Developing: Pakistani Plane Escorted by UK Fighter Jets — 2 Men Arrested

Doc Thompson’s 24-hour radio marathon, ‘#24forok,’ continues until 9 am ET — Listen Live!

Have You Thought About These Counterarguments to Allowing Women in Combat?

Feb. 22, 2013 11:03am Liz Klimas

Veterans Kayla Williams and Mike Breen Discuss Misconceptions of Allowing Women in Combat

Sargent Sheena Adams, 25, Hospital Corpsman Shannon Crowley, 22, and Lance Corporal Kristi Baker, 21, US Marines with the FET (Female Engagement Team) 1st Battalion 8th Marines, Regimental Combat team II pose at their forward operating base on November 17, 2010 in Musa Qala, Afghanistan. (Photo: Paula Bronstein/Getty Images)

At a panel hosted by the Truman National Security Project and the Center for National Policy Thursday, two veterans — one male and one female — tried to dispel what they believe are misconceptions many still have about females serving on the front lines. Included in the fascinating discussion: integrated units could actually reduce sexual assault, how women can strengthen special forces, and even how female soldiers don’t need to sit to use the bathroom in the field.

The discussion of women in combat might have been at a low rumble for the last 10 years since the restriction became blurred for females serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. But with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta lifting the 1994 rule that prevented women from being assigned to small, ground combat units last month, the long-held debate exploded and discussions regarding implementation continue.

Earlier this month, the results of a survey, which were given to the Associated Press, listed the many concerns those in the Marine Corps had about allowing women — who only compose 15 percent of the military — to serve in combat. To name a few, concerns included:

Being falsely accused of sexual harassment or assault;

Possible fraternization and preferential treatment of some Marines; and

Pregnancy or personal issues that could affect a unit before it’s sent to the battlefield.

Kayla Williams, a former sergeant who was at the forefront of troops’ interactions with Iraqis during her deployment, and Mike Breen, former U.S. Army Officer with assignments in Iraq and Afghanistan who now servers as the executive director of the Truman National Security Project, took on such concerns in Thursday’s discussion.

On the topic of sexual assault, Williams first pointed out that 86 percent of assaults in the military are not even reported. With that, she believes the current atmosphere, which seems to discourage reporting of assault cases, needs to change. If victims of assault are known to be more likely to report cases of such crimes — and the proper disciplinary action is taken against offenders — such incidents might be avoided in the first place.

Williams and Breen both said they believed opening combat roles to women would decrease causes of assault, not increase it. This notion was recently shared by Gen. Martin Dempsey and others at a press conference. Here’s more on those thoughts from the Christian Science monitor:

“I believe it’s because we’ve had separate classes of military personnel, at some level,” [Dempsey] said at a press conference [in January].

[...]

It is a sentiment that is echoed among advocates for victims of sexual assault.

“When you have legalized discrimination against women, there’s no doubt in my mind that there’s a link there,” says Anu Baghwati, a former company commander in the Marine Corps.

“I experienced it firsthand as a woman officer in the Marines. There’s a constant reminder by your peers that you’re not as strong, you’re not as competent, which is not based on your actual, but your perceived performance,” she says. “And I think women would doubt themselves a lot less.”

US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin E. Dempsey (R) shake hands as they announce lifting the ban on women serving in front line combat roles during a media briefing January 24, 2013 at the Pentagon in Washington,DC. The announcment will open up hundreds of thousands of frontline positions for women in the infantry, tank, and in commando units. (Photo: PAUL J. RICHARDS/AFP/Getty Images)

Another prevalent concern about allowing females in combat is that they won’t physically — or emotionally — be able to stand it. Williams said this might be the case for some women, but included that there are other women who can do it. Breen agreed, saying he saw it first hand working alongside women in the Middle East. Even a veteran of the Vietnam War in the audience said the nurses seemed to handle some of the more horrific scenes better than some of the male doctors at the time.

Creating a quantitative and qualitative standard for each job needs to be done by the military first. Then, Williams said, both men and women would need to prove they can meet that standard. She noted that some men who currently hold a certain position, might not even meet the requirement. To prove her point, Williams gave Justin Beiber vs. Venus Williams examples for potential military candidates.

“There are strong and weak in every combat unit,” Breen said, regardless if there is a female member. “[Allowing women in combat] will only make special ops stronger, not weaker.”

And what about the more logistical things about being a female in combat, like pregnancy/babies and hygiene (menstruation and urinating)?

Williams said there were special devices that would allow a woman to urinate standing up, making it easier, and birth control can be taken to stop menstruation all together during deployment. As for babies and pregnancy, women are not deployable when they’re pregnant, but Williams pointed out that stats show men missing more days of work due to several factors, including disciplinary measures, than female soldiers.

So why is now the right time to allow women to take on combat roles? Breen stated part of it is that there is now 10 years of data — since the start of the war in Iraq — showing that women can make successful soldiers in combat. Williams added that even when she was deployed she questioned if the atmosphere among the troops was ready to allow women in combat. Now, soldiers that were new to the military then have had a decade of experience working with women, which Williams said makes them more likely to embrace the idea.

