WALTER WILLIAMS: Putting women in combat puts troops at risk

RallyPoint Shared Content — Fri, 30 Oct 2015 13:59:52 -0400

From NWI.com:

War is nasty, brutal and costly. In our latest wars, many of the casualties suffered by American troops are a direct result of their having to obey rules of engagement created by politicians who have never set foot on — or even seen — a battlefield. Today's battlefield commanders must be alert to the media and do-gooders all too ready to demonize troops involved in a battle that produces noncombatant deaths, so-called collateral damage.

According to a Western Journalism article by Leigh Bravo, "Insanity: The Rules of Engagement," our troops in Afghanistan cannot do night or surprise searches. Also, villagers must be warned prior to searches. Troops may not fire at the enemy unless fired upon. U.S. forces cannot engage the enemy if civilians are present. And only women can search women.

Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney said: "We handcuffed our troops in combat needlessly. This was very harmful to our men and has never been done in U.S combat operations that I know of." Collateral damage and the unintentional killing of civilians are a consequence of war. But are our troops' lives less important than the inevitable collateral damage?

The unnecessary loss of life and casualties that result from politically correct rules of engagement are about to be magnified in future conflicts by mindless efforts to put women in combat units. In 2013, then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta officially lifted the ban on women serving in ground combat roles. On Jan. 1, 2016, all branches of the military must either open all positions to women or request exceptions. That boils down to having women serve in combat roles, because any commander requesting exceptions would risk having his career terminated in the wake of the screeching and accusations of sexism that would surely ensue.

For the first time, two female officers graduated from the exceptionally tough three-phase U.S. Army Ranger course. Their "success" will serve as grist for the mills of those who argue for women in combat. Unlike most of their fellow soldiers, these two women had to recycle because they had failed certain phases of the course.

A recent Marine Corps force integration study concluded combat teams were less effective when they included women. Overall, the report says, all-male teams and crews outperformed mixed-gender ones on 93 out of 134 tasks evaluated. All-male teams were universally faster "in each tactical movement." The report also says female Marines had higher rates of injury throughout the experiment.

You may bet the rent money that the current effort to integrate combat jobs will not end with simply a few extraordinary women. Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus told the Navy Times that once women start attending SEAL training, it would make sense to examine the standards. He said, "First we're going to make sure there are standards" and "they're gender-neutral." Only after that will the Navy make sure the standards "have something to do with the job."

The most disgusting, perhaps traitorous, aspect of all this is the overall timidity of military commanders, most of whom, despite knowing better, will only publicly criticize the idea of putting women in combat after they retire from service.

Read More: http://www.nwitimes.com/news/opinion/columnists/guest-commentary/walter-williams-putting-women-in-combat-puts-troops-at-risk/article_3b0b30ff-6069-51a2-a9cf-bef2903ead52.html

War is nasty, brutal and costly. In our latest wars, many of the casualties suffered by American troops are a direct result of their having to obey rules of engagement

Response by SGT David T. made Oct 30 at 2015 2:23 PM

SGT David T. — Fri, 30 Oct 2015 14:23:54 -0400

What business does an economic professor have attempting to speak as an authority on anything military related? He was a Private in the 1950s and I can respect his service, however he is no expert on the military and such I cannot accept his statements.

Response by CPT Pedro Meza made Oct 30 at 2015 2:37 PM

CPT Pedro Meza — Fri, 30 Oct 2015 14:37:08 -0400

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University, is now writing war strategy and yet he complaints about politicians writing war strategy, but fails to mention that he has no qualifications to do so nor the facts that we have been fighting two and now four guerrilla wars in which civilians locals are caught in the middle. He has issues with women in combat because he fails to see that women fighters are effective if used correctly and not as beast of burdens as my own herniated spinal disk now tell me I was. Perhaps it time that man stop bitching and complaining (acting like meows) and look at how the Kurdish Women Fighters are integrated into the ranks and tacitly used correctly, after all they are fighting ISIS and doing a dam good job while the men here in the USA bitch and complain that Women can’t fight; Facts vs Ideology. Of course we can just draft this opinioned old dude and send him and all like him to fight ISIS to prove that they are betters fighter then properly trained and equipped Women Fighter. Yes it is a fact that beast of burdens are damaged, I am proof, but let also face facts our enemy moves fast and is more agile because he travels light. So fight to win!

