Opinion Section

"Women in Combat"

File #3

What's your opinion on this controversial issue?

Posted: 22 Oct 98: "Concerning women in combat from the perspective of an Army Reservist"

I am a 24yr old Specialist in the U.S. Army Reserve and I have some strong opinions on this matter. The reserve unit that I am in is rather unique in that while it is not a "combat arms" unit, it is about as close as you can get without being called "combat arms". My unit is a Combat Heavy Engineering unit that mainly specializes in building temporary structures in a theater of operations. However we are also a fully independent unit equipped with heavy infantry weapons (M-16, M-60, M-203, M-2, SAW,etc...) that can perform very close to front lines and perform secondary combat engineering roles as well. In other words we can operate without an infantry security detachment if needed and very capable of defending ourselves or even engaging in limited offensive tasks. Now in my unit we do have quite a few female soldiers come and go and I find it very interesting observing the interactions between male and female soldiers and how it effects "male-bonding" and all that. So far I've haven't seen it detrimental to "male-bonding" at all. We view our female soldiers as "sisters". Their is a little bit of sexual jokes sometimes said about them behind their back, but any sexual harassment that begins to crop up is put down quickly by the offender's comrades before it becomes serious. Very rarely occasionally we get a attention starved female soldier who loves the attention she gets from all the guys, but those are usually rare. Most of our female soldiers are very professional. Now on the minus side, I find that quite often they are given special treatment. For example when my unit is doing masonry work or doing any type of really labor intensive work such as digging trenches with picks and shovels, I have very very rarely ever seen a female soldier forced to do this work. They usually have her doing other errands like driving around officers. The male soldiers don't seem to mind too much though as they don't see this type of work as "women's work". But I feel like if they take the job they should do the work to their greatest potential. That doesn't apply to all the females in my unit. We had one female specialist in our earth-moving platoon (heavy equipment operator) who became an NCO and really did one hell of a job both as a specialist and an NCO. When we deployed to NTC for training, she went out into "The Box" and did an exceptional job under harsh conditions. Both male and female soldiers all greatly admired her for her leadership and skills. During that field exercise she was also subjected to OPFOR attacks (the whole bit including getting gassed with CS gas) and performed well. Her example led me to believe that woman definitely can carry out a role well on frontline missions.

Now when it comes to combat training, I've noticed that many women also are quite good at it. No, our reserve unit doesn't carry 123lb rucks as we normally go everywhere by truck, but out on the range, many of the female soldiers shoot very well, and during combat training against OPFOR (simulated opposing forces acted out by other units), most perform well in maneuvers, keep a level head, perform first aid as trained, follow procedures, etc... . While most women are not normally violent or naturally aggressive, I can personally attest to the fact that women can kick some serious ass in hand-to-hand combat. For a couple of years I studied karate in Florida and in doing so I saw many female martial arts students who showed exceptional performance and great speed. I also even sparred against some of them (though it was a bit awkward). The female students of the upper belts often made up for what they lacked in strength, in their speed and technique. You see this among female police officers. Because those female officers are often much weaker then a typical male criminal they have to really have excellent fighting skills and techniques in order to be effective. It would be very interesting to get a female street cop's view on this subject.

Overall however I do not think that female combat soldiers should be forced in the combat arms ranks with male soldiers. First all-female combat arms groups should be created, as one Ranger noted on his reply to this topic. There should be the same standards as the male soldiers. If not then the standards should at the very least fit what is required of the mission. For example if the female unit is a tanker unit, they will probably not need to hump a 123 lb. ranger rucksack. Special ops units should be required to hump what they typically would be required to carry for a full combat load. One female responder stated that all-female combat units would not get the same respect as their male counterparts. I think they most definitely would once they proved themselves in combat much as all-black combat units and Japanese-American special ops units gained great respect in WWII. If they can fight effectively and save your butt when the fighting gets tough, gender will go out the window. Once these units prove themselves, I think their integration into male units would go a lot smoother. But until then its probably best to keep them apart. I had co-ed AIT training after basic, and while yeah it was great having all those horny women around (yes most of the women were just as horny as the men after several months without sex), it also was a great distraction. In basic training it was all-male. I honestly didn't think about sex much because their were not females around. I concentrated entirely on my training. But in AIT sex was all I thought about with all the women around. You could argue that its just a reflection of my character, but almost all the other male soldiers talked about having sex with the female soldiers constantly as well. That's just hormones at work. If you put men and women in closely confined areas for long periods of time...things will happen. It's just human nature. Is that bad? Well if it doesn't interfere with the mission then no, but if it does then yes. There is also the pesky question of pregnancy. that's more of an ethical debate...do you force female combat soldiers to take birth control? Do you distribute free condoms to male soldiers? That's a tough question, but their is no doubt that pregnancy greatly effects unit readiness. Our female supply sergeant has been pregnant twice and definitely effected our unit readiness. Lower ranking enlisted personal, other NCOs in the Admin.office and some active duty personnel had to take up the slack, but things still weren't the same, as we didn't her much needed expertise. So anyways, that thorny issue would have to be sorted out. But as for actual combat. All you female soldiers out there who are just busting to get into infantry/combat arms units, I highly advise that you talk to some combat veterans before you push on. Also I HIGHLY advise that all of you go out and see the movie, "Saving Private Ryan". If you think that you can handle that type of close quarters combat, blood and guts, and intense stress then by all means push on. The argument that things are different now because of technology is bull****. The PBS show "Frontline" recently had a very good documentary on the combat that our soldiers experienced in Somalia. That there was classic WWII style infantry combat with a little help from the angels above (black hawks, little bird special ops helicopters, and cobra gunships). One unit spoke of not having enough APC's to get them out of one location (they were all filled up) and thus had to run for their lives along side the APCs in a foot chase with Somali gangs who were shooting at them. This again demonstrates the need for great endurance. Sprinting great distances with a full combat load is no small feat. I still remember one ORE exercise where I had to sprint to a location with an M-60 medium machine gun and a full rucksack. It was about a good 400-600 meters but I had to run up and down hills through thick brush. I nearly died from exhaustion. Can a woman do this? Maybe some but not many. Technology certainly helps but infantry is and always will be down and dirty combat where the strongest (and smartest) survive. It will always at times call upon great endurance and strength.

As you see, I speak for both sides of the debate. But I think we should try it in all-female units and see what happens. If anything, it will be very interesting learning experience.

-Specialist in the Army Reserves

Posted: 21 Oct 98: "Canadian women are in combat"

This past summer I had the opportunity to travel to Selfridge Air National Guard Base in Michigan to do general duties for the band affiliated with my regiment who were performing in the air show. During the social on the first night I was often asked what instrument I played. When I responded that I wasn't in the Band but in the Infantry many people did not believe me and gave me a funny look. The only guys who believed me readily was the Ranger Airborne guys who went to a Canadian base and saw women there. I realize that in the States women are not allowed in the Infantry but in Canada we are. Yes, I do find it physically challenging but not impossible. The Infantry is not for everyone but there are some women who can do it successfully.

Posted: 28 Sep 98: "women in combat challenge" (in response to the 24 Sep 98 post 'Give Women a Chance.)

Okay, I'll take up your challenge:

The question about a woman serving in the combat arms of our nation's military is not about her 'right' to do so. It is not about can she do so as well as a man. It is not about equal opportunity. It is about whether women ought to serve in the combat arms and if that is good for our society.

I. According to our culture, the following are true (much of our nation's philosophy of war is based on Clausowitz's 'On War' and various writings by L.H. Little and H.L.A. Hart)

a. War is an extension of policy by violent physical means.
b. A standing, professional army is necessary to study, effectively prosecute and win wars.
c. The nature of war is controlled violence and orchestrated chaos
d. War is a human endeavor, the sole constant of which is that war prosecuted correctly must necessarily lead to death or a high risk of death to the warfighter
e. A nation cannot survive if it cannot wage war effectively

II. Since the above are true, we come to the conclusion that the warfighter must be both well-trained [Para I(b,c)] and easily replaced [Para 1(b,d)]. Our nation has chosen to base our warfighting capabilities on five basic weapon types: infantry (light, heavy and mechanized); armor; artillery; air (close air support, deep air support and long range strike); naval forces (naval-based infantry and aviation, surface combatants, submarines). Each of these weapon types require an enormous amount of manpower to sustain. Because of that the following is true:

a. Every soldier that is not or cannot be specialized in a combat support or combat service support role is trained in combat arms by default

III. From the premises in Para I, our nation's armed forces have generally organized and trained with the following belief:

a. Military service requires a submission of selfish aims to the greater cause of effectively prosecuting war (i.e. personal standards that are more strict than outside of military service, an understanding that the needs of the armed forces come before personal gain)

[This basically means that while an individual may have a preference for which branch of the military to serve, it is only when her choice favorably matches with the needs of the service that she gets her choice. So that while an American may enlist with a 'guarantee' for training as, say an electronics repair specialist, the Army may legally and necessarily require that she instead train as a parachute rigger. This follows from Para I, that the needs of the army outweigh the desires of the soldier]

IV. In our history as a nation, Americans have always accepted Para I(d). The body counts of all our wars combined demonstrate this fact. The following are true:

a. Only people prosecute wars.
b. Only gender significantly classifies people who are able to serve a military function.
c. There is sufficient evidence (i.e. the number of soldiers killed in all wars combined) to suggest that Americans tolerate Para I (d) with respect to male soldiers.
d. There is sufficient evidence (i.e. the reluctance of America to allow women into combat arms, as well as the heightened sense of outrage that the nation expressed when a woman was taken prisoner in 1990s Gulf War, even while several men were also held prisoner) to suggest that Americans do not tolerate Para I (d) with respect to female soldiers.

V. Currently, our armed forces require an influx of fresh recruits annually. They are all volunteer, although the selective service still remains effective for American men between the ages of 18 and 26. No serious effort has been made or suggested to change this law to include women of similar age. No serious effort has been made to eliminate selective service.

VI. The question about women serving in combat arms concerns a woman's 'right' to serve according to her ability. There is no similar question regarding a man's 'right' to serve the military. Because of Para I(e), a military is necessary. Because of Para IV(a) service is a necessity, not a right. Because of Paras IV(b,c) men are chosen to make up the combat arms. Because of Para II(a), [and sometimes coupled with Para V] men who cannot qualify for a 'specialty' [non combat arms skill] but meet minimum requirements for service are by default trained in combat arms. Only women are exempt from the rule stated in Para II(a) because of Para IV(d). If women were to serve in combat arms, then all women [as all men] ought to be subject to Para II(a). Such subjection would make women vulnerable to Para I(d) as a rule [it is currently an exception] but Para IV(d) is true. Therefore, until Para IV(d) is false, women cannot be subject to Para II(a). Because service is a necessity not a right women ought not serve in combat arms.