If the data is there and the male leadership has had ample experience working with women in combat, and therefore should be more apt to accept them in new roles, where do such misconceptions like those listed above come from? Williams said many of them are held by civilians who have no sense, outside of Hollywood, what military service is like.

“It is the people who have never been in the military that ask me about the hygiene issue,” Williams said. “I want to ask them if they’ve ever gone camping?”

A poll by TheBlaze with more than 150,000 responses – 65 percent male and 35 percent female — answered with a resounding 81 percent who said they do not support women in combat. The majority — 85 percent — also thought the military would be weakened by allowing women into combat roles. On the other hand, another survey conducted by Quinnipiac University found 75 percent of respondents were in favor of allowing women in combat.

Breen noted that men with little to no exposure to women in the military, like those in the infantry and some special operations roles, might be among those who will reserve to women’s new positions.

Still, “it is also a mistake to underestimate the military’s ability to respond to cultural shifts,” Breen said. “A great example is ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’”

Here is the panel’s discussion:

–

In CONTROL, Glenn Beck presents a passionate, fact-based case for guns that reveals why gun control isn’t really about controlling guns at all; it’s about controlling us. Find out more HERE.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (129)

dosdelgados
Posted on February 22, 2013 at 12:00pm
I’m a female veteran. Now I’m a SAHM and my husband is still active duty. I always had higher score on PT tests, even though I can do less push-ups and run a slower two-mile than him.

I don’t want my daughter required to register for Selective Service. My choice to serve was my own, and I didn’t pitch a fit about not being able to branch combat arms. My son, of course, will register. Maybe I’m “old-fashioned” or “behind the times” (or on the wrong side of history, right libs?), but there are simple biological differences that cannot be ignored or legislated away.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- The_Jerk
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 12:03pm
  From domestic spending to the military, women have been a problem. I don’t care about my speech being limited by political correctness, and that should be obvious by now.
  
  Report this comment
- The_Jerk
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 12:08pm
  Look at the picture above. The two on the end are trying to give the male badazz look. There’s a disconnect, because we all know they’re not. It’s kind of like Pee-wee Herman giving the same look; makes ya want to laugh, or smack’em right in the face. Women aren’t men, and that’s a fact.
  Start by putting them in a smoker. They’ll change their minds.
  
  Report this comment
- scottydu81
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 12:15pm
  I am a male navy veteran. I am conservative (leaning more towards libertarian, which today we are being called pu**ies by ann coulter. i will survive). i dont know when women were allowed on navy vessels, but i do know that a majority of my supervisors were all women, and they were some of the best sailors i worked for.
  
  i think you are full of crap. women are plenty capable of fighting on the battlefield with men. Hell, Israel does it! as for the draft, well, that shouldnt exist in the first place.
  
  Report this comment
- Beachmastermax
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 12:19pm
  To late, what you want does not matter anymore. Your daughter needs to register just like your son.
  This is FAIR.
  
  Report this comment
- NewMedia
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 12:30pm
  @dosdelgados Thank you for your service!
  
  Report this comment
- Mil-Dot
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 1:06pm
  This is just another vote buying technique employed by the commie Dems. Make it look like only they care about women and the evil conservatives want to keep them down. Not much different than handing out money for someone’s vote. Putting women in combat is going to get a lot of guys killed. Like the women above said, there are biological differences that cannot be overlooked.
  
  Report this comment
- The_Jerk
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 1:07pm
  Scottydu81, you served under women. You have been feminized.
  
  Report this comment
- MDECKER
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 1:56pm
  Thank you! Thank you for your service to our Country. A handful of American women are tough. A million Chinese women are tougher.
  
  Report this comment
- fastfacts
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 2:52pm
  For all the left that is speaking about women’s rights why don’t you attack Biden for his sexist comments. Check out this video put out by the NRA about Biden’s comments: http://www.thedailycandidate.com/video/2013/feb/nra_ad_women.html
  
  Report this comment
- THX-1138
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 3:12pm
  @dosdelgados
  
  First, thank you for your service.
  
  Second, it’s good to hear an argument that is reasonable, not too far in either direction and recognizes that there are differences (some can be quite useful).
  
  I read years ago that women, generally speaking, tested better than their male counterparts in some AWACS functions in that they could mentally keep track of several converging events (or something like that). There are differences (oh thank heaven) between the sexes. That should never be forgotten because we should actually take advantage of those differences rather than ignore them for the sake of Political Correctness.
  
  Report this comment
- Prosoldier
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 3:24pm
  @ SCOTTYDU81
  
  Most of the Navy serve on ships and boats, so unless CPT Jack Sparrow pulls up along side of you in the Black Pearl, you won’t have any real idea whether they would be great in infantry style land combat or not.
  
  Report this comment
- Wisdom7
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 3:53pm
  “I always had higher score on PT tests…”
  
  That’s because your PT test and his PT test were not the same. Be honest about it.
  
  Report this comment
- The_Jerk
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 3:59pm
  THX-1138, you made the point. Men are interchangeable. Women are not. Make it all men and you make it more efficient and much cheaper.
  
  Report this comment
- THX-1138
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 4:58pm
  @The_Jerk
  
  That’s not quite the point I was trying to make. As for Combat I’m guessing Men would always test higher and be more suited to that set of functions (as well as other issues that come up when you start mixing men with women under combat i.e. the natural instinct to protect women from *way* back.)
  
