Combat Arms

[Anonymous]

Close is not good enough. Women have an obligation to provide 52% of all combat casualties. There may be those that don't like this idea but that's too bad. ************************************************** **jigs



<hr size=7 width=75%>




jigs-casey@usa.net

[Anonymous]

Don't ask me! It's womens groups that are always pitching that number. While we're on the subject though don't you think that womens casualty rates should be made artificially high for the forseeable future to make up for past discrimination?



<hr size=7 width=75%>




jigs-casey@usa.net

[Anonymous]

:**Close is not good enough. Women have an obligation to provide 52% of all combat casualties. There may be those that don't like this idea but that's too bad. ************************************************** **jigs---------------------------------just one question Jigs - why 52 % ?**** D.




<hr size=7 width=75%>




deana_3@hotmail.com

[Anonymous]

First, let's set the story straight. The battle was the Battle of 73 Easting and it was fought by the 2d Armored Cavalry Regiment. I was the First Sergeant of K Troop and here's the interesting part to all the women, there were women present, attached to my unit during the entire ground war, including the Battle of 73 Easting. For POW handling we had a platoon from the Alabama National Guard. The platoon sergeant Sfc Potts was fully in charge those women slept in the same tents as the men and there were no incidents or problems. Good descplined units seldom have problems. Alot of people don't know there were women that close to ground combat during the Gulf War. Consider this as close our unit lost (1) M1 (2) M113s and (2) M2s. Those women may not have been loading Silver Bullets but they there.



<hr size=7 width=75%>




btusweep@aol.com

[Anonymous]

Greetings to SGM Anderson. During the winter of 1978 I was a race relations/equal opportunity NCO at the 7th ATC in Grafenwohr, Germany. I was, to my great surprise, attached to the 3/2 ACR in Amberg.

When I first arrived in Germany in '77, I went to a USAREUR orientation. The first thing the major did was tell us to forget all notions of combat areas, front lines, etc. If the the Soviets rolled, we would have about a half-hour's notice--if we were lucky--and all of Europe would be the front lines. No, there would be no evacuations and the bullets wouldn't care if we were male or female, military or dependent.

I served in the Army from '73 to '78. I knew many women who were attached to combat arms units in one capacity or another. They did not carry combat arms MOS's, but it was doubtful that the enemy would give much regard to that. At that time, the 3/2 ACR's mission was to patrol the Czech border. I spent many weeks at the border camps and many days and nights in the tanks riding the border. There were more than a few racial tensions to be dealt with, and I could not have performed my mission without the credibility of doing what the squadron did. I couldn't have promoted racial integration/harmony from a desk in Amberg. I had to be someone the troopers knew and trusted and that certainly couldn't be done from a desk.

SO...there was never any question that I would be in harm's way. There was never any question that I would be in combat if the 3/2 went to war. If war came, I would have gone with the 3/2 and would have shot at the enemy and the enemy would have shot at me. What would not have happened was that I would not have received the promotion points the troopers around me would have received; I would not have received the credit.

Stating that women shouldn't be in the combat arms because of physical stature is absurd. There is more variation within the sexes than between them. Obviously, the average man is bigger and stronger than the average woman. Of course, judging from current recruiting problems, the average person--male or female--doesn't even want to be in the military. If the issue were truly one of physical stature, the requirements would not include sex, but actually deal with physical stature, so that big, strong men AND women would go into combat arms and small, less strong men AND women would not. And, Lord knows, I've seen plenty of pretty puny men as 11B's.

The issue of women being permitted to carry combat arms MOS's is purely a cultural one, wrapped up in our cultural ideas about the identities and roles of being male and female are all about. We are currently in a transitional period when the various components of our society are not agreed on our social definitions. Cultural ideas don't change by themselves, but as a result of social pressures, one of the main being necessity. When we need to have women in the combat arms, we will. Another major pressure is the acceptance of reality versus ideals. At some point, the society will simply have to accept the FACT that women have been on the front lines being shot at for a long time and because of that fact, there is no reason that women shouldn't be allowed to shoot before they are shot at.

greatoz@aol.com