By the way. You claim to have done your homework but cite no references, and quote from amorphous 'studies'. Also, the remark about Ranger school: US Marines have a lower attrition rate through Ranger school than the Army counterparts, does that mean that every Marine is capable of becoming Ranger qualified? Or are they just better screened? Also, when did women attend Ranger school?

Greg

Posted: 24 Sep 98:

I just have to comment this last letter. Ask the Swedish government why they are keeping all units open for both men and women, and the answer you will get is this: because of QUALITY not equality. They are selecting the best of the whole population and I can assure you that you will not get a place in, for example, the Infantry if you are: too short, too weak, too slow, too dumb or don't pass the standards, and that goes for both men and women. No one that doesn't have the necessary capacity is getting a place in a combat-unit, just as it is in all other units, and the standards is the same for all, without any exemptions. If you have two people, with the same physical fitness (and same length), one man and one woman, and one of them (the woman) is smarter. Who would you recruit? In Sweden the most intelligent is recruited, which means the woman is recruited. But in USA the less intelligent would be recruited, just because he happens to be a man.

Info from a Swedish Officer

Posted: 24 Sep 98: "Give women a chance!"

I believe that it is ridiculous that in this day and age, in the United States of America, the government can tell me that there is a job I cannot do on the sole basis of my gender. I am not just voicing an opinion, I have done my homework here. When it comes to conditions of deprivation, exposure to the elements, and endurance, women are actually better equipped to deal than men. Furthermore, it is a scientifically proven fact that women are more psychologically stable. In the bombing of London during WW2, 75% of the psychological casualties were male. Men are more susceptible to ulcers, alcoholism, and mental breakdowns. It has also been proven time and again that women can kill in combat just as easily as men (as a matter of fact we are generally better marksman). I would challenge anyone out there to provide me with one valid reason (i.e. one I can't shoot down with logical reasoning backed up with research). E-mail is deborahw@worldnet.att.net

Oh, and by the way, women have recently proven that they can handle Ranger school (and they had a much lower attrition rate than the men!) Don't get me wrong - I don't believe in compromising the standards of the infantry - but gender should not be a disqualifying factor!!!

Posted: 18 Sep 98: "Selective Service for Women"

I have sat here and read these opinions about my own ability, requirement, opportunity, justification, and need to be in combat situations. As a female, I think I have a solution that puts all of these opinions to rest. It is my opinion that women should sign with selective service, but just like the men, if they wash out, bye-bye. If we had the chance to prove our individual strength and emotional toughness there will be women who make it. No I'm not on my soap-box to campaign my wanting to be in combat. I don't want to be because I have a job in the United States Marine Corps that pertains to my interests and skills. I just think that if women want a chance to fight for their country in a direct way, we deserve the chance to try, just like men get to.

Posted: 18 Sep 98: "Women in Combat; or more specifically, what is our real mission?"

I am a woman and spent 4 years in the Marines. I was an aircraft mechanic, and the MOST motivated person I knew. All of my promotions were meritorious and my Dress Blues earned, not bought. I truly loved being in the Corps, and felt "10 feet tall and bullet-proof". At the time that I was on active duty, I felt that no MAN would ever stand in my way, or stop me from doing what I wanted to do. "Anything you can do, I can do better" was my motto. However, experience has taught me that I do have some limitations that I have to accept, regardless of how much I don't want to. I was 5'1" and 103lbs. No matter how much I wanted to, nothing could change that. But that is not quite my point, although it may help to illustrate it. My point is this: The United States Marine Corps does not, has not, nor will it ever exist to fulfill MY OWN PERSONAL CAREER ASPIRATIONS. The Corps, like any military unit throughout the history of mankind, exists to serve one purpose: to defend our Country to the best of its ability. Now, pay attention here, because you might miss the point. I am not saying that women are anything less than men, in intellect, courage, loyalty, or dedication. But logistically speaking, women in combat (in fighting holes, tents, on carriers, on a squad team in the jungle, etc.) present major problems. Physical size differences, sexual attraction, pregnancy, PMS and menstruation (and all the paraphernalia required), are just to name a few. Anyone who continues to insist that there are no significant differences between the sexes is seriously delusional. And furthermore, why would anyone want to deny them... But the bottom line is this. For the most part, men run faster and farther than women. They carry more, lift more, and can jump farther (for the most part). They are generally taller, and physically stronger. FOR THE MOST PART, men are just better suited for HAND-TO-HAND COMBAT roles than women. Whether we women like it or not. Now pay attention here, so you don't miss the point. The U.S. Military does not exist to serve the individual, but to serve the Whole. Not for your personal benefit, but for the benefit of all. And in order to perform that function, the U.S. military needs to exert physiological superiority, as well as strategic, and in ordnance. That superiority is the difference between winning and losing, between freedom and oppression. And when it all boils down to that, I, WE, should prefer and require that those serving in billets demanding the greatest strength and unit cohesion be filled with our most physiologically capable people: MEN. IN COMBAT. I am most proud and honored to have served in the forces that guard my country and our way of life. I would not trade that for the world. I would also not prefer to pursue my own career goals at the expense of the Republic or the individuals with which I served. I served for God, Corps, and Country. As a civilian now, I am free to pursue my career goals. And I am grateful to the Men who have served and possibly died so that I may live free. We may live free. I acknowledge now that my 5 foot nothin' hundred pound attitude would not have gotten me very far in combat, and would probably have jeopardized my fellow Marines. I have learned a lesson that I believe many would never admit to. And I'm glad that I didn't have to learn in combat.

Posted: 14 Sep 98: ""The Battle of the Sexes""

I am the Editor in chief of an online magazine, "The Active Voice", and we debate about this all the time. A friend of mine, who has been in the Air Force for 17 years entered this and I'd like to share it with you:

"In today's military society, there has been one major battle brewing for many years. This is the military version of, "Battle of the Sexes". On one side is the ever-growing female population that steadfastly demands equal rights with men. On the other side, the strong and stubborn men who say, "Women are not totally equal".

This debate has been raised again and again. Women feel they have every right and are equally adept at handling combat as well as their men counterparts. Men say, "Women are not as strong physically or mentally". While this last statement is true, it is not the real reason this debate rages on.

It has nothing to do with physical or mental abilities. Nor does it have to do with men continually trying to maintain superiority over women. The truth of the matter is much more basic. Men fear entering combat with women because of the honorable principles we are taught from childhood. Little boys are taught not to hit girls. As teenagers and young men, we are taught to respect and protect them. Our society has taught its male population to be chivalrous, and respectful to all women. This brings us to the root of our problem. If a unit is attacked in combat, and a woman becomes injured, what will the man do? More often than not, he will attempt to protect her. Even if this brings danger to everyone in the unit. This response is ingrained, and automatic. Unfortunately, it can lead to potentially disastrous results. This is the unspoken threat to our military. Until our society can overcome this, women will forever be resigned to the support role for men in combat."

Please send any questions or comments to : TheActiveVoice@netscape.net
Blanca- Editor in Chief

Posted: 31 Aug 98:

I'm not in the military, because I'm not old enough yet. I know that there has been a lot of controversy on the subject, but I think that women should be allowed in combat if they wanted to. Also, to avoid the sexual influence, why don't they make up separate groups. One for women and one for men. They don't have to be right next to each other. I mean the women are in the war. The two groups would be fighting the same war. With the same enemy, and there would be a better chance of winning. Take Vietnam. The V.C had women and they fought darn well. Anyway, the other topic, "well, women are more gentle." Women can be hard as nails if they wanted to. They can put anything in front of them, accomplish it, and put it behind them. I mean there are some MEN who act like women. I bet some women don't want to sign up and maybe put into a draft later. I think that Patton would call them"Yellow bellied cowards". Well that is the last of my argument. I still think that women are no different than men, except for the physical sense, so if we wanted to fight, let us fight.

Posted: 28 Aug 98:

Several reasons have always been put forward as to why women should not be in combat positions (unit cohesion would break down as the men would protect the women, women monthly problems, relative strength, etc).

On 60 Minutes, one story dealt with female soldiers. At the end of the piece, Leslie Stahl said that a report indicated that if military women were asked to take up arms, more than 50% would immediately resign from the forces.

In spite of this, I believe that women should definitely be in combat. It is grossly unfair that only men are asked to lay down their lives at some ridiculously young age (do mothers raise sons to be corpses?). With toady's weaponry and materials, the physical difference in strength can be compensated for. Perhaps if men kept seeing women in this situation, they might respect them more.

Although the movies should not be a good basis for argument, there were two movies which, I felt, dealt fairly with this topic :

a) G.I. Jane - Demi Moore shows that the unit can function together with just the minimum required considerations (everyone keeping their underwear on and setting up a shower schedule). She took what the men did and survived. The unit accepted her. She did her part.

b) Starship Troopers - men and women slept, ate and showered together as soldiers (not as men and women). They acted as a unit. The women had the same incentive as the men in being in the forces (to become a full fledged citizen). They fought together and died together with no loss of unit cohesion.

I have never been a soldier myself. I came across this website while looking up "Women in the Military" on the Internet.

Posted: 5 Aug 98:

I think that women in combat is not the issue. I wonder just how bloodthirsty a nation we can become when we send off whole populations to war. After Vietnam, I don't think America will ever let itself truly lose another war. Look at Somalia when things got bad there we left. What will we do when we can't leave if we are attacked. Are we as Americans willing to risk the whole population of young people in our country to war? If women go to combat then they will have to register for the draft. So what will be left of our nation if the war is protracted and we actually win. If nothing but a bunch of old Americans and younger Americans we have in effect erased a whole generation of people. In Vietnam this was happening and I think it is why we left. But at least we still had the women at home to carry on the families. So what will happen if we take both males and females. Who will be left to produce the next generation of American men and women if there are absolutely none of us left? I think most enlisted women in the military are glad they do not have to fight. Look at the college campuses now anytime there is talk of war the biggest rumor is they have started the draft again how will having women register affect the country as well. Will we be able to pull mothers away from their children? Why not if we can do it to men, men can be article 15 for an accident that causes them to not be able to perform the mission, yet I have never seen one woman article 15 for getting pregnant which removes them from the mission as well. Can we make them fight if they are pregnant? Can we make them have abortions if in combat and they become pregnant. Finally what about sexual harassment look how bad it is now and women just fill support roles. What will happen if we place men and women on the battlefield together at this time. We cannot have it both ways you will never be able to have men and women in large numbers working together and sexual relations not develop. Don't believe me look at the major US companies you have people dating having relationships and getting harassed. How do we incorporate this into our wartime role and deal with it in combat situations?