  But, there are many functions in the Military that women could well do *better* than men (in general).
  
  We would be wise to use each set of talents in the most effective way; if Women can run the AWACS gear better than men, *let them* to the detriment of the Enemy (and that’s really all the counts). If men perform better in Combat (and I think that’s a provable, measurable theory) then let them as well.
  
  We seem to have forgotten the primary goal of the Military long ago; Punish the Enemy as efficiently and effectively as possible. That’s the only thing that matters in War.
  
  Report this comment
- Elena2010
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 5:57pm
  Scotty — I, too, am a retire Navy vet (LCDR) also vet of Gulf War I. You are slightly mistaken — the IDF does NOT use women in combat arms. They did extensive studies finding that typical women were not physically suited for infantry or tanks. For one thing, we do not have far fewer red blood cells to carry oxygen to our muscles, nor are our muscles as strong as the typical man’s.
  
  We do well in the Navy, and probably in the Air Force, because of the physical nature of the jobs we do. Combat arms is an entirely difference can of worms. Combat arms is far more physically intense and demanding than most Navy duties, ashore or afloat. I have watched my brothers in arm, US Marines in the FMF first hand. There is no way most women can do what they do or perform at the same level. Forget abt SEALs!
  
  Report this comment
- TEOTWASWKI
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 6:40pm
  @ ELENA2010 Yours is the most sensible post yet. No one who has never been in ground combat in an infantry unit has any idea who can and can’t “hack” it. I firmly believe women should be allowed to do any thing they are capable of. Ground infantry combat is not one of them. Sure women could do fine 90% of the time but that last 10% is when 99% die, it is the hardest most A$$ kicking thing I’ve ever done. I was in spectacular shape, young and strong yet it taxed me 100%. It’s not about courage, it’s not about being a good shot, it’s not about being able to stomach blood and guts. It is about backbreaking, lung searing, A$$ kicking, terror filled brawling, carrying half your weight in gear, running, dragging, shooting, falling………..
  
  Report this comment
- patton55
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 7:03pm
  DosD,
  I have the perfect solution! Create an entire womens combat battalion, send them into combat and test the idea out. They won’t be able to run as fast, carry as much gear, and if they get into hand to hand combat w/an all male enemy we’ll be able to see how well they do in a military prison after they’re captured. What a joke! This ain’t reallity TV!!!
  I’m 101st Airborne Viet Nam vet. Do you comprendo casulty rate?
  
  Report this comment
- patton55
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 7:17pm
  Scottidu81,
  Your experience as a p***y swabby is so far removed from the “battlefield” , in the trenches, face to face w/a dedicated enemy, your opinion on the subject is void.
  
  Report this comment
- PureFox
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 7:31pm
  Honestly, I don’t care if they join or not, as long as they don’t abandon their children. (ex. dad and mother in army at the same time.)
  
  Report this comment
- Independent4233
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 7:40pm
  The US military is fast approaching third world standards due to being altered, manipulated and changed by radical letists, beginning with Carter, then accelerating through Clnton, then being at its present point of deterioration thanks to Old Banana Nose and the commuinity organizer, both of whom are civilians as are the majority of the other social engineers who have plied their evil on the military.
  
  Take note that this process began with changing the military leadership slowly in the Pentagon by culling out those whose minds were “not right,” favoring those for advancement who were able to adapt a more accerptable liberal point of view, until we have what we have today, which is only a trace of what the old guard resembled.
  
  Now when absurd, bizarre pressures are put on the military for female involvement in combat or allowing homosexuals to openly serve, or some other nonsense, the brass go right along with the program.
  
  And it will continue to worsen in the next four years, if we’re still together as one nation by then.
  
  That’s why I’m for reducing defense budgets to the lowest levels possible. If they don’t have excess money to waste, they’re not going to be able to go along with sub-standard people to fill slots.
  
  And if they pursue them anyway? Well, the world is rapidly catching up, and the serious threats to the US have tough, capable troops who are not weakened by political pressure from kooky social engineers.
  
  Report this comment
- myheck
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 9:24pm
  Good point – America is driving a steamroller to equate things (like male and female) that are inherently different. One consequence – the underachieving, slow-to-mature young American male. He’s not sure what his role is, except to have fun and let women take care of him and any offspring he produces. The drive for this false “equality” hurts women.
  
  Report this comment
- katzkiner
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 9:59pm
  Scotty:.Israel pulled their women back. I’ve seen women who could outfight, outshoot and outrun men but they wear out quicker. Like the hippies used to say, live fast, die young.
  
  Report this comment
- 1_Smoot_Tall
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 11:44pm
  Men & women ARE NOT EQUAL; women are 52% of the population. If they want to be equal, let them meet these quotas:
  
  100% register for the draft/selective service
  52% of all draftees
  52% of all recruitment goals
  52% of all branches & specialties
  52% of all engaged combatants
  52% of all soldiers ordered to, “Take that hill!”
  52% of all wounded
  52% of all homeless veterans
  52% of all disabled veterans
  52% of all MIA’s
  52% of all POW’s
  52% of all tortured
  52% of all KIA’s
  52% of all the dog tags in the Captain’s pockets
  52% of all body-bag occupants
  52% of all veteran suicides
  52% of all neatly folded burial flags be handed by the honor guards to a husband
  
  Obama’s war on women? Are we, or will we ever be, or will it ever be right for us to be ready for this all in the name of equality, hmmm ladies?
  