Response by CPL Maggie Plaster made Oct 31 at 2015 2:50 PM

CPL Maggie Plaster — Sat, 31 Oct 2015 14:50:40 -0400

I know this is going to be hugely up popular but I do not believe women belong in combat arms. There is so much more to this than women being able to handle the physical demands. A side note: if you have never served you don't have a clue what it's really like so kindly keep your opinions based on very limited knowledge to yourself. Just because your friend, family member or significant other served does not qualify you to speak on controversial matters such as this.

Response by Sgt Judy Leonard made Nov 1 at 2015 1:32 AM

Sgt Judy Leonard — Sun, 01 Nov 2015 01:32:00 -0400

Bias Sexist.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 1 at 2015 8:46 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 01 Nov 2015 08:46:57 -0500

The success of a unit that is strictly measured by the physical attributes of the team does not accurately define how well it will perform in combat. The intricately complex operating environment of our current combat areas makes having females on the team an asset. During our deployment outside of Kandahar in 2012, our Female Engagement Teams gathered intelligence that not only led to the capture/killing of several HVTs, but saved the lives of their fellow Soldiers. A diverse unit is a unit that attacks problems on the battlefield from many different perspectives.

I do, however, agree that there are a few ROE that hamstring units. In most cases, though, they have more to do with representing a country with honor than it does the lack of tactical knowledge of our politicians. When those with honor fight those who have no honor, we will always be at a disadvantage.

Response by PFC Juyius Jackson made Nov 1 at 2015 9:57 AM

PFC Juyius Jackson — Sun, 01 Nov 2015 09:57:13 -0500

This is freaking ignorance in words.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Nov 1 at 2015 11:25 AM

MCPO Roger Collins — Sun, 01 Nov 2015 11:25:14 -0500

Walter Williams, PHD, is an extremely intelligent articulate individual that is expressing his opinion based on the sources he has used in the article. If one has to have been in combat to make such decisions (the Private long ago comment), then those making this decision should have the same limits made upon them. I have been a proponent of letting the best candidate for the job get it, male or female, with reservations. It would do many well to read more of Dr. Williams articles, he is one of our best and brightest. Shoot the message, if you will, not the messenger.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Nov 1 at 2015 12:59 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Sun, 01 Nov 2015 12:59:11 -0500

They are using an If Then statement. If two women pass ranger school, then open up combat for women. We can use a rational approach like not throwing the women to the wolves and enforcing physical standards. With that being said, lets go for total immersion. This will give our society a different perspective on war.

Response by CSM William Payne made Nov 1 at 2015 12:59 PM

CSM William Payne — Sun, 01 Nov 2015 12:59:37 -0500

The argument of women assigned to combat units notwithstanding, LTG McInerney needs to look at the Rules of Engagement (ROE) and Escalation of Force (EOF) rules for the Marine detachment in Beirut in 1983 when their barracks was destroyed by the truck bomb in October 1983. THOSE were the most restrictive requirements ever envoked on American military forces in an imminent danger zone. And this was just within months of the American Embassy being destroyed in much the same manner in April of that same year.

Response by LTC Bink Romanick made Nov 1 at 2015 1:05 PM

LTC Bink Romanick — Sun, 01 Nov 2015 13:05:42 -0500

TSgt Hunter Logan I call bullshit women have acquired themselves in combat.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Nov 1 at 2015 1:13 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Sun, 01 Nov 2015 13:13:17 -0500

Actually, war is becoming more antiseptic and automated. Killing and destruction can be accomplished with greater accuracy and less risk at a distance. We're fortunate to have educated and capable women who can serve in this environment. I see no reason why we should take advantage of all of our assets to accomplish the mission of keeping our nation safe and secure.

Response by LTC Bink Romanick made Nov 1 at 2015 1:13 PM

LTC Bink Romanick — Sun, 01 Nov 2015 13:13:55 -0500

TSgt Hunter Logan when was the last time Walter Williams wore a uniform or was in combat.