Posted: 29 Jul 98: "EQUALITY"

I'm a teenage female with a couple of opinions to express on equality. Before I state my opinion I would like to say that most all of my friends are guys and that they all treat me as their equal. This could be because I'm the only girl in the family and I've always played with the guys and as a little kid played with toy guns and trucks rather than dolls. I can backpack and hunt just as well and just as long as my friends, carrying the same loads. I realize these aren't combat situations, and are not as strenuous but they are (especially hunting) male dominated. So now that you know the background for my opinions here they are.

First of all if a woman wants to be in combat or hold the same jobs as men she needs to meet the same requirements. If she cannot meet the same requirements (physical as well as mental) then she doesn't need to be in that job, if men can't handle the requirements they are not allowed in that job, the same should go for women. Until women and men have the same requirements in every aspect then we will not be equal.

Second the hygiene problem is really not that big of a problem. Women do not need a port-a-pottie to survive. I've been camping, hunting, hiking etc. during my period with several men around without trailers or porta potties and did just fine. I realize that these recreational activities are not the same as a combat situation but if men can hide behind a bush so can women. It really isn't a big deal. And if there isn't a bush in sight then everyone can just turn around for a minute. If a co-ed group of teenagers can handle the hygiene problem then I hope a company of adult soldiers can also handle it.

Third one thing most people bring up is the pregnancy issue. My view on that is if in combat situations or while deployed on a ship a woman gets pregnant, find out who the father is and suitably punish him and the mother. Don't blame it solely on the woman. Because last time I checked it took two to make a baby. Fourth I feel sorry for the male population since in banning women from combat situations we are effectively telling them that their lives are less important then a womans. I bet most of them don't feel that way. So in short women should be allowed to try for combat situations and other traditional male roles. If they can't handle it then send them home, and if you can't send them home use the classic phrase "Get Tough, or Die". But just because one woman can't handle it don't blame the whole population of women. There are men who can't handle it but you don't ban them from combat situations. Let us try if we can't make it send us home, but this issue will not ever be resolved until we are allowed try and either fail or succeed. I think we will succeed but no one will ever know until we try.

Posted: 23 Jul 98: ""Volunteer" Infantryperson"

Several postings here shout long and loud (with lots of CAPITAL letters) about how women should be able to volunteer for the combat MOS's if they think they can do the job. Gee whiz, isn't that unfair to the guys? They can be put in the infantry whether they want to go or not. Letting women "volunteer" for combat duty works out like this.

135-lb. female soldier Jane washes out of radio school, and equally small and scrawny male classmate Joe washes out, too. G.I Jane doesn't have to worry about having to carry a pack that weighs as much as she does while living in filth and danger. You see, she didn't volunteer to be in the infantry.

G.I Joe, however, will probably get orders to Ft. Benning to be re-trained as an infantryman, whether he likes it or not (infantry units are chronically short-handed). He has to "take it like a man" because "the needs of the Army come first."

Is it fair to put Jane's wishes ahead of the Army's needs, but not Joe's? Either ALL military women (and draft-eligible female civilians) are liable for combat duty, or they are all excluded. The volunteer option is not fair.

- A Concerned Citizen

Posted: 23 Jul 98: "Women in Combat Roles"

Firstly, I want to emphasize that there has always been and will always be a role for women in our armed forces and they (as a group, collectively) have performed admirably and often with distinction. Whether she is an Intel specialist or a 'combat correspondent', a personnel clerk or a military police officer, women have proven themselves both willing and capable of being professional soldiers (I use that as a generic for all the services).

Several very important points have been brought up by 'A Veteran' in his post of 22 May 98. I will not reiterate them here, only refer you to them.

If women can be just as physically capable as men, then why not assign them combat roles? (Here, I mean ground combat, since I would argue that air combat is certainly a realm where women could perform as well if not better than most men.) Well, maybe they are not as mentally or emotionally tough, but that too is a myth and a generality. Could it be that women would not be able to successfully integrate with the men in combat units? Well, the jury is still out on that one. Though history has not yet presented a formidable army of combined arms with any credibility that has successfully integrated the genders in combat units, I will secede that just because it has not been done before does not mean that it cannot be done.

Oddly, many arguments in favor of assigning women to combat roles have certain similarities. One is that while not all women can perform the function as well as the average man, some women (usually exceptionally well-qualified women) can. The other is that some men (usually the exceptionally underqualified men) are also unable to perform the function as well as the average man.

This brings me to my point. Currently, ALL men of voting age (who are not conscientious objectors) are required to register for Selective Service (that is conscription or 'the draft'). Of those, ALL men with certain minimal physical characteristics ( i.e., no asthmatic symptoms, not diabetic, still has the use of all his limbs and senses etc) are subject to conscription, indoctrination and training for military service given a specific act of Congress. Also, ALL men who enlist or take the oath of office into the military service (though they may sign a contract 'guaranteeing' them specific training and 'job' assignment) are subject to assignment into a ground combat unit based on the needs of the service. This possibility is not open to discussion, interpretation or objection. Thus a young man may find himself 'promised' an office job or truck driver school, but regrettably the Army needs him to be infantry. He has no choice in the matter whatsoever and his only options for action are to either: a) suck it up, complete the training and make the best of the infantry until his service is completed or b) break the law. Most men will choose option a. His assignment into the infantry is final regardless of whether his marital or parental status changes. Presently, all of these demands on the young men of our country are completely accepted by the general public.

The same cannot be said for women. Bodybags aside, the American public is not prepared to draft women into military service before their 26th birthday regardless of marital or parental status. They are not prepared to force a woman to undergo infantry (or artillery, engineer, armor etc) training just to suit the needs of the service. My educated guess is that given the above situation, most women would choose option b and simply refuse training and force an administrative discharge. Certainly some women are capable of being fine ground warriors, as some men are incapable of being basic ground warriors. However, currently women have the luxury of choosing (limited) combat arms or combat service support designations. Men do not have that luxury. For they are always combat arms by default and only when a man's career aspirations closely match the needs of his service is he afforded that luxury.

I challenge anyone today to convince the American public that ALL women between 18 and 26 should register for the Selective Service (as men do). I challenge anyone to convince the American public that ALL women must be made capable of being a basic ground warrior or forced out of the service (as men are).

Lastly, I must say this. The profession of arms is unlike any other career. It is a necessary evil. War is an extension of policy by violent means. The 'glass ceiling' of corporate America does not apply to our military. Only the most qualified get to play. I'm not talking about Joe Snuffy rifleman. I'm talking about the NCO's and Officers. The first few years of a 'hitch' is a trial period. Your trying the service out, the service is trying you out. After that, you must lead or you will be eaten alive. Privates can smell a careerist several hundred yards away. Careerists are not team players, they do not look out for their troops, they have only themselves in mind: what school will enhance my career; what skill will be most marketable outside; what trump card can I play to get me in the slot (the race card, the gender card, the ethnicity card). Professionals in this field are interested in two things: where might the next war be and how can I win it? Not because we are warmongers, but because of our love of country and our love for our fellow countrymen we realize that the best defense is a good offense and that the more we sweat in peacetime, the less we bleed in wartime. Professionals in our business study the art of war (not which airline is hiring, not what my job pays on the outside and certainly not who's getting ahead of me). Part of the art of war is knowing that our raw material is people and how best to use that raw material to build our product: a safe, secure and free home.

That is a significant reason why women are not allowed in combat roles: because it is not good for winning wars and keeping our country free . . .

. . . yet . . .

Posted: 7 Jul 98: "From a 13 year old and a future Marine"

I think that if the government is going to train women to use a rifle and pistol, or a jet and teach them to use them in possible combat situations, then they should be able to go into combat, if and, only if they are: strong enough, fast enough, and smart enough for the job!!!

Caroline a 13 year old (I want to be a Marine Semper, Fi!, Do or Die!!!

Posted: 30 Jun 98:

As a Special Operations Soldier, Ranger/Green Beret, it is of my opinion that females have no real purpose in combat. It is a job that is best awarded to a male. Females are much too emotional to close with the enemy and to kill without provocation. There are very few males who really enjoy the thought of combat. I have trained many Seals, Force Recon Marines and Rangers as well as Green Berets. Most will talk the talk but very few will ever have the ability or the drive to walk the walk.

Females, because of the limitations that nature has placed on them, can not crawl around in a snake infested swamp looking for their prey. Or stay in the woods hunting for targets for days. To snuff a human life with no more then a squeeze of the trigger is one thing. But to break a neck or cut a throat is what it takes to survive on the battle field.

Posted: 19 Jun 98: "Response to the June 12, 1998 Post"

You sound like you are very determined.... tough mentally and physically.... You also sound like you hold your own... I praise you for those characteristics which are not easily obtained. I also praise you for your pride which is most likely not easily broken. - BUT - during a time of war, infantry units are together 24-7, introduce a woman into the equation.. and special relationships develop... History HAS proven this (1948 Israeli-Arab war).. THIS ISN'T A COMMENT!!!! ITS HISTORY!!!! You will hear all this BS about "Its the 90s - its time to let women into combat" well women and men are still attracted to each other. (with a few exceptions that I don't want to even talk about!!) and no the overall objective of war has not changed: kill people, blow things up.... you know all that good stuff!! The technology has changed but the objective hasn't. here is another example... a ship in the Persian gulf war had 360 women on it... of those 360 women 36 - ten percent - got pregnant. that is not an opinion, comment, suggestion.. ITS FACT.. introducing women to all of those men is like introducing a t-bone steak to a hungry pack of German shepherds!!!!! BUT -- women have always had a place in the military.. in fact the military couldn't make it without women IMPOSSIBLE. for example WW2 women farried the planes overseas to the front, played an important role as nurses, worked in factories which was a big variable in victory... my conclusion women in the military: YES women with combat roles: NO

Posted: 19 Jun 98: "Please put National Security ahead of Political Correctness..." (Re: 22 May 98 Post)

In response I have to agree that there are SOME women who can not handle combat. You stated this. You also stated that SOME men can not handle combat or combat like conditions, but then quickly added that was not the point. Why? If you can't handle the job doesn't matter who you are. I am almost certain there are men in the armed forces who can't handle the job but have it anyway. As there are women who can't handle it but have the job. I have read recently women who are complaining because there is no time to breastfeed in the field. It is women like those and the many other complaints that come along with them that hold us back... I will give you that but what really caught my attention was the fact that when there were "situations amongst the men and women in units, you always referred to the problem the men have with us being there. That says to me men are the ones who can't handle us being there. Seems they lose focus of what is important. I have to ask again why does that have to be the woman's problem? Should we be held back from a job because men can't handle our presence. I fully believe that the standards should be the same. In every aspect. I have been trying four years to enlist and have been working hard at the physical aspect of it. As much as I have put in to getting in I DO NOT expect or want to enlist if my inability to perform would harm others. If you can't cut it you don't need the job. NO MATTER your sex. I have always wanted to be in the military ALWAYS. When I was little that was my thing. But I am here to say that even though there will be women to try and get in but not have what it takes there will be just as many who do... So why punish those, there are men who can't cut it but I don't see the ones who can being excluded.

