| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Women in the War Part Deux |
| 2007-05-26 |
| Mr. Smith at the tank, the NRO military blog, has responded to my criticism of the posts yesterday about women in the war. He appears to see my initial description of myself as an attempt to question his credentials. I did not so intend. I intended to state my credentials, as having enough background to be a valid voice in the debate. That said, my post consisted of many links to stories of women in combat, including hand to hand combat. I was trying to demonstrate that most women can handle the situation as well as most men. People vary in physical size and in those character and personality traits that make a soldier. Not everyone can be a Navy SEAL, and that is not a reflection on those who serve in the Navy but do not even try to become a SEAL. The same point holds true for the other elite units. Those people represent one physical and mental extreme of the men and women fighting the War on Terror. On the other hand are the clerks, truck drivers, air defense specialists, whatever the MOS, that do not engage in hand to hand combat on a daily basis. It is no reflection on the abilities of any of these men and women to suggest that many of them, of either sex, are not capable of sustained hand to hand combat, or of lugging sixty pound packs for tens of kilometers every day. Mr. Smith is one of many critics that single out women as incapable of combat duties. I was suggesting in my post that I could document several cases where that was untrue. Were I a cruel bastard, I could find cases where our men lost the battle during hand to hand combat. My point is that sex alone does not predict combat readiness nor ability. Every man in the military may find someone they are unable to lift in an emergency. I am an EMT and I know just how big people can get. The biggest and best trained Marine will find someone he cannot carry. The issue is not ability as much as it is the frequency which that particular task is performed. Am I unqualified to be an EMT because I cannot lift a 350 pound patient three times a year when I can lift 120 pound patients several times a week? Both of the men who have been awarded Medals of Honor in Iraq to this date could have been women. Nothing that they did in the actions that resulted in their deaths and the award of the MOH could not have been done by a woman. If you read through the hundreds of citations for the MOH you will discover that most of the actions described could have been performed by a woman equally courageous and self-sacrificing. The notion that combat must be close-quarters and long marches with heavy packs is used by Smith and his side of the discussion because many military women could not do that. I continue to suggest that many men in the military also fall into that category. In Smith's own Marine Corps there are male Marines that do not meet his standard. Using this argument to point to one sex only is incorrect. Smith did, specifically, denigrate the courage and sacrifices made by women in the military by quoting that Lt. General about women in combat: Females simply don't have the flair for that kind of fighting. I just do not see where having a flair for hand to hand combat is or was a part of our military. It is insulting to all the women I reported on. Smith also supports Elaine Donnelly as she suggests that: But deliberate exposure of women to combat violence in war is tantamount to acceptance of violence against women in general. As a nation we must consider the long-term implications of this cultural shift. On this Memorial Day, we should think about whether this is a step forward for women, or a setback for our values and civilization. In other words, exposure of women to combat means increased acceptance of wife beating in our society. Dog poop! As I wrote to Ms. Donnelly, the women in our military receive training that gives them a basis for resisting violence. They also learn or have reinforced their characters traits of self reliance, discipline and self confidence. Service in the military provides women with tools to resist violence that they cannot obtain in any other place in our society. I would suggest two things. First, these women are less likely to be the victim of violence after their service. And, they are less likely to tolerate the character traits that permit violence against women to occur in both the men and women that they see every day. I thought I was reading a post by the President of NOW rather than a post by a conservative when I saw Ms. Donnelly's remarks. So, Smith says women can't hack combat. I respond with a list of women who did and could. Smith thinks I suggested that he questioned their courage and sacrifice. I did not then, but I do now. His remarks were insulting. War is no longer the sole province of gentlemen. Donnelly says that women's exposure to combat makes us all less sensitive to violence against women. I believe it will make society as a whole more sensitive because these women will not treat life as did their untrained mothers and aunts. This point of view also seems to imply that women who have seen combat are less feminine, less deserving of some societal shield against violence at home. We're not sending June Cleaver to war, Ms. Donnelly. |
| Posted by:Chuck Simmins |
| #6 Agreed wholly. As a second degree black belt in martial arts, as one who is very knowledgeable in personal defense, i know women who fight just as well as men. If anything, women typically are actually, when TRAINED PROPERLY, slightly more suited towards fighting in the types of situations occuring in iraq, the smash-and-grab violence, where it's a very fast reaction required because, WITH PROPER TRAINING, something very crucial, they can react more smoothly (that's not a pun). I know firsthand women who have fought hand-to-hand in situations, usually frantic and uncontrolled ones, and the difference is noticeable. Some women with training will win and some lose. None without ever win, not that i've known. |
| Posted by: dfp 2007-05-26 23:46 |
| #5 You're living in a superficial world. Particularly with counter insurgency, where the enemy can and are conceivably anywhere, you can't possible tuck the "gals" into office jobs |
| Posted by: Captain America 2007-05-26 23:28 |
| #4 What's the old saying? "Worse than a bag of Wildcats." |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2007-05-26 22:36 |
| #3 This is a cart before the horse argument. While it is true that only a tiny fraction of people are true warriors, whose natural abilities put them so far ahead of everyone else that it would be no contest in individual battle, the reality is that no army could exist if it had to rely on such people--they are just too few. The vast majority in any military aren't that good. Even in elite units, a large portion of the personnel are able, but are not what you could call true warriors of this kind. They just don't have, and cannot be trained to have, that warrior genius. Now that being said, this means that the military is reliant on non-warriors to fill its ranks. And this is where the problem with females in combat lies. While the vast majority of both sexes are un-exercised blobs, the physical conditioning curve for males and females are very different. As a rule, males can rapidly become physically fit, because their metabolism and hormones are designed for just this. However females have a design that makes them more able to have children. A physique for maximum fertility, not combat. This is noted even in childhood, where parents are recommended to feed their boys more vegetables and fruits, and their girls more meat and potatoes, to help balance out their diets. In addition, male recruits have a lifetime of social conditioning leading towards aggression and military training and leadership, that females are rarely raised with. This means that their effective training cycles are radically different. Unfortunately, there is a refusal to accept that any difference exists, which either means forcing females to train to male standards, or vice versa. On top of everything else, males are equipped with an instinctual reaction when they perceive that females are in a risk situation. In some cases this reaction is profound and even disabling. From personal experience I have seen a highly decorated combat master sergeant pale and trembling from seeing a female at risk and afraid. His leadership effectiveness suddenly dropped to near zero, something that cannot be tolerated in combat. So in the final analysis, it is a numbers game. There just aren't enough females out there who can eventually function in combat standards, and attempting to insert them into combat anyway will neutralize a portion of male soldiers. This will get people, male and female, killed. It is unfortunate for those women who are true warriors. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2007-05-26 20:19 |
| #2 I say a woman with combat (including weapons) training is a major deterrent to female beatings. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2007-05-26 17:22 |
| #1 Go, Chuck, go! This woman agrees with you 100%. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2007-05-26 16:01 |