  I guess there is one statistic that women might like:
  
  48% of all USO show troops will now be male
  
  Report this comment
- 1FreeVoice
  Posted on February 23, 2013 at 7:18am
  You said you had a higher (adjusted) score, though you did fewer pushups and a slower run. Reality isn’t like that. if your daughter is running for her life, the people chasing her won’t be grading on a curve. I don’t think you are behind the times, but connected to reality.
  
  Report this comment
- chingachgook
  Posted on February 23, 2013 at 9:46am
  I agree with Patton55 if they can cut the mustard so to speak then let them go it alone! If not then what is all the discussion about.
  
  Report this comment
- chingachgook
  Posted on February 23, 2013 at 9:46am
  I agree with Patton55 if they can cut the mustard so to speak then let them go it alone! If not then what is all the discussion about.
  
  Report this comment
Warthog Fixer
Posted on February 22, 2013 at 11:59am
Now, women as combatants in a combatant Special Operations unit would be even WORSE in my opinion:
Hygiene issues, how often do women need to shower? You can push a man out of an aircraft over enemy territory and he can survive for months with just food/water/ammo/equipment drops as required. Given no major medical issues arise.
Let’s not even start the POW scenarios! I mean we’re going to fight people who are VERY much at odds with our society and we want to send our women into these scenarios? GET REAL PEOPLE!
While yes I’m sure there are a few (and I mean VERY FEW) women out there with the physical abilities and maybe even the desire to do the job at the end of the day it’s just not a good idea when you look at the big picture. When you commit to a job like this it is a commitment not to just jumping out of airplanes and blowing stuff up, but to committing to your fellow soldiers/sailors/airmen/marines. If you can’t toe the line everyday someone else needs to pick up your slack and you will NOT hack it! It’s a tough life that only fulfills a very small percentage of people!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Beachmastermax
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 12:22pm
  How many POWs were returned by the Taliban or Al Queda? Seems like there is not much difference to the final outcome of a POW with our current enemies based on Gender.
  
  Report this comment
- objectivetruth
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 12:55pm
  Hygeine aside.The women have no idea what being taken as a POW entails.At first they may treated reasonable.They are after all signed on the dotted line.Meaning that our enemies may want to curry favor with us, attempt conversion of them,or use them as a bargaining chip.That will cease.Then they will know the full horrors.Hum lets see on a covert basis right here in america they have used nail guns beatings rapings foot strapping.[Its different than foot roasting-it entails using packing tape ground glass and poison ivy sumac oak burnt into the foot with a iron.Its actually worse than foot roasting.Foot roasting if your foot isn’t amputated usually heals quickly though painfully.It takes alot longer for strapping and usually has some complications.Glue shot into and aroung the ears.Also around the genitals.This is usually accompnied by several crimes within the system to keep them attached to their target.
  Well they will do far worse than this to those who are signed.There isn’t anything to stop them.Unfetttered unchecked.The nightmare will be even worse.Need to prepare them.Start by not allowing them to report rape or assault by other officers.It needs to be seen for what it really is friendly TET training.Its a warm up for what you will end up experiencing on the front if taken as a POW.
  
  Report this comment
Warthog Fixer
Posted on February 22, 2013 at 11:58am
To all the liberal trolls, my lawyer has advised me to inform you that all the following information in this post is in generalized terms.
Having women in a combat zone where they may experience combat is not such a big deal. Not ideal by any means, but it’s not the end of the world.
Having women filling combatant roles where the job is to find and destroy the enemy is not such a good idea. I remember the quote by the senator in that highly fictional movie “G.I. Jane” of, “How strong do you need to be to pull a trigger?” To answer that, pretty darn strong! Loaded Weapon = 7.5 lbs, Body Armor w/ SAPI Plates = 45lbs, Basic ammo load (210rnds) = 6 lbs; we’re already up to roughly 58.5 lbs and we haven’t even added night vision, laser range finders, flashlights, radios, batteries to run everything, uniform/boots, food, water, etc… I remember carrying a 75lb rucksack full of “essentials” when I used to jump out of airplanes for a living, and that was light!! Now, your buddy gets wounded and you need to carry/pull/drag him to safety. I’m a big guy at 235lbs, how many women would be able to drag my big **** out of the line of fire? I mean there aren’t many men that can do the job!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- warrior21
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 1:04pm
  I would be interested in the combat experiences of Williams and Breen.Too many people think combat is living in a forward area and visting a villiage every now and then. I don’t think many people on this blog realize what a nightmare a firefight, an attack or being attaacked is. I cannot imagine a woman serving with me in either Korea or Vietnam. Gen Dempsey and his Chief of Staff buddies themselves have seen little combat and none of them have the guts to stand up and tell Panetta and Obama to get their heads out of the 4th point of contact.
  
