Actually, we have used our troops to train femal units in UAE, which is about as conservative as you can get. In the not-so-distant past, a woman there might be considered unmarriagable if she had ever been outside her home. IIRC, they ended up becoming excellent marksmen. Women fight side-by-side in the trenches, even commanding units in Eritrea. Women have participated in many Muslim guerilla movements. It’s not surprising- the Koran has stories about warrior-women.
Contrary to RashakMani’s assertion, the ambush of Jessica Lynch’s maintenance unit in Nasiriyah is actually very typical of what happens in combat. How do I know? Because this is a textbook type of continegency that we trained for during exercises in the Mojave Desert. In our AARs (After-Action Reports), what we invariably learned was that in combat, and even in simulations, all too often the best laid plans invariably go to hell because soldiers being the people that they are, get lost, get mixed up, get flustered and sometimes do the wrong things.
When I was in the Army, our unit rotated practically every year to the Mojave Desert – aka Ft. Irwin or the NTC – for training in fighting and living in the desert.
My vantage point was a grunt in an infantry scout platoon, and the typical field problem was conducting night raids and ambushes on “blue force” rear-echelon units.
What our unit as the attackers-- or opposing force-- and the OC’s (observer controllers), learned over and over again was that regardless of the best-laid perimeter defense plans initiated by rear-echelon blue-force units in textbook fashion on every possible avenue of approach, highly motivated squad-sized elements such as ourselves were constantly able to use the element of surpirse to exploit some type of weaknesses or wreak the maximum havoc among such units, mostly b/c support units didn’t take nighttime defense seriously, were usually found sleeping at their posts, or had commanders who really didn’t understand the concept.
I remember one incident in particular – this was like 1989, before Gulf War I --where in one night our understrength platoon conducted three successful raids back-to-back on combat support units, including one ADA Patriot Missile Battery in a supposedly secure rear echelon areas.
In each incident, under cover of darkness and through the use of effective suppresive fire and a maneuver element, our squad-sized force was able to successfully overcome units in defense that were two to four times larger than our own. I remember when we raided a TOC or FDC of the Patriot BAttery – it was like 0330 in the morning – and officers would come running out of their tents in their underwear after we breached their defenses and shot their TOC to hell.
The point is, that when the shooting starts, invariably Murphy’s Law takes over. And as far as what I observed during such exercisesl, the only way to reduce the effects of chaos is with realistic and rigorous training – exactly like we did in the Mojave – as well as competent leadership – which we had, but so many support units didn’t.
And lest we forget, the question is not whether women should be allowed to serve in the military (they can), nor is the question whether women should be allowed to serve in combat arm MOS’s (infantry, armor, artillery, armored cavalry units, special forces) – they cannot.
The question is whether women are assets or liablities when serving in MOS’s that cut awfully close to combat, e.g., like Lynch’s truckdriver job, and other support jobs, which everybody agrees women can do, at least in peacetime.
I agree that being a combat pilot is a little different from humping a 100 lb ruck or driving a truck, and that women have proven that they can do just as well as male pilots.
However, because of women’s smaller frames, and lack of upper-body strength, I think women can become liabilities in ground support positions or become burdens on the rest of a ground unit, especially when the sh** hits the fan, i.e, when the bullets start flying.
I’ve seen situations in training exercises where women soldiers literally could not carry all their gear, and had to have the assistance of other soldiers help them carry it. Tsk Tsk Tsk.
I’ve seen women in the Army who couldn’t read military maps properly or do terrain association or land navigation worth sh**-- a basic infantry skill that every infantryman must be able to demonstrate proficiency on, not just once, but throughout their careers.
I’ve seen women in the Army who either didn’t know or completely forgot how to zero their weapons, because their support units only fire live ammo once a year for their annual qualification at the rifle range. (As an infantryman, not knowing, or forgetting how to zero your weapon is a mortal sin.)
I don’t blame the women though – I blame the inadequate training structure and the dumbed down boot camp that REMF soldiers go through nowadays (infantry, armor, artillery and special forces and armored cav soldiers have separate boot camps).
To be fair, I’ve seen just as many screwed up male support soldiers too. However, male peer pressure invariably makes male soldiers want to improve his skill set, and such f*** ups can invariably become better at basic soldier skills, given the right environment, support and personal initiative.
However, I’ve seen a lot of women support soldiers who do not get better, and stay the same, b/c they buy into their chain of command’s rationale that they’ll never have to do any fighting, and therefore, they should concentrate on their MOS-specific duties, such as cook, mechanic, truckdriver, personnel specialist, etc.
