Finally, inequality on the battlefield and a new enemy from within!

[Conan The Librarian]

hey cool! Now combat troops can be just like the navy, with a thirty percent pregnancy rate for female soldiers!!! Plus, theres the big advantage of having male soldiers risking their own lives to protect the females, as has been proven in previous tests of this model!


Yippee! One more reason not to be a male soldier!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/23/panetta-opens-combat-roles-to-women/


(and, no, in case you were thunking it, israel does not use women in combat roles.)

[Dixie Dude]

Liberals push push push.  They don't want to leave things that WORK alone.  They want to change everything.  If it ain't broke, don't fix it.  Our military worked fine.  Now it may not.  If women are captured, they will probably be gang raped by some of our enemies.  They want to legalise gay marriage, and the vast majority of Americans DO NOT WANT this.  We didn't want the health care bill that was passed, it was forced on us anyway.  No choices. 

[Swift One]

hey cool! Now combat troops can be just like the navy, with a thirty percent pregnancy rate for female soldiers!!! Plus, theres the big advantage of having male soldiers risking their own lives to protect the females, as has been proven in previous tests of this model!

+1

[Anna]

Like I said in a different post, the enemy's we are facing today would love nothing more than to
seize on the opportunity to show a captured mommy soldier being tortured in order to demoralize
our troops. Let a drug cartel get ahold of one of these women and then lets see how that goes !
Stupid just plain stupid and it is sending the wrong message to our enemy's .

Guys I don't know who is capitalizing on this but I know of no women who think this would be a good
idea. Its been tried before even by the Red Army during WW2 and was found to be a very bad idea.
Why do we have to find out the hard way what other country's already know from their past experiences in doing this ?  Any woman that wants to try this has a death wish and should be looked
at very closely. Gay or not it isn't going to matter to the enemy and that will not be a pretty sight.

[Conan The Librarian]

Anna:
 
There are quite a few women in combat roles already, as, for example, pilots. The idea is that women in these roles should be able to get career advancement opportunities and credit for their combat performance.
 
The explanation I heard in the news on NPR today gave that as an explanation. However, the chose combat examples that were not fighting units together on the ground. The explanation focused on support roles.
 
Usually, when I think of combat, I assume guys with guns shooting and taking prisoners. I guess the definition is broader than that.
 
One of the most comical things in the reporting is that women will still need to meet standards of physical performance, for example. Well, the history in this kind of situation in the US has always been to lower the standards if quotas weren't being met.

[RevJim]

 Ideally, a "Civilized" country does not put its women in harms way, but life is not ideal. I am afraid it is going to take some deaths/gruesome maiming's/torture victims of women ( the men who get killed trying to protect them won't be counted as such, of course) before the public demands that it be stopped, i.e. Jessica Lynch episode, back when. I agree, there are many positions that women already serve in, in harms way, and hopefully, they will get their due as to promotions/pay, etc.. I just hope they don't try the GI Jane route. My own daughter was sent to Bagram for a month, back in '04 and I was on pins and needles the whole time! She never left the compound, but they were rocketed and there were plenty of VC, I mean "Nationals' on post ( you know, the kind that shoot GIs ) I was glad she came home OK.

[Shu]

Women have be servingalongsidethe me alot. The didn't ge credit for combat service even though they were taking the same risks as the men. Now they can check the box and get that combat infantry badge, other awards and promotions.
 
The big gripe was lowering standards so women could pass the physical fitness tests etc. Which is a valid concern if you are busting your but to get into a special unit.
 
Panetta actually thinks there are women who could complete special forces training. It is one thingto pass the entrance test but I really doubt a woman could pass the course without lowering the standards. That is not an ill remark towards women it is just plain and simple so physically demanding many men fail also.

[magooch]

There is no good reason to fight, our enemies hand to hand and door to door.  If a woman is willing and able to pilot an aircraft, or push the button on a missile launcher--I'm good with that.  But if we must fight on the ground using troops, then it should be with the toughest, meanest Rambos we can train.  There might be the occasional female that could pass muster, but a policy that seeks gender equality--it is ridiculous.