Response by SGT William Howell made Nov 2 at 2015 7:16 AM

SGT William Howell — Mon, 02 Nov 2015 07:16:21 -0500

Walter Williams was drafted and served 2 years as a PV2. So what qualifies his opinion to be any more of an expert than Sister Beth over at church? NONE. I have severed with women in combat, I could not tell the difference.

Response by Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth made Nov 2 at 2015 10:19 AM

Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth — Mon, 02 Nov 2015 10:19:01 -0500

I believe that women have been a actively involved in combat for a while (Medics/Logistics/Helo Pilots) even though officially they haven't. I don't have a problem with women serving in combat roles with all things remaining equal. What I mean is that we do not need to change the standards. The SEALS/Green Berets/Rangers/Pararescue/Combat Control/Marine Force Recon etc have developed training/acceptance curriculum that has been proven by fire in combat (NOT JUST CURRENT WARFIGHTING BUT PREVIOUS WARS) to be successful...and they update real time based on world threats to ensure mission success with safety and security of the teams. As long as we keep it gender neutral based on mission success, pass or fail for everyone with no gray area or second chances for the success of our combat warriors and the difficult missions we call on them to take on, then I am good.

To the Marine study, studies are what they are. The facts are probably correct...now. However, men have been trained to perform these roles for years. When you put an experienced team against a team that has just been trained or integrated it will show that. Once integrated into the roles and the females have the opportunity after a period of time of integration into the programs to find the right ways and methods for success, my guess is that the numbers will not have any or very little skewing of data on tactical movement tasks. My guess is that ten years form now, we will be wondering what took us so long to integrate these warriors.

Response by PO2 Kimberly Waldrep made Dec 16 at 2015 6:46 PM

PO2 Kimberly Waldrep — Wed, 16 Dec 2015 18:46:44 -0500

Wow what rock did you just crawl out from under. You are ignorant on this matter with no credible evidence to support your comments about women not being physically or mentally fit for combat. I have a few female soilders, marines, and sailors that would be glad to inform you on the actual facts. Not every male is cut out for combat either. Thus if a female or male meet the same standards for a combat NEC or officer billet than so be it. USN Female Vet Kim

Response by SSG Audwin Scott made Dec 17 at 2015 12:47 PM

SSG Audwin Scott — Thu, 17 Dec 2015 12:47:59 -0500

Why is it that putting women in combat arms units if they choose any different then having women as Police Officers? Isn't that a dangerous job as well?

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 17 at 2015 2:54 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 17 Dec 2015 14:54:39 -0500

This is happening. Regardless of what anyone wants or says it will move forward. There will be issues at first that is almost certain (as with any new thing the military does). The great thing about all of this is that despite all of the issues that may arise. We as a Military will do what we do best! We will overcome, adapt, and make the best out of it.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 24 at 2015 10:07 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 24 Dec 2015 22:07:13 -0500

Putting troops in combat, puts them at risk. There are a multitude of factors more important than gender when it comes to going into combat with someone. it's a mistake to get wrapped around the axle on gender when their are more important issues, such as training to consider.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 31 at 2015 9:25 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 31 Dec 2015 09:25:26 -0500

I suppose we should ignore all the times women have contributed positively. I bet none of the men who were saved because of the actions of women would complain.

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 17 at 2016 6:41 PM

SCPO Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 17 Mar 2016 18:41:42 -0400

Took the words right out of my mouth. Thank you. It's an insane agenda to order this level of integration when the emotional, physical, and mental results will be so clearly disastrous. The Marine Corps study should be heralded for what it is: a serious warning. But let's take this "inclusive" concept to its purest conclusion: all women squads, platoons, batallions, et al. What would that Marine Corps study show? I shudder to think. Nor would I would not want to be in the same AOR by a thousand miles. Why does NO ONE bring up the issue of all women combat units? I know why. Because it would be an abysmal failure. Just stick the token few in and amongst the all men units. Well, that didn't turn out good at all, as the USMC study proves. If won want to be in combat, they should be able to "be in combat" all by their lonesomes, as the men have been for centuries.