Drafting women

In My Humble Opinion
41

[QUOTE=Quartz]
No, they should be forced to serve whereever men are forced to serve. Equality of the sexes, remember?

And becoming pregnant after receiving a draft notice with the aim of avoiding service should be a criminal offence.

[/QUOTE]

Making these sort of statements is all well and good until it comes to enforcing them. I doubt very much whether the Pentagon would welcome being put in the position of removing mothers from their newborns in order to toss them in the glasshouse.

I remember reading an excellent book by a English chap who was an army doctor in the balkans during WW2, attached to a unit supporting the communist partisans, who had many female soldiers. One of the bits I remember most was his description of coming across a bunch of hard-faced soldiers watching two distraught women digging holes. He asked what was going on and was told they were soldiers who had got pregnant and were digging their own graves before going in front of the firing squad. It made quite an impression on him.

42

DRAFTING WOMEN

In my experience, it hard to find one large enough and with enough speed to make drafting one of any benefit.

43

I think that this debate nicely exposes the fundamental absurdity of the modern feminist movement, predicated on the idea that men and women are absolutely equal in every way and should be treated as such. Sure, when it comes to equal pay and encouraging careers over parenthood and suchlike, that works out nicely. But when responsibilities such as military service are trotted out, then suddently feminists are eager to acknowledge differences such as lesser ability to do heavy labor; even trotting out procreation as a worthwhile alternative for a change.

44

[QUOTE=Rodgers01]
Bear_Nenno – I understand your concerns about women in combat roles, but I missed what your stance on drafting women in general would be. Since women are already well integrated into non-combat positions, would you be against drafting them for those positions?
[/QUOTE]

It’s hard to answer that, because I am against the draft for both sexes. However, if there were to be a draft, I think women should be included as well for those positions in which they qualify. They would, of course, be eligible for all the normal exceptions like college, pregnancy, etc. so I dont see a big problem with it. Also, if there are children, and the husband was already serving, or was drafted, the wife should be exempt. And vis versa. Maybe that would encourage more men to voluntarily enlist early in the draft to avoid the possibility of their wife being drafted. And that’s a good consequence of the policy.

45

I think people forget too that someone in the military is not only expected to fill combat roles, they need people to back-fill positions on bases.

46

[QUOTE=Poysyn]
I think people forget too that someone in the military is not only expected to fill combat roles, they need people to back-fill positions on bases.
[/QUOTE]

During WWII the US considered drafting women into the Army Nurse Corps, but the plan was shelved after Japan surrendered. Israeli women are required to serve 2 years in a support role or if they want 3 years in combat. Men don’t have that option and must serve in combat.

47

[QUOTE=Poysyn]
I think people forget too that someone in the military is not only expected to fill combat roles, they need people to back-fill positions on bases.
[/QUOTE]

To do what? The base is just a place to hang-out and train when you’re not fighting the war. If you’re off fighting the war, there’s no point in the base.

People dont replace the unit when it leaves for combat. The barracks stays empty and the economy of the local city takes a dump from the sudden decrease of about 8,000 residents.

48

[QUOTE=Bear_Nenno]
The Majority? Are we counting socks too?

Anyway, just to try and make sense of my post which seems to have gone in every direction. Other units already enure all the issues with female integration: the privates have sex with superiors, having sex with many peers and causing cohesion and discipline problems, the accomadation issues of lodging and training, the pregnancy issues, the freakin hair issue. So it’s not like the infantry couldn’t overcome these things. But a lot of the problems are just too senseless, and its one reason people join comboat MOS positions is to avoid all the bullshit problems other units have. It’s more like being in an office or back in high school than it is actually being in the military. People join combat units to be a soldier, to train to fight and win battles. Support units do their support job–and while they’re supposed to keep up with combat skills like once a week, they rarely do. It’s like a day off as oppossed to a day of training.

But the bottom line is this. If women were integrated in to combat roles, they need to be treated as soldiers and nothing less. If males have to shave their heads during Basic, then so do females. If sandbags need to be filled, or if shit needs to get moved from one CONEX to the other, the supervisor should call out for “soldiers” to come help–not for “males” to come. I am all for an integration, provided there are enough willing women to make it worth the effort. But the biggest hurdle is that the very vast majority of men treat female soldiers as just females. And that is my biggest pet peeve. All I see is a uniform, and I expect everyone to perform. Females have lower standards and much, much lower expectations across the board.
I would fucking go insane if someone said, "Here, these are your new female privates. They can only do X, Y, and Z. Dont make them do this, or this, or this. Oh, and here’s the “female regulations”. Make sure you know the female standards along with the male standards now.
A soldier should be treated like a soldier, IMO. And until society and the military can see it that way, woman belong nowhere near a combat unit.