[lakota]

I am going to guess that the opportunity to serve in combat is one that the most vocal and hardened feminists will turn down. They will expect someone else to do it while they stay home and run thier mouths

[Dixie Dude]

It was tried back in ther early 90's under Clinton.  Didn't work.  These new young people need to study when and if something was tried, before jumping into something.  My son is in the national guard.  He already said the women have an easier physical fitness bar (he calls it the PT test).  They can do fewer push ups, pull ups, slower run time, sit ups, etc, than men.  He also said their pack weight is lower.  Why lower the bar unless they have behind the lines desk jobs, motor pool jobs, or something like that. 

[BBF]

 Women in Infantry combat units?  The weakest link !!    I don't even think they should be in Armor, Combat Engineers or Arty.

[Mike in Virginia]

No, it won't work, but I'm all for giving them a chance.  The ones who will go into battle are the ones (lesbians) that are already better off dead.  No normal female wants any part of it.  Only those whose life as already proved useless.   

[Conan The Librarian]

That's a bit too harsh.
 
I look at it this way, a lot of the people going into the military today do so because their options in the civilian world are poor, so they take a chance on the military.
 
The way I read it, it creates a mechanism that allows women who want to advance in a military career. It will allow them to do so and get credit for combat service.
 
This is a much coveted thing by people who want to use military credentials to get ahead in life. For example, people like John Kerry, who milked his brief combat experience for all it was worth, and then some.
 
As for structuring an effective fighting force, I don't see anyone listing advantages to this.

[ironglow]

That's a bit too harsh.
 
I look at it this way, a lot of the people going into the military today do so because their options in the civilian world are poor, so they take a chance on the military.
 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
 
  Conan;
   Sorry, but you have apparently been pulled in by some pernicious and false propaganda.  Our young troops are on the average, intellectually far ahead of their civilian counterparts.  The Liberals, who normally carry a grudge against the military...and some of those who did not or will not serve, also like to claim the same mistaken idea..   Rather like Aesop's fox, who jumped 3 times to get a bunch of high hanging grapes.  When he just couldn't reach that level, he said, "they must be sour anyway", and walked off..       See....Just "sour grapes", by some who couldn't "cut it"....
   
      Here's some info;
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
        Military mockery;
      Democrats harbor outdated, outlandish views of  those who serve our nation.  Sunday, December 03, 2006
 
"Making mock o' uniforms what guards you while you sleep is cheaper than  them uniforms, and they're starvation cheap."
--Rudyard Kipling, (Tommy) 1892

