Anonymous
01-04-2002, 12:02 PM
Finally, we return to the question at hand. However, let me correct one misapprehension from Ms Cole; the discussion, as I have framed it, is about women "conducting modern ground combat", not about women being "in combat". There are any number of Combat Support and Combat Service Support MOSs which require soldiers of both genders to operate within the combat zone. The question is whether women, as a group, should be permitted into those units which were considerably further forward than your, admittedly dangerous, duty position as a 98G. Do women belong in Infantry squads, Ranger Companies, Special Forces "A" detachments, and SEAL Teams..? Can women handle the physical requirements of these positions, and will unit cohesion and combat effectiveness be reduced if some women are included in these units? I have presented evidence that women are too weak to handle the physical requirements of these positions, and that unit cohesion would suffer if they were admitted. Since there is no "right" to serve in combat, and no need for women to fill these positions, why should women be admitted to this most arduous duty position..?
I should also like to respond to the suggestion that illegitimate children reduce readiness...they don't. It is the single parents that cause a reduction in readiness, because they have to take time away from their duties to care for their children. When the Gulf War occurred thousands of single mothers had no means of caring for their children if they were deployed. Single parents must provide the command with a wriiten plan for handling their children in the event they are deployed. US military men fathering illegitimate children in foreign countries is certainly a problem for those countries, and a political problem for the US. But the fact is it doesn't effect our combat readiness in any way.
I should also like to disabuse Ms Cole of the absurd notion that "the men who wind up in ground combat units are generally uneducated, score poorly on the entrance exam and are therefore assigned to "grunt" units because they can't qualify for other MOSs." You couldn't be more wrong. Since the advent of the All Volunteer Army all soldiers must volunteer for a combat MOS, and cannot be arbitrarily "assigned" to these duty positions. The entrance exam requirements for combat MOSs are in fact considerably higher than for many other non-combat MOSs. I scored a 148 GT score on the Army ASVAAB test in 1975, and was offered any MOS in the Army, whereupon I chose to be a 19D Cavalry Scout (a combat MOS). And I made E-5 in 24 months (partially because I had a college degree. This "uneducated" and "scored low on entrance exams" hogwash is the kind of nonsense you hear in CS and CSS AITs to make the people attending them feel better about themselves. The line of reasoning goes something like this, "only dumb people would want to go into the combat arms, because it's so hard". In order to apply for Special Forces training every applicant must have achieved at least a 120 GT score. Whatever, the reasons for women leaving the service at a significantly higher rate than men, the fact is that they do leave the service at this higher rate. I should also point out that the significantly higher attrition rates of women hold true for women and men not completing their first tour of duty. Getting released from active duty prior to completing your first tour of duty is hardly evidence that women are seeking better career opportunities on the "outside". The training and money spent on these women is wasted, and this contributes to reduced combat effectiveness.
:
: This conversation has quickly deteriorated from the LTC's original remarks,
: to which I would like to respond. First of all, and most importantly, we
: should take great pride in the fact that we have a professional,
: all-volunteer force filled with men and women who choose to serve our
: great nation. Regardless of their gender, when men and women serve in
: combat or combat support units it is by choice, not legislation. If the
: standards drop, they are allowed to drop by the men in charge of the unit,
: not the handful of women who belong to it. To me, the question of whether
: or not women should serve in combat is moot--they already do. I am a
: Persian Gulf veteran that served in the 1st Armored Division, and yes, we
: directly participated in the ground war in Iraq. This is indisputable, it
: is a matter of public record. I was a combat electronic warfare
: specialist, MOS 98G. For those of you not familiar with that, the word
: "combat" is in the title for a reason. We tracked and located
: Iraqi units, sent their grid coordinates to the artillery folks, and then
: watched as our efforts led to the deaths of countless Iraqi soldiers
: generally located less than 200 meters from us. Afterwards, we drove
: forward, searched the bodies and foxholes for intel, and kept right on
: driving. I did not break down emotionally at the site of death, nor did my
: "weaker female skeleton" collapse under the weight of full gear
: as I low crawled through abandoned foxholes. I was certainly not alone.
:
: As for the pregnancy and readiness issue, I think that the military should
: not allow men or women to become parents while serving during their first
: tour of duty (generally four years). The LTC mentions some 24,000 single
: mothers serving in the military, but does not mention the countless
: thousands of illegitimate children fathered by male servicemembers all
: over the globe. Children who, in some countries, will never be accepted
: into their local societies because of the stigma of mixed relationships or
: illegitimacy. How does this affect the military as a whole? When we have
: to serve overseas, the locals assume that we are there only to "rape
: and pillage" instead of doing a professional job that benefits our
: great nation and theirs. Their negative opinion of us can lead to simple
: skirmishes in bars to bombings in the barracks, and everything in between.
: The key characteristic we should always strive for, men and women, combat
: and non-combat, is professionalism. Do whatever your job is, and do it
: well. If you can't or don't want to do that, then get out and let someone
: who does have a crack at it.
:
: My last remark concerns another point the LTC made in his original comments.
: He mentioned a Harvard grad student's study that implied there was minimal
: interest among women in the military to serve in ground combat roles. This
: does not surprise me. My understanding, and please correct me if I'm
: wrong, is that the men who wind up in ground combat units are generally
: uneducated, score poorly on the entrance exam and are therefore assigned
: to "grunt" units because they can't qualify for other MOSs. The
: military is a great place for men like this, and it's no surprise that
: they stay in as long as they do. But let's not assume that their longer
: service records are a reflection of greater patriotism or physical
: stamina--it may just be that they know that without an education or any
: any decent skills they won't get a good job on the "outside".