Posted: 19 Jun 98: "Doing the Job"

The comments made by "Richard" and most of the people whose comments were displayed here are, in my opinion, "agreeable". I don't think anyone be it male or female, would ever want to go in combat in any occupation, and I believe, judging by the comments I've read, that okay when civilization has evolved enough let's base everything on performance of the individual. If the individual can't cut it then he or she can get the hell out and find something else that they can do.

While it maybe true of the fact that some women have had the opportunity to directly participate in combat, I'd like to point out that during world war two there have been incidents where friendly guerilla units have been compromised and in some cases destroyed because of the "actions" of some individuals, who had their minds elsewhere instead of on the job.

Sure you can make rules regarding this type of behavior, but that didn't stop some individuals from breaking it, and in the process ending with massive loss of life, when the guerilla forces had a rule for this behavior in effect.

I think it is a good idea to trial "all female outfits" in all the military occupations, to prove or disprove how actually effective they are, and how it benefits the country's national security and foreign policy.

Maybe in future the head honchos can figure out based on well-devised and fair trials which occupations in the military benefit, or at least not negatively affected, by sexual integration, and which occupations will.

I believe there can be well-devised and fair trials, if only the head honchos make a huge effort to create them. Anything is possible.

Posted: 19 Jun 98: "My Assumptions"

It seems to me that what some men and women are afraid of, in terms of sexual integration is, the possibility of wanted or unwanted sexual encounters in light of being in stressful situations, and the possibility that our enemies may have more incentive to attack us because of their perceived weaknesses of integration and of women.

First of all, it is up to the individual to control him or herself in terms of their sexual drive, after all the military is all about discipline and duty. However wars can and do "funny" (no offence to vets. War's not a laughing matter) things to peoples minds. Judging by some of the valid comments made about real instances of integration, I have come to believe it is not a good idea for women and men to be integrated in a combat outfit but (if women in combat units is a reality) segregated.

Secondly some of Americas enemies are not as civilized as us, as pointed out by "A Veteran". And therefore I agree that having women in combat units at all could possibly jeopardize national security.

Thirdly to satisfy those women who say that they should be given the opportunity to prove themselves, okay lets do it. Lets settle this once and for all by setting up fair and thorough trials, not that I'd like to see you fail. DO THE DEED!!!

Posted: 12 Jun 98

I've read a lot of comments here and couldn't resist adding my own. I will give you I have absolutely no experience in this area. Heck I'm just starting high school but please bear with me anyway. A lot of the comments on how men would stop to help the women in the field. In what way is this the women's fault. I doubt she asked for the help anymore than the guy lying wounded next to her. Maybe the men need to use all that mental toughness I'm reading about and keep going. Or are they too weak? The double standard has to go. I'm all for women in combat. But right now I would not want to see one woman currently in the military in combat until they meet the same standard as the men. Other double standards that have to go are the different haircuts and uniforms. I also believe some woman are hurting the cause by complaining about conditions and such. But there are that many more woman who do just fine and don't complain about that stuff. But you never hear about them. I play sports at school and granted it's not the same level as military discrimination I still get it. But that discrimination makes me that much better. I complain a hell of a lot less than most guys about being fouled because I've realized it just gets me put to the outside. The guys make fun of me and will push me down a lot harder to stop me from scoring. And if I want the ball I've got to get it myself because their wasn't a guy who would pass to me. Well I kept coming back and every year I've proved myself. More often than not I'm a captain and if not captain picked close to the beginning. And people consider me one of the guys. But that doesn't stop me from getting a date to the dance and such. In fact now I'd say the girls give me more of a hard time than the guys. So at last, I say both sides suck it up get it over with and anyone who can't cut it hit the road jack.

Posted: 11 Jun 98: "Reply to the May 15 98 post - GET REAL!"

Ma'am, I hate to break it to you but you need to check you're history books. In the 1948 the Israeli-Arab war, there WERE women in ground combat roles and NO, it didn't work. They were tested in combat and women have been banned from ground combat roles since then. The men would try to assist the fallen women instead of continuing their advance the result was a slaughter. Its human nature for men to have feelings for women. The physical fitness of women, mental strength of women, and "BS political correctness" has little to do with it. And just here recently, our nation has segregated the barracks in basic training. And ma'am, you're country has been in no armed confrontations since you let women into ground combat positions. And ISRAEL HAS "EXPERIENCED" WOMEN IN GROUND COMBAT AND LEARNED THE HARD WAY! And so will your country.

Posted: 4 Jun 98:

There is no true reason why woman can not be just as effective in combat as men. The problems are not with the women, they are with the men and their attitudes, they must be retrained in their thinking. Women have been in combat a lot over the years of the history of the world, though not official in most cases. Our country is so backwards in this area, some say that a woman would panic in a combat situation and freeze or just cower and scream, not so, some may, but there are men that do that to, been there seen it (Vietnam). We need to get rid of all the "Good Ol' Boys" in congress etc and progress. Woman have an instinct born in them to protect their home, in most cases, men are not, they are taught that it is their duty to protect home and hearth. Let us come out of the Dark Ages and into the 20th century, it is overdue.

Posted: 29 May 98: "Being "PC" was not my intent" ( Ref: 8/15/22 May 98 posts)

Sir, I don't wish to turn this into a drawn out debate, however I'd like to point out a few things I think you, or others might have missed. I was the author of the below "women in light infantry units", and I did compare light infantry loads(not role) to backpacking. I respect your experience and credentials on this topic. I myself have but one college degree, and like you I'm lifelong self directed student of military history and international politics(albeit w/o your exp.). I served with the 75th Ranger Regiment, and the 1/501st Parachute Infantry Regiment, as an assistant M60 gunner, M60 gunner, RTO, and Rifle TM Leader. So, I know firsthand there is nothing "light" about light infantry. I don't think my ruck ever weighed less than 80lbs, and was usually pushing or above 100lbs, not to mention my 30lbs of webgear, and the weight of my weapon. To those of you that have never experienced "snoopin & poopin" in the bush, it is just what the gentlemen stated below, and more. Like you said it is truly a back breaker, and even at my young age my back still feels the effects and I'm sure it'll get worse, probably a mix of my humpin and my jumps. Yes, everyday while in the field I cursed myself for ever have joined the Army, and I prayed constantly for God to make me just materialize back in the barracks. However, when I left I realized, and continue to do so on a daily basis, that all those days where I thought I could not go one step father, was the greatest character builder that any young man could ever receive, so for that I'm ever grateful to the Army. Now, "deterrence" as you said, I like to call it saber rattlin, isn't working for us just like it should. The Haitian Army, one of the worst if not thee worst in CA, turned the USS Barnstable County away from port, and then later practically ignored a full US Marine MEU, the 10th Mt minus, and a naval task force sitting off shore. Of course you know that then deterrence did work when Gen Aristede learned three full bdes from the 82nd were 15 minutes out of their DZ's!! However the implications of not being deterred by an assault task force and a usmc MEU are disturbing. Once again a hack piece group of armed thugs was not impressed by us in Mogadishu, and did as you know fully engage us causing that tragedy for TF Ranger. I know I'm not talking about women yet, but I just wanted to point out that a tactical and operational level, "deterrence" is not working as much as we'd like.

Now, to what the military is for. Missions and Operations other than war are proving to be more and more important to the military. Disaster assistance, peacekeeping, et cetera. I'm not saying we should redirect training away from direct action roles, but I'd like to point out the ever increasing roles of these different missions our military is playing today.

It does not surprise me you have not met a middle aged women who could shoulder more than 100lbs for long distances and extended periods. My generation has young women and girls growing up w/ true athletism, adventure and endurance sports engagements, and a much more overall less traditionally feminine lifestyle than yours. Just like yours was to the prior generation before you. Yes, many "campers" are just that "campers", they are not distance backpackers. Where I live and winter camp in mountainous regions for long periods sometimes; I assure you sir my pack is just as heavy or heavier than the rucks I carried in the Army, albeit I don't carry webgear or a weapon. You might have missed what I said before, or you don't believe me, but I'll say again, many of my trekkin partners have been my college buddies who were girls, carrying just as much weight as me. One of my favorite little buddies was a thirteen year old girl I coached. She weighed about 90lbs at the most, but she would beat more than half the male Army in a PT test, more importantly she went backpacking w/ us sometimes, and she carried for her heavy loads(50lbs). I'm not saying these girls based on their backpacking skills could be a good lightfighter, one we didn't have the luxury of using hipbelts to distribute weight, two we carried heavy weapons, et cetera. What I am saying is they are successful at one thing we can use as an excellent primer to how they might perform in the infantry role. If we made women equal up to the same standards as men, what would we lose in training them for six months, and then test them at JRTC, and NTC. If it doesn't work like you say, then the point won't be pushed like it is right now at the national level. A girl would have to answer to the same PT test scores (unlike current women standards), carry the FULL weight of her assigned position, wear a high and tight haircut, no separate showers, et cetera... Unfortunately women in the Army right now are just hurting this cause. The women for the most part that enter the Army are not athletic, or willing to get down and dirty. By doing so horrible on PT tests, demanding separate facilities in the field, etc... they destroy their whole cause. Now, imagine if we filled a battalion size unit with women wildland firefighters, climbers, smoke jumpers, eco challenge competitors, triatheletes, et cetera... We'd have a whole different story on fitness and willingness to sit cold and shivering in the rain for weeks on end, etc...

I am fully aware of the bio physiological differences between a man and a woman being another ball park to race relations. Nonetheless the naysayers didn't have much to say w/ the deeds of the "Harlem Hellfighters", the 442nd RCT, etc...

I cannot argue w/ you on the matureness of the common infantryman today. That is unfortunate though. However, the competence, tolerance, and education of American infantrymen ever increases. I have never served w/ women, but I suspect a lot of the units that have "sex" issues(I've heard plenty) also have command leadership issues. In my humble opinion, every unit that I have seen, trained w/, etc.. had woefully unqualified leaders. I absolutely assure you sir in my units 3/75th Ranger, and 1/501st Parachute Infantry, these things at worse would be minimized, if not probably wouldn't happen. It's all about professionalism.