Oh… and "Shhhh. Watch your mouth, there are females over there… " :rolleyes:
[/QUOTE]
I saw something similar to this. There were too many 15Es when I enlisted and the only places we could be stationed were West Germany and Ft. Sill, OK. There were a limited number of Pershing units at Sill so they dumped us into any unit that had an opening. I was placed in a mechanized infantry unit.
I trained with them, carried a mortar plate on road marches, road in a tank. Our CO said we were all soldiers and it didn’t matter if we were Pershing Pukes or one of the pussies in HQ, everyone should be able to do the same job.
Then the Army, in it’s infinite wisdom, placed a female Spec4 in our units HQ :eek: . She wasn’t allowed to stay in our barracks (one woman with a hundred men). We gave her her own bathroom near the office. She had to take PT with us but, because her standards were set lower than ours, we could no longer run as far or as fast and our road marches were limited to our standard gear and were made shorter. We couldn’t even do some of our more “colorful” cadence calls. Eventually, the CO had to separate the PT and training regimens so the mech infantry guys would do the tough stuff, and HQ got off easy.
It lead to a lot of tension. Plus every guy in the unit was asking her out and hitting on her (she had a face like the back end of a warthog but she was the only game in town, so to speak). Finally the CO got her transferred to another unit and things got back to normal.
If a woman wants to be in an infantry role, she should be like GI Jane, shave her head, bust ass and accept no special treatment or consideration. She should be able to meet the same PT standards as a man in her age bracket, not the lowered standards the Army currently dictates.

49

I don’t like war, but I recognize that it is occasionally necessary. Operating under the assumption that your country’s very way of life depends on winning a war — and why else go to war? (but that’s a different argument) — the combat standards should be set high enough to win.

If you can’t meet those standards, but can meet the standards for support teams, you should serve there. That secondary standard should apply to men and to women.

Right now, for men, it’s combat or nothing. True equality would mean if a man can’t meet the front-line combat standards, he should be offered a support role, just as women are.

50

[QUOTE=Bear_Nenno]
To do what? The base is just a place to hang-out and train when you’re not fighting the war. If you’re off fighting the war, there’s no point in the base.
[/QUOTE]

You should know better. Behind every person who actually fights is a huge logistical chain. Who cooks the meals? Who’s the quartermaster? Who does the planning? How does all the equipment reach the front line? For example, a US aircraft carrier has about 6000 people on board, but how many planes are there on board?

51

[QUOTE=erie774]
I saw something similar to this. There were too many 15Es when I enlisted and the only places we could be stationed were West Germany and Ft. Sill, OK. There were a limited number of Pershing units at Sill so they dumped us into any unit that had an opening. I was placed in a mechanized infantry unit.
I trained with them, carried a mortar plate on road marches, road in a tank. Our CO said we were all soldiers and it didn’t matter if we were Pershing Pukes or one of the pussies in HQ, everyone should be able to do the same job.
Then the Army, in it’s infinite wisdom, placed a female Spec4 in our units HQ :eek: . She wasn’t allowed to stay in our barracks (one woman with a hundred men). We gave her her own bathroom near the office. She had to take PT with us but, because her standards were set lower than ours, we could no longer run as far or as fast and our road marches were limited to our standard gear and were made shorter. We couldn’t even do some of our more “colorful” cadence calls. Eventually, the CO had to separate the PT and training regimens so the mech infantry guys would do the tough stuff, and HQ got off easy.
It lead to a lot of tension. Plus every guy in the unit was asking her out and hitting on her (she had a face like the back end of a warthog but she was the only game in town, so to speak). Finally the CO got her transferred to another unit and things got back to normal.
[/QUOTE]

That’s exactly the shit I’m talking about.

52

[QUOTE=Quartz]
You should know better. Behind every person who actually fights is a huge logistical chain. Who cooks the meals? Who’s the quartermaster? Who does the planning? How does all the equipment reach the front line? For example, a US aircraft carrier has about 6000 people on board, but how many planes are there on board?
[/QUOTE]

They fucking get deployed too. It’s kind of hard to cook for soldiers fighting in Iraq unless you are also in Iraq, right? Same goes for the entire logistical chain and the quartermasters and everything.
You’re right, I should know better. And I do.

If people have a support role that requires them to go to Iraq to provide that support, then they go.
If they can do their support back stateside, then they stay.

But why draft a cook to fill the vacancy left by a cook who deployed to cook for soldiers in Iraq?? What the fuck is that drafted cook going to do in the states? Sit around and sling hash at the wall?

With very few exceptions, when people leave to go to Iraq, there is no need to fill some empty place they left behind.

53

You know what, I think I know where the confusion is. I think what you’re talking about was a problem in the past. Which is what brought about the restructuring of the Army.
The old way of doing things in the Army, was that support units would support several other units. So if they deployed to support a unit, then that would leave a unit in the states still in need of support. So there would be vacancies left behind that needed to be filled.
To keep with our example, that would mean there are still people left behind who need to have their food cooked.

