| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Babes in Arms: Report leans toward women in combat |
| 2004-12-13 |
| EFL Internal Army documents advocate changing Pentagon rules on mixed-sex units in a way that critics say will risk placing female soldiers in ground-combat situations.     The Nov. 29 briefing to senior Army officers at the Pentagon, presented as part of the service's sweeping transformation of its 10 war-fighting divisions, advocates scrapping the military's ban on collocation -- the deployment of mixed-sex noncombat units alongside all-male combat brigades.     The briefing contained the phrase: "The way ahead: rewrite/eliminate the Army collocation policy."     To some in the Army, the confidential briefing proves that the service is moving toward a decision to put women within direct combat units, despite statements denying such plans, including a Nov. 3 Capitol Hill briefing for senior congressional staff members by Army and Pentagon officials.     According to one aide, the Nov. 3 briefers assured the staff members that the Army was complying with the collocation rule and did not want it changed.     "We are not collocating," a senior congressional aide quoted the presenters as saying.     But the Army's Nov. 29 paper suggests otherwise, and critics of the plan, both inside and outside the Army, argue that it is part of an overall plan to override a 1994 policy prohibiting women from serving in direct land combat. ...     The Times reported last week on an internal May 10 briefing that portrayed the Army as in a bind. The briefing states the Army does not have enough male soldiers to fill the FSCs if they were to collocate with combat brigades and thus required to be men-only.     All-male FSCs, the paper states, "creates potential long-term challenge to Army; pool of male recruits too small to sustain force." |
| Posted by:Mrs. Davis |
| #16 I was in a unit (a video documentation unit) which deployed into interesting situations, and was about 1/3rd female to 2/3rds male, and which went on field excercises all the time... and since we all considered ourselves committed professionals, and well-adjusted grownups, who all had Significant Others at home... all the members of the team much preferred bunking in under the same roof, all together with the video gear (for which we were all responsible) and the other members of our team...(and hanging up a blanket as some sort of concession to what little privacy was available!)than having to camp out with strangers, on the other side of wherever, whom we didn't know, and didn't trust. As for getting it on, in the field, with one of the guys that you work with? Ewwww. Secont point: my daughter is a field wireman in the Marines. It's a combat support-type job, and I have to admit, she was better prepared for a situation like that, than I ever was as an Air Force very-much-in-the-rear-echelon-type. She was in Kuwait and in Iraq last year, and one of the things she said about the merits of various locations was that she rather preferred being somewhat forward, rather than in-the-rear-with-the-gear, because there, everyone was armed, loaded, looking after each other as a Marine, and paying attention. Make of that what you will. |
| Posted by: Sgt. Mom 2004-12-13 10:16:38 PM |
| #15 All of what follows is, I believe, common sense - and my opinion. The answer to most of such "crimes of passion" as rape - and I definitely use the word passion only to mean out of control, not passionate - is habituation. Familiarity, constant contact, leads to myn (particularly, lol!) not seeing wymyn as objects. When they do what you do every day, alongside you, talk to you, joke with you, save your ass & vice versa, you don't see them as a sexual object - unless you're well and truly screwed up. Check out the profiler info available (not the sociology tripe) and you find the one-time rapist is usually in one of 3 environs: under peer pressure - a group acceptance situation, out of control due to lowering of social strictures such as drunk, or obsessive about the victim as in put on a pedestal with no personal contact. Habituation - doing something frequently so that it loses its novelty, pulls the potential victim into the potential aggressor's social space - makes them real, removes the mystery and fear of rejection, permits the tension-easing banter that tears down the pedestal. A serial aggressor is something else entirely - a predator - but they are obviously a tiny minority of the potential aggressors. Make it normal and it will be normal. Humans can become accustomed to, inured to, or oblivious of almost anything. Walk to the edge of the cliff and your knees are weak the first time. Thirty trips later you're ready to dangle your feet over the edge and eat lunch. Habituation. Humans are funny critters, and usually quite predictable and trainable. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-12-13 10:15:23 PM |