In ending, I am wholly confident that within ten years there will be women infantry"persons?". You stated you have experience w/ mech units. I have none, and have only seen an armored vehicle once(JRTC). So please someone explain to me why a woman cannot be a mechanized infantryperson. I have NEVER seen high speed rock hard mech guys, so why wouldn't women work here?

Posted: 27 May 98:

I would like to applaud the author of the 22 MAY 98 post regarding national security verses political correctness. Well said sir! I salute you.

-- A Submarine Sailor

Posted: 22 May 98: "Please put national security ahead of political correctness"

My qualifications to speak on this issue are three years tromping through the bush as a light-weapons infantryman (later in a mechanized outfit), followed by 18 years of combined reserve and active duty experience in the Army and Air Force. I've done a fair amount of self-study on military science and history, and have three college degrees. I'm not ancient, yet, but I've lived a fair amount of history, too. So, you privates and shavetail junior officers, and especially students (whose knowledge of military realities and the world is still largely academic and not yet tempered by the fires of experience), bear with me for a couple minutes.

I think we're missing the point if we ask IF women can serve in combat; some have, some successfully, some not. Men have had mixed experiences in combat, too, but that's not the point. The questions to ask are: WHY do we have military forces in the first place; What is best for SOCIETY, not the individual; SHOULD we have women in combat.

We have military forces because not all questions of policy can be settled by debate and compromise. No matter how long we live on this planet, there's always another idiot who comes along who only respects force (Saddam Hussein, Muammar Khadafi, assorted Communist and Fascist leaders, and others going back to the Ceasars and beyond to the beginning of time). If free people want to remain free, they have to be so capable of destroying the bad guys that the bad guys are convinced they will lose, and thus don't mess with us; this is called "Deterrence".

Of course, some people never learn, and they attack anyway. If we destroy them on the battlefield (and, nowadays, in the media, too), everybody else gets the message to leave us alone, and the peace is restored, for awhile, until the next idiot comes along. It could be called a never-ending process, except nations sometimes get tired of putting up a credible deterrence. They play around at it for political or economic reasons, or contract their defense out to mercenaries; their enemies sense that they're really not serious about kicking ass, and take that as a cue to attack and win. [See "Fall of the Roman Empire", "Hitler's Conquest of France and the Low Countries", "Bullies and Street Fighting" and other texts]

To those who compare being an infantryman to hiking and rock climbing, I will concede that the stuff in the camping catalogs keeps get lighter and lighter, and I see a lot of YOUNG women on the hiking trails and in the rock climbing magazines. However, they're comparing apples to oranges. Hiking and camping is not and probably never will never be the same as humping in the bush with the infantry (and if it does, all but the masochists will quit hiking and camping). High-tech battlefield or not, the infantryman's job is not obsolete, and it's not getting any easier. The research labs that come up with lighter combat gear say they are lightening the poor grunt's load. Yeah, right. A lighter pack or rifle just means you have more room to pile other things on: more ammo (you can never take too much ammo to a firefight), frag grenades, smoke grenades, a claymore mine (or two), some ammo for the squad machine gun, maybe a couple flares, and perhaps a spare battery for the squad radio, and maybe something for busting a bunker or disabling a tank if you expect to run into same. Of course, you try to stick in a few things for you: water, more water (heavy but indispensable), rations for a few days, toothbrush, shaving gear (if you have room), some spare socks, and maybe something to shield you from the rain. Don't forget that helmet on your head, a flashlight, a rifle (or machine gun) and perhaps a bayonet. (And in the latest conflicts, chem warfare suit and a gas mask). If you're in a cold, wet climate, you can slack on the water a bit, but you've got to carry your own sleeping gear, shelter half, wet weather gear and warm clothing. Your load is easily well over 100 pounds (never had a scale in the boonies to weigh myself or the gear); your squad mates have to help each other climb up into the truck for the ride to the line of departure. After untold miles of bone-jarring travel down dusty roads, they stop and you jump out, hitting the ground like a ton of bricks, and it's time to walk further into the boonies. You'll sweat like a mule (since you're living like a pack mule), and won't get a shower until you get back to base camp, however many days or weeks that takes. In the jungle, your uniform will rot off in a week's time; in friendlier climates it will last longer, but you'll stink and get really grubby. You have to crap in the bushes (OUTSIDE the perimeter), if the rations haven't constipated you; if you caught one of the local parasitic bugs, you'll be lucky to get your gear off and your drawers dropped before you let it loose in your pants. No matter. Of course, if you meet up with the bad guys, there's no equal opportunity or fair play. You kill them or they kill you; by hook, by crook, or by ambush. If you're weaker or slower, the enemy is not going to lighten up on you to be fair. Infantry combat is hard, heavy, dirty, dangerous and completely unglamorous toil. Anybody who wants a "right" to do it is nuts or naive. I did it for two years; broke my back doing it, literally. MOST young men can do it or be made to do it if they have to. Some couldn't or wouldn't do it, but we usually shamed them into doing it anyway or kicked them out in shame. It wears men down, and most middle-aged men will have a hard time doing it. SOME young women can hump all that gear for weeks at a time and kill people as the occasions arises, but MOST cannot do it or be shamed into doing it. I have not met a middle-aged women yet who could do the job, though there may be a few who could.

Having a few women in a combat unit breaks up the unit integrity. Sex is going to happen; we all know that. I've seen a tight squad of men break into warring factions when a woman suddenly got into the equation. There was a struggle to see who the alpha-male was that would get to mate with the female, to put it politely. The infantry usually gets the leftovers from the personnel pool; the dregs have little sense of self-restraint, and the hormone levels are high. Of course, some volunteer for it out of a sense of adventure or calling, and have higher standards of behavior, but they are the exception.

Having a lot of women in a combat unit will break down its warfighting instincts. I've been in a unit with a parity or men and women. The petty jealousies and sleeping around were mitigated only when men and women began marrying and having children. Of course, pregnancy precluded the women from doing the dirty work with chemicals that might hurt the baby inside them, so the guys took up the slack. Of course, the marital affairs between members of the unit, and the resultant divorces, did nothing to help keep the unit together. I was not then (and am not now) confident about fighting in combat with a unit whose idea of a mandatory military social function was a baby shower.

Deterrence also depends on the state of mind of our enemies. Other countries who don't see women as warfighters won't take a feminized military threat very seriously. Countries who don't take our threat seriously will fight with us. The Romans had civilized culture, but they were conquered by a bunch of savages from the east. We've fought smaller countries before and lost because we played by fancy, civilized rules, and they just played to win. Is it worth all the trouble and risk to accommodate the demands of a few people if it means putting national security in jeopardy? (NOT the TV show).

When NATIONAL security interests are at stake, personal rights have to take a back seat. Anyone who's served in the military should understand that from unhappy personal experience. I know I've seen what I personally wanted laid on the altar of national security and go up in flames, more than once. This can lead to dying for your country, whether you want to die or not.

IF national security is enhanced by having only men in the infantry (and other combat arms), and women in non-combat jobs, then the desires of a small minority of women to serve in combat arms will have to yield to the greater good for the country.

Having said that, I want to salute the women nurses and med techs who have done wonders for wounded soldiers in hospitals. They are top-notch military folks in my book. On the other hand, I decry the women who insisted on their rights to be medics, but who dropped me when picking up my stretcher, and those women who insisted on being truck drivers even though they weren't strong enough to change the tires alone like the men could. The Army insisted that putting more women in the Army was going to be a success, whether it worked or not. Woe be to him who said it wasn't working.

There's certainly more to debate on this topic, but later on. Keep the dialogue open, but remember the bottom line: in war there are no second-place winners or prizes for most-enlightened. Please put national security ahead of political correctness; we're talking about staying alive and free in a dangerous world full of tyrants, not a sterile laboratory exercise in what some people think the world should be like.

---A Veteran

Posted: 22 May 98: "women have no business "

With all of this debate concerning the issue of should women be allowed to serve in the combat arms, I have never seen a woman soldier yet demonstrate the physical and mental abilities required. When I was a platoon sergeant I treated all of my soldiers as equals. In the field I had women soldiers humping the M-60s, radios, ammo and water. Not one of the women could perform. Most gave up mentally before their bodies gave out. This is not my opinion, this is the honest fact. I have yet to see a woman complete a PT run, a road march or handle crew served weapons with the same amount of toughness or skill as men.

Posted: 15 May 98: "From a Swedish Female in the Armed Forces"

I've been reading all opinions about women in combat, and I'm glad that finally some intelligent persons wrote.

I've read "women in light infantry units" and I have similar experiences as him, but "from the other side". I am a Swedish female in the Armed Forces, and my training has been co-ed from the first day. (There are no restriction to what unit a woman can be in, and we have the same standards.) We sleep in the same rooms, use the same showers, wear the same uniform, we do the same tests, carry the same weight, and we are judged on how we perform instead of gender. I think that's the only way if you want to recruit the BEST soldiers and get them to be ONE team. I know it works, I've seen it with my own eyes. Yet only about 3% of the personnel in the military is female, and in spite of that, now and then the number 1 of the graduating cadets is a women. As far as I know, that have happened in the Navy-class, in the Coast Artillery-class, and at the Infantry school.

We had the same debate about "women in combat" in Sweden during the 70-80:ies. We don't have that debate anymore, because we have women in combat units, at home and in Bosnia (FN/IFOR). Those who said it would never work have been proven wrong. All their theories about the female nature becomes just that, theories, when real life talks.

So, to all you out there saying that women can't be in combat units. HOW DO YOU KNOW IF YOU HAVE NEVER EXPERIENCED IT YOURSELF? AND HOW DO YOU KNOW IF YOU NEVER LET THEM TRY? Or are you afraid to be proven wrong?

Posted: 8 May 98: "Women in Combat Roles"

I think the main issue is being avoided here.

First off, war is never fair to anyone. Whining about how women get to choose and men do not is absolutely ridiculous. The fairness of women "staying home" in war and letting a man go to war, and it's "fairness" can be quantified. When did feminism first start taking off? Right after all the boys came home and forced women out of the work force, to give a boy a job. Fairness is an issue which has absolutely no bearing on war or the military, period.

Absolutely, I believe alot of women would simply not be capable of some of the most physically demanding jobs in combat. For example, I'm sure that alot of women could not finish the training for the SEALS. However, a lot of MEN can't finish the training for the SEALS either. To use this as an example when it's clearly the most extreme of extremes, and then to make debate as if example was for the norm is plainly illogical.