In the new Army, the unit will have all of its support as organic elements. So when the brigade combat team deploys, everyone goes. And since each team is independant and self sufficient, none of the units who did not deploy lose part of their support.

54

Who said anything about drafting replacements?

As I understand it, only a small part of the military is in combat roles. Most are things like engineers keeping the vehicles and other machinery in working order. I think that is what is meant by support staff.

Any reason why women should not be drafted and trained in vehicle maintainance and sent to a base near the fighting?

55

[QUOTE=Anaamika]
Count me in as another who would disagree with the draft, and were it to take place would disagree with women then being included in the draft. I wouldn’t get pregnant but I’d protest and march and all that. I am all over women being allowed to fight if they *want *to. And if my country was truly in danger I would fight on my own, no draft needed. But I don’t believe my country **ever **knows when it’s right for me to fight nor has that right to make the decision for me.

I will never be behind a draft for women. Women are still fundamentally different from men in that for now at least they are the only feasible way we have to continue the next generation. Equal, but not the same. When we come up with a valid, fool-prrof way of making test-tube babies all the time (completely sans uterus) and the world is OK with it, get back to me then and I may consider it.
[/QUOTE]
How convenient. I’m sure you want all the privileges that men have, but when some really unpleasant societal obligation grabs you by the short hairs, suddenly there’s some sort of societal contract against women being drafted that only your gender remembers signing. :mad: OTOH, at least you have part of the answer to this .

This is the sort of reasoning that underscores why I’d never, ever lift a finger to help an unknown woman in need. They’d never help me, your protests notwithstanding; there’s always an excuse not to. Male labor is, I admit, often valued more than female labor, but that merely means they’re most valuable as slaves. Male life, however, is just another convenient throwaway item.

56

[QUOTE=Peter Morris]
Who said anything about drafting replacements?
[/quote]
Quartz mentioned it. He was bringing up the fact that when a unit deploys, they leave behind a bunch of vacancies and holes that need to be filled.
At first, I stated that this was ridiculous.
To use his Aircraft Carrier as an example, it would be the equivalent of saying, “Since this aircraft carrier deployed and left port with 5,000 men, we need to find people to replace all those men and women who deployed”
But after I thought about it, I realized that it did used to be a problem before the Army went to its decentralized structure. One battalion would support like 2-3 other battalions maybe. And if that unit deployed to support one of those battalions, it would leave 2 battalions back home in need of support still. So these holes needed to be filled.
The Army has all but done away with this issue with the Brigade Combat Teams. All the mechanics (people who fix vehicles are mechanics, not engineers) and all the other support roles are part of one team supporting the main combat effort. The main combat effort has their undivided attention. So they all stay together and when they all deploy somewhere, there is no need to fill the desks left behind. Because the whole purpose of those positions was to support the units that aren’t there anymore, anyway.

Yup. Very small percent. And the majority of those roles are National Guard units. I think 60% of the US Infantry is National Guard.

I think that’s the central question to this thread, isn’t it?

57

[QUOTE=Bear_Nenno]
Quartz mentioned it. He was bringing up the fact that when a unit deploys, they leave behind a bunch of vacancies and holes that need to be filled.
[/quote]

Not that I can see. Can you quote the exact words where he says that, perchance?

You are perhaps thinking of an entirely different poster who said "*I think people forget too that someone in the military is not only expected to fill combat roles, they need people to back-fill positions on bases. " * I’m not sure what back-fill means, but I interpreted Poysin as talking about draftees being sent into support positions such as cooks in bases near the fighting.

I don’t think that’s what he said. I understand him to mean that we need 5,000 people to serve ON that aircraft carrier, and only a small number will get directly involved in combat. A great many of those roles could be done by women as well as men.

Indeed, so how about answering it?

58

[QUOTE=Peter Morris]
I interpreted Poysin as talking about draftees being sent into support positions such as cooks in bases near the fighting.
[/quote]
Well I interpreted it as needing to fill the positions left behind by personnel who are deployed to a combat theatre.

Oh, well fucking excuse me. Quartz later rebutted my response to Poysin and brought up the aircraft carrier thing. I thought it was the same person. So fuckin sue me…

Um… Yea, even the combat roles. You do realize we have female fighter pilots, right? The combat AND support roles on the carrier can be performed by both sexes. What’s your point?

I already did. How about reading it?

59

Isn’t the Special Forces Company supposed to be able to operate independently without any kind of external support? :wink:

60

That would be nice.
Even SF Battalions have support companies. When I was with 20th, we had an HHC with cooks, riggers, intelligence, surgeon, driver/mechanics, and of course all the shops- personnel, intel, supply, logistics, etc. And I think there are even whole external support battalions that provide support at higher levels.

The company itself is only like 5-9 A-Teams and a B-Team.