| #14 ugly ills (rape and worse) visited upon women soldiers will be the MSM meme of the decade, mark my words. Jessica Lynch- all-the-time. |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-12-13 9:59:50 PM |
| #13 better stay anon .. heh ROFL!!! Wimp, heh. ;-) |
| Posted by: .com 2004-12-13 9:57:35 PM |
| #12 I believe this is so obviously inevitable that it screams. And it will become even more so when we field nanotech body armour with strength augmentation and biomonitoring / medic systems built in and autonomous ground robots w/ weapons systems that respond to commands from authorized voices. The latter in the not too distant future, the former aren't far behind. In the meanwhile, .com is right - there are no front lines anymore and support roles are equally dangerous. Let's get people qualified to do those roles so they don't get themselves and others killed. And if it washes out women and men who joined for a job but who aren't cut out to be soldiers, that's a good thing for all concerned. The Army's a bad place to run a jobs program when there are real wars to fight. |
| Posted by: better stay anon .. heh 2004-12-13 9:48:56 PM |
| #11 If she's a better shot, will that prompt the guy next to her to do a bayonet charge? Inquiring minds wanna know! I see it now: Formation of the 1st Amazon Brigade... Sillies aside, I have zero problem with this - if they are meeting the same specs then fold 'em in and let the bad guyz pay. My mother at 36 was a better shot than I was at 14, and I had 20/10 vision. My grandfather had to teach me to shoot - she had no patience when she was packing heat, heh. I believe this is so obviously inevitable that it screams. The only proviso is as others said above - same specs, no dumbing down - that will get people killed. And no humping on guard duty, either - unless using those rubber ball gag thingys. And no... well, you get the idea: fight before fun. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-12-13 9:19:45 PM |
| #10 Well I got no problem with it not a bit. Just like Startship Troopers and the Space Marines. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom 2004-12-13 8:50:21 PM |
| #9 Get a grip people. Rummie is the one pushing the organization structure that leaves no choice that combat support personnel are up front and close to the action. Its the combat support units who are getting the higher ratio of casualties than the traditional combat units in Iraq. There is no front line. If you want the females 10k from the fighting then you better not send them into country. If you don't send the females that means someone else has to fill the requirement. Same pay and same chance for promotion, but different risks? The safe jobs stateside for one specific group and danger for the other. That'll really hurt morale. This is the inevitable consequences of choices made decades ago. It is the slippery slope fulfilled. Now you have to live with it. Make the best of the situation. Insist that the physcial standards for the soldier are tied to the physical situation the soldier is to operate, not just the MOS [military occupational specialty]. No waivers, no dumbing down. |
| Posted by: Ebbavith Slineck2977 2004-12-13 8:29:01 PM |
| #8 Memo to NOW, Pat schroder, et al: Beware of what you ask for, 'cause you might jus' git it. Heh heh. |
| Posted by: N Guard 2004-12-13 6:33:16 PM |
| #7 NOW better not scream - this is what they wanted. |
| Posted by: anonymous2U 2004-12-13 5:18:23 PM |
| #6 They call us babes in arms but we are babes in armour. They laugh at babes in arms but we'll be laughing far more. On city street and farms They'll hear a rising war cry. Youth will arrive, let them know you are alive, make it your cry! They call us babes in arms they think they must direct us. But if we're babes in arms we'll make them all respect us. Why have we got our arms, what have we got our sight for? Play day is done, we have a palce in the sun we must fight for. So babes in arms to arms! |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2004-12-13 5:17:22 PM |
| #5 A completely straight question- if upper body strength and speed are not problems with the females in combat, are there other difficulties? (I don't have an opinion on this yet because I don't know enough about it.) |
| Posted by: Jules 187 2004-12-13 5:17:12 PM |
| #4 Once this happens, we are officially a nation of wussies. |
| Posted by: Crereper Angimble7527 2004-12-13 5:14:11 PM |
| #3 I'm sure the members of the 507th Maintenace Company will be impressed by the debate. |
| Posted by: Don 2004-12-13 5:09:57 PM |
| #2 Oh go ahead. Your a Captain. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2004-12-13 4:50:40 PM |
| #1 No, I better not say what I was gonna say... |
| Posted by: Capt America 2004-12-13 4:48:50 PM |