  Report this comment
Gamaliel
Posted on February 22, 2013 at 11:58am
If we held any esteem at all for the unborn, women in combat would be unthinkable.
(Women in combat could, would result in he deathes of innocent unborn children.)

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
AmericanStrega
Posted on February 22, 2013 at 11:56am
What happens when women, out in the field, have their period? I’m a woman, and I cannot see myself out there in the field trying to defend myself and my fellow troops while I’m having dibilitating cramps and having to change my tampon or pad every two or three hours (sorry about the visual, I couldn’t find any other way to say it). While I believe some women may be able to do their jobs as well as men might, we have to consider that women have a few more “complication” each month that may be a problem for the rest of the team. Why should the rest of the team have to deal with it and maybe at the cost of their lives or the life of the woman?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- objectivetruth
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 12:19pm
  This is easily solved.Several birth control methods only require you to have you cycle three maybe four times a year. Seasonique
  Over a year Lybrel
  Depo provera can be used by some women for the same purposes.It however can work just the opposite in some women.In essence being on your cycle constantly.
  
  Report this comment
- sligresda
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 12:26pm
  debilitating cramps? come on, they aint THAT bad!
  
  Report this comment
- AmericanStrega
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 12:33pm
  Objective…:
  I didn’t think of those. Thanks. I still have a problem with cramps. They really suck! ;)
  
  Report this comment
- 3monkeysmomma
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 12:41pm
  I had debilitating cramps for a while when I was younger.
  Its like that for some women.
  And yes Depo works well for it….but you will gain weight…..
  
  Report this comment
- objectivetruth
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 1:02pm
  @threemonkeysmomma
  For what its worth.I took depo provera two seperate times.Once for a year after the birth of one of my children.I gained over fifty pounds.I had never had a weight problem before in my life.I’ve always been small so the weight gain seemed worse.I looked like a beached whale.It took me six to seven years to shed it.I had to take a couple shots recently for a essure procedure.Haven’t gained an ounce.I truly think that depo being given right after delivery had alot to do with it.
  
  Report this comment
- pmjme
  Posted on February 23, 2013 at 2:53am
  To people who say this would easily be solved with birth control…not so fast…What about people who get violently ill ingesting those products. It happens. The are also other consequences, there are major lawsuits right now over birth control that was handed out but not properly tested. Forcing people to take synthetic drugs in order to put them in combat situations is fundamentally wrong. And what happens after three months when the drugs wear off, and you have potentially been taken as a POW?
  
  Women are meant to give life not take it. Celebrate the differences between men and women rather than try to render this a gender neutral world.
  
  Report this comment
- chingachgook
  Posted on February 23, 2013 at 11:28am
  @OBJECTIVETRUTH let me see if I have this correct. Female in combat, need to take meds to prevent period? Male in combat takes no meds, has no cramps. Wow that’s interesting. What will we think of next. Yea we are all the same. You make the point women are different than men, needs not further explanation. Why use the military to experiment in order to keep a few happy.
  
  Report this comment
Melvin Spittle
Posted on February 22, 2013 at 11:52am
Fact: A military leader must discriminate regarding the physical capacities of women. This is reality and to be truly gender blind and equal, the mission would fail in combat & combat support units. I lived it for over twenty years. An all female team has always failed evaluation for establishing a tactical communications network due to the physical demand of driving several six foot ground rods into rocky soil, lifting 80 lb cable reels, and the repetitious overall physical demand of setting up a site within 30 minutes.

Not one of my male soldiers want women on their teams because they know they will end up doing not only their own job, but all of the heavy lifting of the female team member. There is a combat readiness score that is impacted and tracks directly with the number of female unit members assigned to tactical teams. I presented this data as part of a presentation on combat telecommunications readiness at Ft Gordon, Georgia back in 1993. The truth can impact a career when political correctness trumps military readiness.

Military readiness and moral will no suffer from the latest decision to include women in combat units and also the decision to end DADT.

I hope all of you feminists are proud of yourselves.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Melvin Spittle
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 11:58am
  “Military readiness and moral will no suffer”
  
  Military readiness and moral will now suffer—corrected.
  
  Report this comment
- The_Jerk
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 12:00pm
  Make an all women unit then send them into a Fallujah. If they’re as good, we’ll see.
  
  Report this comment
- Cavallo
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 12:17pm
  You can’t berate them for not pulling their weight either.. you’d be a bully.
  I find it hilarious that they think there won’t be sexual problems, real assaults, false accusations, resentments, physical problems, psychological problems, favoritism, etc etc..
  Doesn’t matter anymore. I no longer trust the government to defend me or my rights and that includes relying on any branch of the military to defend me and keep me free.
  This will be a deadly failure, especially when the government can no longer afford video game warfare to do its dirty work.
  
  Report this comment
paperpushermj
Posted on February 22, 2013 at 11:50am
“Being falsely accused of sexual harassment or assault”
________________.