Here's the issue. If a woman, equal in ability, without a lowering of standards can finish the training...then by, God she gets in. She is aware of the consequences. She knows she can (and even likely will) be killed. She knows that she is likely to be poorly treated (even more so) because of her gender if captured. She knows. She takes the consequences of her right to be in the military, and to be in combat by paying the highest price. The price of her life. Either in death, or in service. No higher price can be paid for by our responsibility, that we may have rights. Rights don't come free. Rights must be paid for, in the currency of responsibility and diligence, and everyone but everyone must have the duty to be ready to protect their rights with the highest cost there is. To say that a woman can have rights, and then say that only on the responsibility of those who protect them is to say that a woman cannot have rights but at the behest of another. Women should, and must, demand that they can and will protect their rights as adamantly and as diligently as the men who have protected them before.

Before, (and don't look too far back, it's been far less than a century) women were property, not people, and so having no rights and no responsibilities, she was never going to need to protect something that was non-existent. Those who had rights protected their rights to property, including their women. If women are TRULY people then they have the responsibility (NOT the right) to protect that which is so important to them. Their nation, in which they have the luxury of personhood. They must protect those rights. To think that you can have rights, and in no way be beholden to the ultimate responsibility to protect those rights makes someone less of a citizen.

Oh, and a last little note. For a man to remind women that women get raped in POW situations is so incredibly inane. We take that risk walking down the street after 9 PM. We live with it daily. Get a grip. We are FAR more aware than a man about it. If you, as man, are so damn worried about it, start right at home honey when you think about it.

-- Canadian Civilian

Posted: 8 May 98: "Women in Light Infantry Units"

I have held two different opinions of women in combat roles, specifically light infantry roles. The first was formed while I served in the United States Army, as a 11B(dismounted infantryman). I was assigned to all male units in both Ranger Battalion, and a Parachute Infantry Regiment. At the I firmly believed women could not perform in any light infantry unit. For those of you who don't know you'll find light infantrymen in four types of units mainly: Air Assault Infantry (helicopters), Airborne Infantry(Paratroopers), Ranger Infantry(SOCOM), and Light Infantry(regular foot soldiers). This stemmed from two separate problems. The first was the quality of women in the US Army. Yes, I'm going to get blasted for saying this, but it's true. Most, and I say most not all, women in the Army today do not perform to the same standards as men, are somewhat overweight, and cannot hump. "Hump" is carrying heavy loads over long distances, and the main reason why most men say women cannot be infantrymen. The other reason for my opinion was peer/command influence, that is being constantly told by most of my peers and leaders that women were not fit to be infantrymen. Thankfully I've been able to change my mind on this issue, and I can think of several ways to ' just do it'. While in college I had so many experiences that affirmed by belief in women in combat roles. I list some here: young teenage girls I personally coached that would run circles around half the Army in a PT test, to include my past units. Seeing women runners that would beat 80% of men in the Army today on their PT run. Backpacking with girls over long distances, for extended periods, in mountainous terrain. Some of these girls rucks probably approached 100+ pounds. Being a backpacking guide for coed college groups that openly bathed, changed, went to the bathroom together. They were adults, and did not gape at each other. Fighting wildfires with women as a member of several Forest Service Wildland Fire Crews. This involved long humps, with medium weight, over mountainous terrain at high elevations. The women performed the same as the men in high stress, physical environments, battling a very real fatal enemy that presents an immediate danger to your life. In our Fire Crew tent, our entire crew slept under a tarp with no separations of any kind. Everybody understood there was no room for any privacy, and the women openly and completely stripped down and changed along with everyone else. Respect was always given, and no one made passes, stared, et cetera. All this changed my mind, and more importantly made me see people as people, not as genders when evaluating performance, et cetera. Someone posted that the US is not prepared to see women POW's being raped and beaten. Is this somehow more tragic than the hundreds of women that are raped, murdered, and beaten in the US every single day? Is a woman POW, somehow more tragic than a male POW?

Here are some thoughts. Women can't hump for long distances with no sleep and food; I say look only at Eco Challenge. Women are not capable of executing violence. I say look at female Police Officers/SWAT member, or WWII Russia. There is no room for private facilities in the field for a infantry unit. Of course, who says women need them.

In the end, I am confident there soon will be women in our light infantry forces. Every generation becomes more open, than the one preceding it thankfully. Gen X, more so than any other generation does not see races, they only see people. They do not see gender, they see people. I just hope when I graduate from college, and come back into the Army, that I'll come back into a fully integrated force. Our light forces need the BEST soldiers we can find, therefore denying 52% of the human race denies us the ability to have the absolute best.

Posted: 24 Apr 98: "Reflecting on NAVY SEAL comments (see 27 Jan 97 post in Combat File #1)

How ironic! I recently was watching a program on Navy SEALs on, I believe TLC. Anyways, this program was about why "men" were having a difficult time passing the physical requirements of the training. Men going though the training were having difficulty in hypothermia, as well as physical limitations in their own bodies ability to sustain them health. The IRONY is that a few military scientist got together and really hashed around these "problems" and turned to women. During their experimentation this is what they discovered.

1. Although you are accurate to say that women may lack in upper body strength, it has been proven that women would be able to sustain "more dunking" into water then men. Why? cause women body have a layer of body fat that helps insulate them. They were capable of handling more frigid waters for longer periods of time than men.

2. Plus due to this additional feature (layer of fat) women have, they are able to sustain themselves healthier (feed their bodies) because of that fat. While males on the other hand will diminish those fat reserves faster than women.

3. Due to men's competitive nature, men would see another man as competition. While during this experiment women pulled together as a team.

These are some examples of what I observed in the program. I do have to add that since I was in the Army with the 101st Airborne Division, we all know people who just did not do well or try to succeed. Yet, I know many who gave it their all, and were DAMN good. I honestly see that men and society, are challenging the "combat" aspect of women because it is seen as a threat. A threat of power. Because if women could be given the same opportunities as men, by-gosh, women might just get to the top.

In the Army, there are schools just for men, that after they graduate from the school, they are automatically promoted (Ranger School). Yet, NO schooling is provide for the women. I say let's not have the double standard. Let's go for even-steven and see who get's in. I DON'T WANT SPECIAL RIGHTS/ PRIVILEGES JUST THE RIGHT TO TRY. Why should my patriotism be any less than a man?

For those who commented on "It's not easy seeing women kiss their children good-bye when going to war." Duh! it's not any easier for men. When I went to the Gulf, I discovered that there are more single parent males, than females. (sure a lot has to do with the fact that women only make up approximately 10% of the total force). That issue is mute. Women have been involved in war since the start of this country. In every single war that our country has been involved in, there are records to verify that women have had combat involvement.

Ok-another issue-Although women have "Proven" themselves worthy, what's the hold up? What's the real reason? It is just the notion of competition. Is it the inflation of a males head to honestly believe that he is much more capable of surviving than women?

Wouldn't be smarter to effectively cross train everyone in combat positions? (I'm thinking Infantry here) What would happen if given that women keep these "Supportive" roles and the front line becomes non-existent? What would I do then? Say - "Oh, excuse me, I can't engage in combat with you because my culture and society feel that I am not physically capable of handling the situation!" "Don't shoot I'm a women"

Another Ironicness to all these conversations is this notion of killing. Ok, I'll agree that men out number the women in death row and in prison period. Some have said that "men will feel the need to protect a women if they engage in combat together" but how do you explain the fact that men have no problem killing women, beating women, not to mention kill children?

I think the arguments are mute. I see men on the defensive because I just can't buy the excuses any more.

Posted: 24 Apr 98: "An Army E-1 Writes"

I am currently an e-1 assigned to a mec infantry unit so my experience in the military in very limited and I don't claim to know much about anything. Yet it seems to me that until women are required to meet the same fitness standards as the men they have no place in combat roles. Combat is supposedly an intense high stress experience requiring the full effort of everyone involved just to survive and fulfill the mission. Is it reasonable to expect people to have their lives depend on people who are held to lower standards? I feel not. The other thing is that as long as women are in the military and involved in combat and even noncombat roles they will also become prisoners of war and subjected to the same horrible tortures that men have been subjected in wars past and present. Is our society ready to stomach that? Do women in the military realize this risk? It is a question that must be dealt with.

Posted: 24 Apr 98

I have been in the Army for over 11 years. I was trained as a Power Generation Equipment Repairer, attended Airborne School and was then assigned to the 82d Airborne at Ft. Bragg. I ETS'd and joined the Reserves, only to find myself back on active duty and living in the desert of Iraq. When I returned home, I joined the National Guard and worked for a Counter Drug Program on ADSW orders for a couple of years. I worked for a year and a half rebuilding Bradley's and working on the TOW Missile System. I am currently attending OCS and will graduate in Sep 98. As a female mechanic, as a female in the 82nd ABN, as a female in combat, and as a female in the military period, I would like to relate a few of my experiences, and present my opinion on women in combat. Getting to the point, women are and will continue to be exposed to combat situations. However, speaking with the authority of one who has been "the only female" or one of very few females with hundreds of males, I have to admit that women should not be fully integrated into the military right now. I have been sexually harassed at every stage of my career in every way imaginable. I have had to prove myself again and again. And while I am fully convinced that a few women can meet every challenge the military has to offer, to include infantry training, I have come to the conclusion that there is one thing we can not overcome. We are in fact, women. And in times of stress, men seek out companionship and comfort. This is why combat teams are so close. But put a woman in there, and you have an explosive combination. I had men tell me they loved me with NO encouragement on my part except to talk to them. And mostly to listen to them. Women offer a different sort of relationship than their male counterparts. So even if a woman is fully integrated into her company, and she has enough discipline and control to not become involved with others in her company, she can not prevent men from becoming attached to her in a unique way. I believe with all my heart that women can perform in combat, can carry their own load, can be all that a male soldier can be. But she can not change the fact that men and women are sexually attracted to each other. And you can not mix sex and duty in combat without creating a weakness in the team. On the flip side, if a woman was a lesbian that in itself creates hostility among men. I agree with those of you out there that we should not push this issue at the risk of unnecessary loss of life. Furthermore, as more and more women join the ranks, men will continue to shift their opinions, and over time, will be more able to accept women in their midst. In the meantime, we can continue to demand more from our females, make the standards more equal, and accept that females will not excel in the military in great numbers. We should not look for numbers to reflect equality, but to job performance and reenlistment rates. Men need to realize that it is not male superiority that has kept women from joining their prestigious ranks, but their own vulnerability. And in my opinion, and in my experience, I feel that this weakness on the part of many males has caused the cracks now running through the infrastructure of the military right now. Admit it guys, we aren't the only weak links out there!