The Marine Corps. has a much better model for training their forces. Not only are women marines trained to be combat soldiers, but all marines are considered rifle infantrymen first, and their MOS/job second.
This doctrine does not exist in the U.S. Army, which currently believes that there will always be enough infantry around in the rear areas and behind the lines to protect REMFs in carrying out their duties. In Nasiriyah, this sadly proved to be not the case, as it instead became another example of how the Marines have it right and the Army doesn’t.
Well, then we agree with the slightest of caveats: The standards should relate to the task at hand.
Going by my own army experiences, some of the standards we had to live up to were not related to the job per se. Instead they acted as a filter to weed out the quitters & whiners before investing costly training in them.
As such, at least some of the tests felt as if they were simply designed to stress the applicants to the point where they would feel a strong motivation to quit. (I’m pretty sure we used more colourful terms at the time.) I think it’s a given that the physical aspect of some of these tests were designed for the traditionally male applicants and with the performance limits of the average male in mind. Tests of that character could be either changed to a unisex version (preferable) or have a male/female version.
Do you happen to watch “Survivor” ? An extremely well-trained male competitor (Osten) folded completely. I’m sure he could’ve done 5 times the number of push-ups I ever did. And I’m equally sure I was 10 times more of a soldier than he could ever become.
Beyond the strength/endurance issue I think the real issue is the difference between how men and women are taught while they are brought up. Since, forever, parents have given a boys digging/throwing/athletic toys and tasks. The girls have been given linen/frilly/home-play toys and tasks.
The boys are told just make up stuff to play with while the girls are given more family structured stuff to play with or play things that have an adult comparison.
In my opinion this leads to (for the majority, to which there are many exceptions) a man being better at taking orders and achieving tasks that have seemingly little logic or reason. and - A woman being better a taking orders and achieving tasks that fit into a form or template of logic. In real life you see it, men are the crazy ones who do something stupid for no real reason. The women are usually the more organized and less likely the do something that has no apparent logic to it.
That being said when it comes to armed forces in war there are plenty of illogical tasks to be done. Men fit into illogical situations without as much effort as women. It comes naturally for them, and there is no room for interpretations and questioning of orders in battle (even if its only to ones self)
Of course this doesn’t mean that every man or women is hardwired in the same way that anyone is a slave to a preordained brain.
It has not been my experience that there are “plenty of illogical tasks” in the military. Are you refering to orders that result in self sacrifice?
Illogical in the sense that the rank and file solder often times does not have the benefit of knowing why he/she are doing a task. They follow orders even if from their prospective they can’t see the reasoning behind it. Thats illogical, until you see the bigger picture. As a Sergeant I’m sure that you can look back at your earlier days and realize what seemed perhaps unneeded or illogical to you then now makes perfect sense.
Instantly obeying orders without interpretations and questioning is not natural for men, either. Anyone who has been through boot camp can attest to that. That is a conditioned response in good troops. You are taught to act like that, not born that way as a man. That’s what drill is for, if you have to think about “left face” you’re already facing the wrong way. Hear it, do it. If men were naturally good at that we could save a lot o ftime and money on training.
Um, you truly consider 'instantly obeying orders without interpretations and questioning" as an ideal, period? I’d say it depends a lot on the type of order. There’s a whole lot of difference between “dive” and “Go into that village and kill everything that moves”
Oh, and as for the strength/endurance issue mentioned by others, there’ve been plenty of studies that if anything, the endurance of women tends to be higher. Actual lifting capacity might not, but long-term tolerance to stress and hardship, including heavy burden, is. That might not be the case for EVERY woman, but it isn’t the case for every man, either. And while Iraq shows plenty of examples of male soldiers breaking under stress. resulting in the death of innocent civilians, most women with a propensity to do so would likely not even consider applying for a front line job.
We’re talking more along the lines of “Take that bunker”… and yes, obeying such an order instantly without interpretation and question is an ideal for a military unit’s effectiveness.
According to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, US Military Personnel must disregard any unlawful order, such as “Go into that village and kill everything that moves”. That’s not a “can disobey”, it’s a “must disobey” .
You’ve chosen a poor example. Lynch was in a maintenance company and not in a combat unit.
In his book Battle: Story of the Bulge about the WWII Battle of the Bulge, historian John Toland writes of men cooks crying real tears when a rifle was shoved into their hands and they were told they had been converted to infantry on the spot. And who can blame them?