In my opinion this would be number one on my list. All one has to do is look to the American Workplace to see what will happen to Combat Arms in the Military. All it will take is a brief flurry of Harassment claims to put a real hurt on any Women in the Combat unit where they are involved. Officers and and NCOs fearing charges will make clear to the Men under their command that the Women or Women are to be treated as equal in all respects. This will create an atmosphere of danger to the Men who will by necessity treat the Ladies as Persona Non Grata. Which will I’m sure be the basis for a Hostile Workplace Charge.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Cavallo
Posted on February 22, 2013 at 11:44am
At least the military they attempt to deploy against American Citizens will be demoralized and fragmented.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- progressiveslayer
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 11:51am
  That’s true and I could see the Marxist mulatto trying to seize power that way,yeah he’ll try it.
  
  Report this comment
pctrn
Posted on February 22, 2013 at 11:39am
It’s quite interesting how the “support for women in the military” polls NEVER address the actual issues: Strength inequalities and how the males will be distracted from their combat duties by “having to protect” the females.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- savagenatn
  Posted on February 23, 2013 at 3:56am
  right on, they ignore the real core issues other than the obvious differences in physical strength. A man has a God given instinct to protect women. If a woman is in danger, a man will take whatever risks to protect her while risking himself much more than he would another male GI. You cannot un-train this mentality.
  
  To quote a troll who frequents this site “IT IS SO”
  
  Report this comment
mizzouwendy
Posted on February 22, 2013 at 11:37am
Women are already in combat roles…………or did I imagine them driving MRAPs outside the wire in Iraq, being part of intelligence teams, being part of civil affairs teams, etc. Sorry, I’m a pretty staunch conservative, but women are already putting themselves at risk in combat zones, so why not make it official? Women think differently than men and I think it will actually strenghthen some teams, espcially civil affairs, intel (especially as many cultures will not allow women to talk with male soliders) and to be honest, police and military training in cultures where men and women can’t interact. Men are great at some things not so great at others and women are the same way, I think making it offical will be a good thing………….that being said, getting rid of DADT, NOT A GOOD decision. 99% of my military friends said it was a horrible decision.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Melvin Spittle
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 11:56am
  Your unicorns and rainbow views of women successfully deployed in combat is woefully uninformed. I am a combat vet and have had several combat and combat support assignments and have lead platoons with several women. I can list the plethora of accommodations that we had to make for women in the military at the expense of male soldiers, readiness, and the mission. When you are ready to be educated, just ask.
  
  Report this comment
- paperpushermj
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 12:06pm
  Yes Women are involved in a dangerous environment due to the Asymmetrical nature of our current wars. Most injuries to women are due to Attacks on the Vehicles they are in, not directed at them personally as they are patrol.
  
  Report this comment
- MoseyAlong
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 12:54pm
  Yes, women are stuck on the front lines already. Considering there are no front lines in this assymetrical imperialism we are pouring money and lives into.
  
  Yes, women are out there doing “stuff.” However, most of the time they are less capable than their male counterparts when it came to physical demands. Show me an instance where this will make our military more capable at killing people and breaking their stuff? I’ve seen women react when bullets are coming and going, they sucked. There is a big difference between a well trained combat Soldier/Marine and a REMF being forced to pull the trigger because their convoy was attacked. They are both heroes to mom and dad back home but for those who know the difference, it’s a mile wide.
  
  Report this comment
chips1
Posted on February 22, 2013 at 11:28am
The high ranking millitary leaders are only saying what Obama’s gang tells them to say. Obama has gotten rid of the ones that have a different opinion.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Beachmastermax
Posted on February 22, 2013 at 11:27am
In fact, I would have all female and all male army post. Let them try to get a pregnancy exclusion using plastic.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Beachmastermax
Posted on February 22, 2013 at 11:24am
The horse has bolted the barn. Women will be in combat. The GOP needs to make sure that all 18 year old women start registering for the draft immediately.

If I ran the Army, there would be 100% women battalions. I would not mix the genders in battle. Let women carry injured women off the battlefield.

One thing I have learned in life is that women usually get exactly what they want, to argue the point to exasperation is futile, just let nature take it’s course.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- JRook
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 11:37am
  Exactly and the qualitative and quantitative criteria that were referenced should be based on the job requirements not the ability for any specific group or subgroup’s ability to perform it. That is the process should not go the way of OSHAA where workers can only be required to lift 50 pounds without a lifting device being available. Effectiveness, productivity and efficiency should not be compromised. I am 100% in support of those who can actually do it.
  
  Report this comment
semihardrock
Posted on February 22, 2013 at 11:24am
SHOCK REPORT — Veterans Receive Letters From VA Prohibiting Ownership or Purchase of Firearms
Posted by Jim Hoft on Friday, February 22, 2013, 6:11 AM

This must be Barack Obama’s way of thanking our veterans for serving.
US veterans are receiving letters from the government informing them that they are disabled and not allowed to own, purchase or possess a firearm. If the veteran does decide to purchase a firearm he will by fined, imprisoned or both.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- progressiveslayer
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 11:33am
  I haven’t received such a letter and if I do they’ll have a snowballs chance in taking any of my firearms.
  The second amendment doesn’t recognize or respect the VA or any law that’s created to infringe on our right to bear arms.
  
  Report this comment
- JRook
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 11:33am
  Well if the individual is being treated for PTSD or some other psychological or emotional problem associated with the war then he should clearly fail any reasonable background check and be prohibited from owning a gun. You can’t have it both ways, claim some level of trauma and then want it ignored in the case of owning a gun.
  