Jack Kelly is national security  writer for the Post-Gazette and The Blade of Toledo, Ohio (jkelly@post-gazette.com,  412-263-1476). Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., who will be chairman of the tax-writing House Ways  and Means committee in the next Congress, raised eyebrows and ruffled feathers  when, on Fox News Sunday Nov. 26, he declared:"I want to make it abundantly clear: If there's anyone who believes that  these youngsters want to fight, as the Pentagon and some generals have said, you  can just forget about it. No young, bright individual wants to fight just  because of a bonus and just because of educational benefits. And most all of  them come from communities of very, very high unemployment. If a young fella has  an option of having a decent career or joining the Army to fight in Iraq, you  can bet your life that he would not be in Iraq." Mr. Rangel is not the first Democrat to express such sentiments. In a speech  at a California college the week before the election, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.,  famously said: "You know education, if you make the most of it, you study hard,  you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. And  if you don't you get stuck in Iraq." The first thing to note is how stuck in Vietnam Sen. Kerry and Rep. Rangel  are. The draft Army that fought that war was comprised chiefly of young men  unable to obtain college deferments. Soldiers then had less education and lower  intelligence than the youth population as a whole. But this hasn't been true since Ronald Reagan became president. The average  service member today has more education and a higher IQ than do his or her  civilian counterparts. Currently, about 98% of enlisted personnel have high school diplomas, compared to about 75 percent of 18- to24- year olds as a whole.  In 2005, more than 70 percent of recruits scored in the upper half on the Armed forces Qualification Test, the military equivalent of an IQ test.  Only half of the youth population, of course, scores in the upper half. About 92 percent of officers have college degrees, and a higher proportion of militsry officers have advanced degrees than do college graduates as a whole. (Between 2000 and 2005, the proportion of officers with advanced degrees ranged  between 35 and 45 percent.) Those who volunteer to serve are more rural and southern than the youth  population as a whole. But, according to a study by Dr. Tim Kane of the Heritage  Foundation, they come from wealthier neighborhoods than do their civilian  counterparts. Another liberal shibboleth demolished by the data is the notion that the  military is made up disproportionately of racial minorities. According to the  2000 Census American Community Survey, 75.6 percent of the adult population  self-identifies as white. In 2004 and 2005, 73.1 percent of recruits were white.  Since whites are, on average, older than blacks or hispanics, whites probably  are slightly overrepresented compared to the entire military-age population.  They definitely are overrepresented in combat units, the reverse of what was  true of the draft Army in Vietnam. I agree with Rep. Rangel that "no young, bright individual wants to fight  just because of a bonus and just because of educational benefits." Basic pay for  a private E1 is $15,282. For a second lieutenant, it's $28,994. Not many are  enlisting for the money. But many bright young people have enlisted to fight and have re-enlisted  after tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. That the reason is a mystery to Rep.  Rangel, Sen. Kerry and many other Democratic leaders is troubling for the future  of our country. I know something about the reason. My draft number was 363. I'd have gone  after women and children. But in 1970, I dropped out of law school to join the  Marines as a private. I had reasons both noble and base. I was bored with  school, tired of cold Wisconsin winters. I wondered if I were man enough to be a  Marine. But mostly, it was because my country was at war. Our country is again at war. Yet it does not occur to Charlie Rangel or John  Kerry that bright young people today enlist in the Armed Forces to protect their  homes, their families, our freedoms. For many democrats, being an American is all about rights, not duties. Though  the rights they demand would not exist were it not for the dwindling number of  Americans willing to perform the duties of citizenship, they regard with barely  concealed contempt those Americans whose sense of duty causes them to go in  harm's way. If America's "leaders" have such attitudes, can the nation long  survive?First published on December 3, 2006 at 12:00  am Read more, original article:     http://old.post-gazette.com/pg/06337/742852-373.stm#ixzz2J1LwAUlh

[Conan The Librarian]

Actually, I'm not going by propaganda on this one. I'm going by experience because I live near two huge army installations part of the time and two big air bases the rest of the time. I get to talk to a lot of people in the military. I also know what opportunities my kids have had, and their friends too. They're college age.
 
Suffice it to say that my son took a good hard look at the military, then rejected it. Also suffice it to say that his reasoning was sound.
 
One thing that is often repeated is that the military needs more smart and skilled people who know how to learn,and that's true. Just as it was true between WW1 and WW2. But to say that they are getting the best and brightest is preposterous. They're really just getting the same types of people that have been attracted to military life all along.

[BBF]

My military pay as an E-1 was about 100 bucks per month and that was paid monthly.

[ironglow]

  When the military was being considered..was there no thought of things like duty, honor, challenge, responsibilities, adventure, appreciation and Americanism?  These were all considerations i had as a young soldier..and I know it influenced my grandson and many others in my family.
         My rejection of the liberal view of our military is based on personal experience (Army), plus staying a couple weeks at my grandson's homes at Camp Lejuene and Parris Island...and relating with his combat veteran friends...along with knowing the sharpness of my grandson, all those young men would be exceptional in civilian life.  In fact, my grandson is now a civilian for a year, and has a very good profession, where he has advanced rapidly..gaining much respect in his field.
   His brothers are doing well also..but he has the extra value of having "been there, done that".. and as an elite forces Marine, something very few of the population can add to their resume!.