Posted: 22 Apr 98

This web page has been rather interesting for me, in particular this opinion page. I recently finished a research paper for a writing class at my University on the topic. I found myself overwhelmed at times with the amount of information that is out there, and I really learned alot, so I just wanted to share a few thoughts.

I never realized all the women who have found themselves in combat, and never got the recognition that their male counterparts did, simply because they "couldn't have" been there, (according to the military) and they're accomplishments are denied, and their failures emphasized. I know life isn't fair, but doesn't have to be that blatant?

Also, why do women have to be categorically excluded from basically every combat role, just because of some archaic views on their role in our society, and their supposed physical weakness in comparison to men. Sure, I will admit, there are many women who don't have the same brute strength that men do, but that doesn't mean all, and does it mean that we should deny opportunities to everyone? If a woman can meet the physical and mental requirements, then shouldn't they be at least given the opportunity to apply for combat slots? I know people say that unit cohesion would be out the window. I think it would be difficult at first, naturally, but it would just be a different form of cohesion, a team is a team. Oh, and let me just quickly state, I definitely don't think women should be given lower physical standards, especially if they ever got the opportunity to apply for combat roles.

Lastly, it is sad that women don't get the recognition that they many times do deserve, and aren't even given the opportunity to perform like they can. The roles denied to women, are usually promotion enhancers. So to sum up... It seems quite apparent to me that the military opens up to women and does what it has to, to make the politicians happy, but they remind us every now and then that they don't think women belong. It is something I will use to strengthen my resolve in the years to come to become a better officer and pilot.

Posted: 10 Apr 98:

I just read the everyone's opinion on "women in combat" and I had to put in my opinion. I know I am only 13 but I am female and I have the right to give my opinion. When I am older I wish to be in The United States Air Force and I want to be able to defend our country by fighting in combat. I am absolutely 100% for women fighting in combat. Why should women be treated differently then men? I think women could fight just as well as men. Letting women fight in combat will make our country one step closer to equalization between the sexes.

Posted: 10 Mar 98: "A female veteran of SW Asia and The Cold War writes:"

I'm a (female) veteran of Southeast Asia and the Cold War. Suffice it to say that I have seen the monster and survived. I've also tried very hard to forget it and I thought I'd done a fair job until recently. That said, I submit that whether or not we should participate in combat is a mute point; it's been done and will be done in the future. How history records it, success or failure, with all its ramifications, is all that remains to be determined.

More to the point, in order to be successful let me give you some pragmatic hints that go far beyond sex, hormones, PMS, or porto potties. As with any military duty by women, succeeding involves accepting hardships and (if you're unwilling to accept duty in the rear and fortunate to be given the opportunity for combat) avoiding close relationships unless you carefully (and this is the hard part) differentiate between the professional and sexual. It's pretty much an either/or decision; i.e., you can either have a combat role or you can have close relationships. Combat is taxing and isolating. I discovered quickly that all of the things men can have and be successful in the military are too distracting for a woman who seeks success, not to mention combat, and can quickly derail her. Do not allow your trainers to permit you an easier path, no matter how appealing it is when the fear and the danger become unbearable. If you are raped (and I have been), focus on your goals and get over it; it comes with the territory and the danger.

As much as it would help, success at male/female camaraderie under true combat conditions is not possible. It always turns sexual, so it's up to you to carefully control it. You will have to become extraordinarily strong-willed about your military career; forget children if you truly want to participate in combat. I was given, and accepted, a hysterectomy so I wouldn't have periods. I helped under the harsh conditions.

The most important elements to success for a military woman are determination and self-discipline. You will be judged more harshly ("military women are either whores or queers") and find you are compelled to prove yourself every day to be neither. Strong intervention by military authority is important but frequently irrelevant (where there's a will, there's always a way) if you haven't made the decisions that are necessary. Accept that you will never be as physically strong as your male counterparts and stick to the basics of self-defense; seriously learn to use your kabar as well as the use and maintenance of as many weapons as they'll teach you. Make up your mind and train yourself so that when you have to shoot, shoot to kill; and when you have to kill, do it quickly, tactically, having long since thought through it emotionally and morally.

Finally, to accomplish your goals, you do not have to give up being feminine; you will find that anyone with whom you interact will be more at ease with a feminine woman. That doesn't mean you should allow anything or anyone to weaken you. Avoid that dreaded syndrome known as the "victim" syndrome; everyone (men and women) resents it. Cry in private, grieve death only among proven friends, and - lastly - choose your goals carefully, lady; the price you pay, the tradeoffs you make, will be costly and lifelong.

Posted: 10 Mar 98:

I think this issue is one of choice. I feel that no person should be forced to work with someone they don't respect or care to work with. Most of the military people are in the service by their own choice. I'm a Viet Nam Vet and I did not have to go into the field with women. I did go into battle with men of all colors and personal beliefs. I never had a problem with any person at any time.We all did our jobs as a team and that is why we survived. Blacks and whites were first of all men and the ones that gave their lives for people to quibble over this type of stupid issue were still men. The color of their skin made no difference to me they were still brothers and friends. This issue makes no sense if a person can handle the load they should only be judged by their sincere qualifications. As far as abusing women or men, that is only done by sick people that have no pride in themselves. I believe that you have to like yourself before you can like someone else. All people have a place in this world whether we like it or not. As far as the women's statements about they have not been in sports like the men, that's a bunch of bunk and you know it. I was with a lot of non-athletic men in Nam and they did just fine. Think of the saying "be all you can be." That means to me anyway; don't do things you can't do. If you can qualify, as far as I'm concerned you should get the job and the men and women should just accept the fact that you're as good as the next person. As long as there are women and men that fight this issue it just shows me that they aren't happy with themselves and will never be happy with anyone else. As far as someone not doing their job, they should be punished as a person and not as a whole gender. Like I said, I never had to deal with this issue in combat but at my time in the service the issue was the black and white confrontation. I had never saw this in my unit and I have the highest regard for all of the Nam Vets regardless of their color. I guess there will always be these issues as long as there are people that refuse to change and have nothing better to do with their lives than bicker with other people. Remember folks we are people first no matter what differences we have. We are all here together and we should spend our time on learning how to get along instead of fighting with each other. I would like to thank the women that did do time in Nam. I was wounded more than once and the women that took care of me each time were super and should be commended for their service not only to their country but (now listen up guys) to the men that needed aid,comfort,and support. They did a splendid job. I for one think highly of their service. So for the men that oppose of the service women and for the women that think they have to show men up remember one thing, KNOWING YOU'RE GOOD IS NOT HAVING TO PROVE IT. In case you're, wondering this is from a white male and a proud Nam Vet. And I would expect more from our service people than some of the things I have read in these pages.

Posted: 3 Mar 98: "Women in the military"

I personally think that women should be allowed in the army/military. I am not all familiar with the different branches and things you can do but women should definitely be able to operate computers and do the technical part of war. As for the actual ground/infantry combat I totally disagree that they should be involved. I read somewhere that most training lowers their standards for women (extra 3 minutes to complete a 2 mile run) and some things like that. If they lower the set standards for a man and the women will be fighting against other men then there are DEFINITELY going to be more women casualties. And if there are some women that can complete the Men training standards then good! They should then set up a special female Battalion for women that can meet the same standards as the men.

Posted: 3 Mar 98:

I am a women and I know my views are not going to be popular. I believe women do not belong in combat. If women were allowed in combat, than it would only be fair that women should have to sign up for the draft. Everyone keeps saying women should be allowed to choose to go into combat, during war time men aren't allowed to choose to go they are made to go. I do not believe every women wants to go into combat, so I feel all these women who stand for equal rights for all women should ask all women if they want that right.

Posted: 26 Feb 98: "In response to the 9-12-97 16 year old ROTC student" (located in File #2)

It's statements like hers that makes men not want to have women around them in combat. If she ever plans to be in combat I only hope she gets a fox hole with a drafted male. There were allot of drafted men in Viet Nam that did not have the feelings she makes mention of. There were guys that joined the service that did have her opinion as far as not wanting to be there. There were allot of different reasons men were drafted. I was drafted I tried to join and they turned me down they said I had a punctured ear drum. Go figure 1 year later I was drafted and my ear drum problem didn't seem to matter anymore. Allot of men were drafted at 18 and 19 years old and wanted to to something other than fight an un-winnable war but when drafted they did there job the same as anyone else. I think this little girl needs to do a little more school work before she makes any stupid comments again. I think she has drafted personnel mixed up with draft dodgers. Get it straight before you say something stupid again.

Thank You, A proud Drafted Viet Nam Vet.

Posted: 23 Feb 98:

This is in response to a few of the opinions. The first is to the gentleman who is in the Navy and his wife was a Navy nurse. While your thoughts are noble and very honorable, your facts are wrong. Women in a POW situation can NOT menstruate therefore can not get pregnant. There is no where in history where POW's have been served three meals a day and had a stress free time. Strenuous exercise will stop your period. STRESS will definitely stop your period this is called amennorhea. Without proper nutrition and health you can not menstruate. This is why anorexics and belumics USUALLY don't have periods. They are not healthy. I know I was one.

My other thoughts are because of the man in the SEALs. As a person who is trying to enlist I appreciate the service SEALs provide. BUT as a female who is just as determined as any male to give it all for her country I DISAGREE with your opinion. There are women who can perform in the special forces of the service. We have been doing this since war began, JOAN OF ARC, need I say more. READ THE HERSTORY BOOKS. As far as you saying women could not cut it and we would never be accepted, it is attitudes like yours, THAT are the reason we are TEMPORARILY held up NOW. Your wife's insecurities are just that, not for every woman to worry about. We won't be held back because of lack of trust. To even bring that up showed you were running out of reasons for women not to be there. One of the biggest problems was stated in another opinion which was so very true MEN need to learn self-control. Isn't that taught in boot camp? Or maybe the "STRONGER SEX, IS LEARNING IMPAIRED." There is no WEAKER SEX. And to the other person who said how would it look for a woman to leave her child to defend the home they live in, all women are born with protective instincts better known as maternal instincts. HOW WE CHOOSE TO EXERCISE THEM SHOULD NOT BE DECIDED BY A MAN. Women have come a long way, but not as far as we will go.

Posted: 29 Jan 98:

I am not really one to take a stand on this issue for a number of reasons, but I would like to share some of my experiences with the other readers. First let me state that I am not now or have I ever been a Navy SEAL nor have I urinated on someone to keep them warm. I don't claim to be a hero or a Rambo. I was however an a private in the Infantry and later worked my way up to become the commander of an Airborne Infantry Company.