  Report this comment
- ustake2
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 12:00pm
  All veterans should know the info on this. From Dec – http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/03/veterans-gun-rights-sticking-point-in-defense-bill/
  
  Report this comment
- paperpushermj
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 12:27pm
  I wonder how this will fly up against the Americans with Disabilities Act. I’m sure lawyers are heading to the Court House right now with Lawsuit in hand.
  
  Report this comment
- Cavallo
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 1:31pm
  @JRook, As long as they CAN do it. There is a horrid tendency to lower standards for some, make exceptions, or otherwise mitigate actual performance in regards to whatever politically correct winds might be drifting out of the garbage pile. I saw it at Airborne School in the 90s. The women had to do girl pull ups to qualify for jump training, our run speed was slowed way down from what I was informed it would be (because they put the girls at the front). I watched girls jump from guy to guy through the platoon, often causing strife and high school like idiot drama. Some of it is systemic, other anecdotal, but if given the choice between the females I had in our Company and thug gang bangers from Chicago, I’d almost prefer having the gang bangers watching my back in a fire fight. Who knows though, maybe the nature of women have changed since the 90s, or maybe I just got a bad sampling.
  
  Report this comment
Vision Harry
Posted on February 22, 2013 at 11:23am
The only good thing about women leading us into battle is the view from behind

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
UNALIEN
Posted on February 22, 2013 at 11:22am
There is one reason why they shouldn’t be.. in combat

it devalues women in the culture and subverts a society,, cultural marxism

A society that puts its women on the front line to kill and be killed is being intentionally demoralized from within…progress, no Progressivism

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Beachmastermax
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 11:30am
  Women vote in overwhelming majorities to achieve this result. Are you saying deny women the vote?
  
  Report this comment
- RaydocX
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 11:43am
  @Beachmaster
  Women have no vote in whether they serve in combat.
  That is a decision of our leaders.
  And already there are those on the left acting like suggestions for universal registration at 18 is unacceptable. If they or women want ‘equal treatment’ that has to be equal treatment in everything.
  
  in truth (which the Left cannot deal with) there ARE differences in women and men. some good and some bad. Strength and aggression chief among them.
  
  Baghwati’s argument that her lack of combat experience hurt her capability in the eyes of her peers speaks to her peers inability to see the value in things other than combat preparedness or skill. There are clearly areas that require other skills than the ability to kill and kill again. Civil war generals who were horrible commanders proved adept and beneficial in other roles.
  
  the risk, here, is that failing at combat, Baghwati’s successors will tarnish the abilities they have in other roles.
  
  and i am not ignoring that women already have and are fighting in some units.
  but the whole ‘living in a foxhole together’ mentality, pretending that there will not be new and troublesome inter-platoon problems is a perfect example of ignoring human nature, and why there are always unintended consequences.
  
  just because women could serve in front line combat, as has been proven by chinese and vietnamese forces recently, and the occasional female fighter in history, does NOT mean they should, or that it helps them
  
  Report this comment
- UNALIEN
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 11:47am
  BEACHMASTERMAX
  
  huh, do you mean Progressivism, it a suicidal ideology based on deception. We are experiencing it, we are dying a slow Progressive death, culturally, morally, economically and emotionally.
  
  Report this comment
- rayne
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 12:02pm
  Statistically, it’s actually a no-brainer. While, yes, in general men top women in most of the important characteristics that are required for front-line combat (strength, aggression, etc.), the “general” man or woman is not who we’re dealing with here. There’s a prerequisite level of competency that ought to be met for combat, and just because, on average, there will be more men than women that reach that level, we shouldn’t for that reason ignore all the women who CAN reach that level. An argument can be made that that is an idiotic waste of human resources.
  
  However, despite the statistics, I think I still agree more with the original opinion of Unalien: in the quest for “equality” our society has lost a lot of the respect we once had for women. Chivalry is dying. That’s not a good thing. Sending women to the front lines to do one of our ugliest jobs further chips away at respect for women.
  
  But then again, I can also see the other side of the argument that says that denying the women who do want to go is paternalistic and trying to protect them from themselves. It’s a tough issue all around.
  
  Report this comment
- Beachmastermax
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 12:55pm
  @ Raydoc
  
  If you vote for democrats you voted for Women in Combat. This has been a goal of theirs for years. If you did not know this then I am letting you know now. After it is to late.
  
  Report this comment
- Beachmastermax
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 1:22pm
  @ Raydoc.
  
  All you say is true, except your first premise. Leaders are elected. We get the leadership we deserve and it is the female vote point of view that has gotten us here. Equal Protection under the law forces will take over now. It does not matter what a woman can or cannot do! The ban is lifted, go into combat. You have the same choice as a drafted male now….NONE!
  
  Report this comment
- UNALIEN
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 2:13pm
  RAYNE
  
  Of course there are women who could physically handle combat… but women are not “equal” that is to say the same as men,, the cabal of leftist ideologies claim to make everyone equal, they really don’t mean equality they mean “sameness”, their goal is and always has been to destroy the culture, the values, morals, beliefs, history that binds a society together,,, If the state can create sameness, it can control the individual, there is no distinction.. Placing women in combat is designed to attack the culture and diminish the uniqueness of women and their role in the culture, they will be trained to kill and be killed, a continued devaluation of women in society that is well underway.
  
