convoy, being in an FET, or sitting in a camp or FOB are not, in and of themselves, basic infantry tactics. Being a member of a unit whose mission is to close with and engage the enemy is the biggest change at the crux of the matter and really what the new rules address.