I think what I have experienced has more to do with integration rather than individual abilities or tendencies toward valor. My father told me that when he served in Viet Nam, he was surprised at the number of stud-muffins that turned to cowards and at the number of people that proved to be heroes whom he would have never thought capable. I don't believe for a minute that one sex is better than another.

I will however, share some of my experiences. Take them for what they are worth, or print them out and line the bird cage with them. First, and foremost, a huge chunk of the military, or at least combat arms platoons and companies are made up of 17,18 or 19 year old kids. (Yes I know they are men and women) But a 19 year old is a 19 year old. Capable of the greatest loyalty and valor but also capable of some of the stupidest stunts ever imagined. As an XO and later a CO, I can tell you how much of my time was devoted to taking care of some insane stunt or another. The military builds men and women, yes. But at that age hormones are often stronger than common sense and almost always political awareness. I do not now and will never condone sexual harassment. But the fact is kids are kids, and as their commanders and sergeants it is our responsibility to protect them from themselves.

This point was driven home to me by my First Sergeant after one particularly long FTX. When we returned to the re-deployment staging area, there were integrated units in the same compound. My 1SG issued the order to the troops that no one in the company was to even talk to a female soldier, other than in a duty related capacity, until we re-deployed to Bragg. When I questioned him on the severity of this order, he said he had never had to deal with a sexual harassment charge against one of his soldiers and he did not intend to start now. Further, he suggested that I issue the same guideline to the officers. He may have been a prehistoric non politically aware NCO, but we had no problems, and as a matter of fact, our company was probably one of the only ones that didn't. Something that you may or may not know is that when young men get around young women (especially after not having seen any young women for several weeks) they tend to abuse other young men. Young men love to fight. I am not defending it, just observing it.

The other observation I would like to share is to the appropriateness of living arrangements while in the field. The Infantry (as well as many other branches) often require its soldier to undergo adverse living conditions. Hygiene is often lacking and bare bones. I am not an expert on female hygiene, however I understand that there are several unique requirements. I specifically remember on one rotation to the Joint Readiness Training Center, that a Forward Support Battalion could not move, because there were not Port 0 Potties in the area in which they were to move. The tactical move did occur once the Port O Potties were in place. I shutter to think about realistic training if the combat arms units had the same restrictions. Now you might say, change that silly requirement, and I would agree, but there are hundreds of similar considerations. A more graphic example come with the necessity to perform "buddy assisted parasite checks." This requires you buddy to check you body for ticks and other critters in places in which you can not see yourself. There is no option here and it is a practice enforced by the NCO chain of command. Hygiene in the field can save lives. No as a commander, how would you go about accomplishing this task? What if the ratio of female to male soldiers in a squad was uneven? Would you require your XO to cross load units to ensure gender on gender checks?

I am not a politician nor am I a social scientist. I am just a former Infantryman (myn). I don't know what is right or wrong, but I do know there is a lot more to consider than a lot of people believe there is.

Posted: 28 Jan 98: "The Feminine Mythtique"

For the opinion of an experienced military commander with 31 years experience (Col. Tom Hewes, USMC (Ret.), read the article, The Feminine Mythtique, at (URL)<http://joepierre.com/feminine.htm>

Posted: 28 Jan 98:

Well, there seems to be a wide range of varying opinions around here about whether or not we women-folk should have the option of going into combat oriented positions...The fact of the matter is this: There are few women who would want to, and few of those who would be able to endure of physical, mental, and emotional rigors of not only the training, but the possible combat situations. The gov't should have a mock sign-up just to demonstrate how relatively few women would actually go through with it. Once you get them signed up, have them go through the respective training, and see how many of them fall out before they are even near completion of the training. The women that successfully completed the training, if there are any, give them the option to do whatever they want, cause you would have some very valuable people there. For a woman to complete the kind of training that the men do, she would have to put forth a whole heck of a lot more effort than the men given our inherent physical drawbacks. I know that I myself would be one of the people who signed up for the aforementioned training, but who is to say whether or not I would be able to complete it. You never know until you try. I think that in this day and age, we should at least be given that try. Who knows, an elite group of women special forces has a nice ring to it. Men whine too much anyway.

Posted: 26 Jan 98:

As long as there are men who will coward and run, you will find a woman who will stand and fight. We as humans make that choice.

With in the words of Sir Walter Scott you will find the tells of my family. Not just of men but of the women. Check the history of Meg's cannon in Scotland.

Blood flows no differently in a hospital bed than it does upon the dirt and sand. Which is stronger physical or mental strength. Picking up two hundred pounds is one thing. Picking up a two hundred pound bloody body another. Few people can do both.

Our uniform should be like this internet. Can you see the color of my hair, eyes, or skin? Can you see the marks of my religion or tell if I'm short or tall? No, you see only my words and my actions. When that alarm goes off in the night, when the planes fly, all you should see are my actions not my bosom.

Posted: 23 Jan 98: "Twisted Off"

Sorry about twisting off on the Navy Seal (NOT REAL SURE HE IS), but these people remind me of a time when Black People were drafted to go fight for their country while back home their brothers and sisters had fire hoses and police dogs turned loose on them. Then they got back to the world and could not even set at the lunch counter and have a meal. As I have said, I would be proud to follow a female into combat. If this guy had it his way (WOMEN) would be doing the chores instead of a very important part of the team.When will they ever learn.I got out in 1981 after four years in the U.S. ARMY INFANTRY, and I am glad I did. I used to hear the same thing back then "WELL SHE WOULD MAKE A FINE COOK OR A NURSE, BUT KEEP HER OUT OF THE INFANTRY. I say give her a shot, I could name (MALE NAMES) of troops that could not make the PT runs how about the boys that cried like a baby in cold weather training in Germany. Of course unlike the Navy boys we don't (LEAK) on each other to stay warm. DRIVE ON SISTERS THERE IS STILL HOPE!

Posted: 22 Jan 98: "Reference: 27 Jan 97:U.S.Navy Seal"

"BOYS CLUB" Period. What are you afraid of that females will out perform you.Urinating on each other to keep warm, give me a break.What foolishness.Maybe they (WOMEN) could wash your clothes for you, maybe make your rack. I have had it with this BONEHEAD way of thinking.Do you exclude blacks? I bet they can't pack the gear either. I'm glad I'm am out. Got no time for your silliness.

ARMY VET: B CO 1/16 INF, 1ST INF.DIV.

Posted: 19 Jan 98:

It is such a sensitive issue when one talks about women in combat..I carefully read through each and every one of the monthly opinions and I find myself mixed in a range of emotions as I read everyone's opinion. The question is not and should not be whether a "female" soldier is capable of fighting in combat. Although the numbers are few, history has proven that it can be done. The question is if society is prepared to allow women to go. Unfortunately at this time it is not and will not allow it. If you watch Hollywood, it depicts our women on the front lines in almost all of its futuristic movies. Hollywood is not real life, but it does have a tendency to direct society away from its inhibitions and allows a look into a world we dare tread on in life. If you were to line up 100 female soldiers in a room and ask them, who would be willing to go to combat, only about 3% would even raise their hand. Does this mean then, that women shouldn't go? Should women be given the choice to go?

I know of a female truck driver who refused to drive past a certain point as it would have taken her into a combat zone. Had this been a male soldier, he would/could have been shot for his actions during a conflict. Unfortunately the actions of this female reinforce the beliefs of those who feel we should not be there in the first place. Blame should also lie with the internal society of the military who allowed this female to do this and get away with it. After all, women can't go into combat.

If women were allowed into combat, the numbers would be few. But for those few who decide that they are willing to go if called upon, and are capable, then the choice should be there. I agree with one opinion. He stated that "Who, would ever want to go to combat?" I don' t think anyone in their right mind would. It is funny, growing up in the Airborne community, and being married to the infantry, to hear these young men run around, wishing to go to combat so they can achieve the coveted "mustard stain." A yellow star which is placed inside your jump wings to show you jumped into combat. When the operation to jump into Haiti took place, these same soldiers were very quiet, wide eyed, and not talking so much about that mustard stain. No one "wants" to go to war, but, just as the infantry is a volunteer MOS, so should the right be there for any soldier who can meet the standards, to choose.

This brings us into another issue which I read in several opinions. The standards for females now are, in my opinion, to low. The gap should be greatly reduced if not completely. If women were allowed into combat arms, then there should not be any change of standards. It HAS to be the same as you are talking about life and death. Does this mean a woman would have to work harder than her male counterparts. Yes it does. But is it really any different then how hard we work now to try and be above the standards? Again, society has placed this on us. Women have to work harder, and longer, to prove themselves at or above the standards. I have gone through great lengths to stand out among my peers. What I would like to see, and of course, this will never happen, is a specific "test platoon" of women who volunteered for and 11S MOS. (Infantry). They would go through the same training, same standards, and put to the test through FTXs and EDRES to determine whether it is even feasible. This type of test could end the debate once and for all. The last thing I would like to comment on is the subject of "pregnancy" being brought up every time someone talks about a women in uniform. There is nothing that disgusts me more then people to use this as an excuse for not allowing women in more "male dominated" roles. At the same time, it disgusts me equally to see women use this as an escape from the performance of their duties.

Let us all put the gender issue to rest. It should not be based on sex, but on the capabilities of that soldier. I am 32 years old. I have three children and am a career soldier. Some of the schools I have attended are JUMP SCHOOL, JUMPMASTER SCHOOL, AMO, JAI, RAM AIR, SERE (LEVEL C), and am scheduled to attend PATHFINDER and HALO school during 1997. Do not tell me that a female can not perform to standards or perform in what is traditionally "male' roles.

Posted: 19 Jan 98: "In response to the 22 Dec 97 post"

With regards to the article posted on 22 Dec who claims to be a SEAL Team Leader, I can tell you that he (although it is probably a women) is not. I am a Petty Officer 2nd class in the SEAL Teams and although I have only had my budweiser for two years, I can tell you that who ever wrote that article is not a SEAL let alone a Team Leader (which means nothing because you could be a Captain in charge of one of the 7 Teams - plus several special groups - or an Ensign in charge of a platoon or a Master Chief who is just a natural leader, it is obvious this person got the term "SEAL Team Leader" from some movie or something). I think people need to consider that anyone can claim that they are anyone on the Internet. If you have any questions about this post or about the Teams, you can e-mail me at Navcomando@aol.com.

Send in your comments to be posted for this opinion
Participate and give your comments on these opinion's. Select Here

Main Menu
Copyright by Webmaster of this homepage © 1998/1999