  Report this comment
avgconservative
Posted on February 22, 2013 at 11:21am
These dumba$$es… physical strength in a hand-to-hand situation. Physical strength in a situation of obstacles and evading enemy.

You bunch of stupid turds! It’s physical strength! NO WOMEN in forward combat roles… period (pun intended).

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
sligresda
Posted on February 22, 2013 at 11:19am
ridiculous. more of the feminization of american men. how embarrassing to allow women to fight for men. im surprised men are ok with this…………wait, no im not. could you imagine roman armies allowing their women to fight in battles with them!! men wonder why women dont respect them? this would be a good example.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Beachmastermax
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 11:32am
  If you vote Democrat you are the one putting women in Combat. @/3 of women vote Democrat. It is inverse for men. Men do not have the ability to stop what women have voted for.
  
  Report this comment
- Wisdom7
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 3:50pm
  “ridiculous. more of the feminization of american men.”
  
  You are correct. Just look at some of the comments on here going on about how men aren’t as good as women in this or that. To hear some people talk, men just suck at everything apparently so we need women to “rescue” us on the front lines. It’s pathetic. Men are self-defeating idiots these days.
  
  Report this comment
edcoil
Posted on February 22, 2013 at 11:19am
I heard someone on the radio say that during a poll of the military, only 4% of women voted to be allowed into those units.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
ginger100
Posted on February 22, 2013 at 11:19am
When we start finding women POWs strapped down spread eagle, feet behind their ears and filmed by terrorist organizations, endless public opinion discussions like Sandy Hook will make defending this country impossible. 0 u s u c k!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- 3monkeysmomma
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 12:48pm
  Well since you brought it up, I have seen reports in the alternative media that the military is covering up a “rape epedemic” happening to our depolyed service women at the hands of our own servicemen and contractors.
  
  In one case the woman’s DEATH was listed as a suicide because she supposedly raped herself, strangled herself, glued her own gloves on her hands and set herself on fire. Her family had to fight to get that one listed as a homocide for six months and I don’t believe anyone was ever arrested.
  
  I wish the Blaze would look into that.
  
  Report this comment
progressiveslayer
Posted on February 22, 2013 at 11:18am
It’s a bad idea and they just need the time to go through it and see for themselves,problem is it’s going to weaken our military but that’s the plan. When this country starts the draft again how many mothers and fathers would want their daughters to be drafted? Women in combat roles is a bad idea and it’s going to get a lot pf people killed but we’re all equal right? This regime is intent on proving it and they don’t really care how many bodies it takes to prove it.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
AJBrad
Posted on February 22, 2013 at 11:14am
“Williams said there were special devices that would allow a woman to urinate standing up”

And there are special devices that can make a woman able to pretend to be a man. What is your point?

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Recondaddy
Posted on February 22, 2013 at 11:13am
Ladies, I love and respect all of you, but when it comes to warfare and the defense of a nation, there is NO place for social experimentation.

The only goal of a military force is to exert violent force against another military force to achieve a tactical and strategic advantage. In other words, the military’s job is to win wars.

At the end of the day, combat ultimately comes down to physical superiority. When there is no aircraft, artillery, or armor support, and you’ve blown through all your ammo in a firefight, you may end up going hand-to-hand with the enemy, and those politicians who conducted this grand experiment won’t be there to help you survive or to help us win.

Think about this — college football is a brutal, physical sport that pits the strongest players against one another. If you don’t have the strongest, most aggressive players, all the creative coaching in the world won’t enable you to win.

Imagine a college that, in an effort to be PC, unilaterally recruits women for their team and starts them in key positions on the field. No other college follows their lead (because they’re smarter than that).

How long do you think those women would survive, and how many wins do you think that team would have at the end of the year?

Women have some beautiful, incredible gifts, but with precious few exceptions, aggression, physical strength, and the will to kill other human beings are not part of your skill set.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- GetRight
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 11:48am
  I agree. This seems so obvious to me. How can we be debating this. There is no way this will work in our favor. It will weaken our military. My husband was in a noncombat unit including women and the women were mostly worthless. Could not keep up with the men and needed special treatment. Now if there happens to be a woman that can meet all the requirements as a man then okay, but we all know the requirements will be dumbed down for political correctness.
  
  Report this comment
steveinva
Posted on February 22, 2013 at 11:12am
Women should be allowed in combat as long as they meet every physical requirement that men meet. Same push-ups (not on their knees) same sit-ups, same pull-ups, same run times, etc. Any degradation of these will dilute our fighting power. The standards were established for a reason…

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- progressiveslayer
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 11:23am
  They will lower the standards like they do for fire and police,they will do it,they’re determined to prove that we’re equal. Take the toughest woman in the world and put her in a ring with Mike Tyson in his prime and the woman wouldn’t last one minute.
  
  Report this comment
The-Monk
Posted on February 22, 2013 at 11:10am
Have fun with this one East….. LOL

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.