: Women on the other hand, usually serve in positions that allow them to
: learn new skills, further their education, etc. The fact that they have a
: higher attrition rate could be attributed to their greater ambition to do
: more with their lives, to use the skills they've acquired to secure a
: better position in the civilian world. Using the military as a stepping
: stone onwards and upwards is not a bad thing.
baileyw1@leavenworth.army.mil
I should also like to respond to the suggestion that illegitimate children reduce readiness...they don't. It is the single parents that cause a reduction in readiness, because they have to take time away from their duties to care for their children. When the Gulf War occurred thousands of single mothers had no means of caring for their children if they were deployed. Single parents must provide the command with a wriiten plan for handling their children in the event they are deployed. US military men fathering illegitimate children in foreign countries is certainly a problem for those countries, and a political problem for the US. But the fact is it doesn't effect our combat readiness in any way.
I should also like to disabuse Ms Cole of the absurd notion that "the men who wind up in ground combat units are generally uneducated, score poorly on the entrance exam and are therefore assigned to "grunt" units because they can't qualify for other MOSs." You couldn't be more wrong. Since the advent of the All Volunteer Army all soldiers must volunteer for a combat MOS, and cannot be arbitrarily "assigned" to these duty positions. The entrance exam requirements for combat MOSs are in fact considerably higher than for many other non-combat MOSs. I scored a 148 GT score on the Army ASVAAB test in 1975, and was offered any MOS in the Army, whereupon I chose to be a 19D Cavalry Scout (a combat MOS). And I made E-5 in 24 months (partially because I had a college degree. This "uneducated" and "scored low on entrance exams" hogwash is the kind of nonsense you hear in CS and CSS AITs to make the people attending them feel better about themselves. The line of reasoning goes something like this, "only dumb people would want to go into the combat arms, because it's so hard". In order to apply for Special Forces training every applicant must have achieved at least a 120 GT score. Whatever, the reasons for women leaving the service at a significantly higher rate than men, the fact is that they do leave the service at this higher rate. I should also point out that the significantly higher attrition rates of women hold true for women and men not completing their first tour of duty. Getting released from active duty prior to completing your first tour of duty is hardly evidence that women are seeking better career opportunities on the "outside". The training and money spent on these women is wasted, and this contributes to reduced combat effectiveness.
:
: This conversation has quickly deteriorated from the LTC's original remarks,
: to which I would like to respond. First of all, and most importantly, we
: should take great pride in the fact that we have a professional,
: all-volunteer force filled with men and women who choose to serve our
: great nation. Regardless of their gender, when men and women serve in
: combat or combat support units it is by choice, not legislation. If the
: standards drop, they are allowed to drop by the men in charge of the unit,
: not the handful of women who belong to it. To me, the question of whether
: or not women should serve in combat is moot--they already do. I am a
: Persian Gulf veteran that served in the 1st Armored Division, and yes, we
: directly participated in the ground war in Iraq. This is indisputable, it
: is a matter of public record. I was a combat electronic warfare
: specialist, MOS 98G. For those of you not familiar with that, the word
: "combat" is in the title for a reason. We tracked and located
: Iraqi units, sent their grid coordinates to the artillery folks, and then
: watched as our efforts led to the deaths of countless Iraqi soldiers
: generally located less than 200 meters from us. Afterwards, we drove
: forward, searched the bodies and foxholes for intel, and kept right on
: driving. I did not break down emotionally at the site of death, nor did my
: "weaker female skeleton" collapse under the weight of full gear
: as I low crawled through abandoned foxholes. I was certainly not alone.
:
: As for the pregnancy and readiness issue, I think that the military should
: not allow men or women to become parents while serving during their first
: tour of duty (generally four years). The LTC mentions some 24,000 single
: mothers serving in the military, but does not mention the countless
: thousands of illegitimate children fathered by male servicemembers all
: over the globe. Children who, in some countries, will never be accepted
: into their local societies because of the stigma of mixed relationships or
: illegitimacy. How does this affect the military as a whole? When we have
: to serve overseas, the locals assume that we are there only to "rape
: and pillage" instead of doing a professional job that benefits our
: great nation and theirs. Their negative opinion of us can lead to simple
: skirmishes in bars to bombings in the barracks, and everything in between.
: The key characteristic we should always strive for, men and women, combat
: and non-combat, is professionalism. Do whatever your job is, and do it
: well. If you can't or don't want to do that, then get out and let someone
: who does have a crack at it.
:
: My last remark concerns another point the LTC made in his original comments.
: He mentioned a Harvard grad student's study that implied there was minimal
: interest among women in the military to serve in ground combat roles. This
: does not surprise me. My understanding, and please correct me if I'm
: wrong, is that the men who wind up in ground combat units are generally
: uneducated, score poorly on the entrance exam and are therefore assigned
: to "grunt" units because they can't qualify for other MOSs. The
: military is a great place for men like this, and it's no surprise that
: they stay in as long as they do. But let's not assume that their longer
: service records are a reflection of greater patriotism or physical
: stamina--it may just be that they know that without an education or any
: any decent skills they won't get a good job on the "outside".
: Women on the other hand, usually serve in positions that allow them to
: learn new skills, further their education, etc. The fact that they have a
: higher attrition rate could be attributed to their greater ambition to do
: more with their lives, to use the skills they've acquired to secure a
: better position in the civilian world. Using the military as a stepping
: stone onwards and upwards is not a bad thing.
baileyw1@leavenworth.army.mil