Soldiers, men or women, when suddenly subjected to unexpected combat for which they have little training occasionally fall apart. As can anyone, regardless of gender.
This the OP of this thread is borderline insulting to military women, in my opinion.
In the U.S. Army, all MOS’s – or jobs – can be classified into four categories, which are.
- Combat Arms: Infantry, Armor, Artillery, Special Forces, Air Defense Artillery, Combat Engineer
- Combat Support: MP, Signal, Military Intelligence, Civil Affairs/Psyops, Chemical
- Combat Service Support: Adjutant General, Finance, Transportation, Quartermaster, Ordnance
- Service Support: JAG, Chaplain, Medical, Dental, Medical Service
Obviously, #1 consists of direct combat jobs. However, nowadays, #2 & #3 are seeing just as much combat or having exposure to “frontline” action as the combat arms people are, mostly b/c this the nature of modern warfare, especially in today’s assymetrical battlefield environment, e.g., Iraq.
Even sodliers in Service support jobs are susceptible to experiencing combat as they are usually assiged to TO&E units, especially medics (which are attached to every infantry unit), and chaplains.
The point is that in today’s Army, there is no such thing as a non-combat soldier, non-combat job, non-combat troops or non-combat units. Once you put on the uniform and carry a valid Armed Forces ID card, you are recognized under the Geneva Convention as a combatant, regardless of whether you were trained as a infantryman or a flute player, and in times of war, will be treated accordingly – by both sides. More specifically, in the U.S. Army all soldiers serve in jobs, units and/or commands that falls into one of the above four cats – CA, CS, CSS, or SS, which all have one mission in common in war: to support the combat arms, whose mission is to support the infantry.
Jessica Lynch’s 507th Maintenance Co. was a combat service support Ordnance Corps. logistics unit. Her MOS was “92-Alpha” – i.e., she was an “Automated Logistical Specialist”, or supply clerk. (What we in the infantry called REMFs).
The problem as her “Time” interview so succinctly described was that the “front” turned out to be “beside, behind and all around them.” Lynch herself said in the interview regarding the ambush and her unit’s preparation “…we never really had a chance,” and that her unit had never even trained on how to react to ambushes. Hell, they didn’t even have any defensive weapons, like a 50 cal or MK-19.
I think the problem is that the recruiter failed to impress on an ingenue like Jessica that every unit in the U.S. Army is supposed to be a “combat” unit, and that in modern warfare, there are rarely clearly defined front and rear areas. Even Army terminology has changed to adopt this new concept. Terms like “frontline” and “rear areas” are relics of a WW2-era set-piece battle theory last experienced in mid-intensity conflicts like Korea, and even to a certain extent in Vietnam.
However, in today’s fast-moving Air-land Battle concept theory of warfare, which applies to the invasion of Iraq, the term “frontline”, has been replaced with the more accurate “FEBA” – forward edge of the battle area. So while Jessica’s unit was not in the FEBA – or tip of the spear, so to speak – she definitely was in a combat unit in a combat zone – which was perhaps the last thing she ever expected to experience in her Army career.
In the U.S. Army, all MOS’s – or jobs – can be classified into four categories, which are:
- Combat Arms: Infantry, Armor, Artillery, Special Forces, Air Defense Artillery, Combat Engineer/Corps. of Engineers;
- Combat Support: MP, Signal, Military Intelligence, Civil Affairs/Psyops, Chemical Corps;
- Combat Service Support: Adjutant General, Finance, Transportation, Quartermaster, Ordnance Corps.;
- Service Support/Special Branch: JAG, Chaplain, Medical, Dental, Medical Service Corps.
Obviously, #1 consists of direct combat jobs. However, nowadays, #2 & #3 are seeing just as much combat or “frontline” action as combat-arms units are, mostly b/c this is the nature of modern warfare, especially on an assymetrical battlefield as we are experiencing in Iraq.
Even sodliers in Service Support jobs, like medics and chaplains are not immune to combat exposure, as such soldiers are usually assiged to TO&E units, especially medics (which are attached to every infantry unit).
The point is that in today’s Army, there is no such thing as a non-combat soldier, non-combat job, or for that matter, non-combat troops or non-combat units. Once you put on the uniform and carry a valid Armed Forces ID card, you are recognized under the Geneva Convention as a combatant – regardless of whether you were trained as a infantryman or an Army flute player – and in times of war, will be treated accordingly by both sides as such.
More specifically, in the U.S. Army all soldiers serve in jobs, units and/or commands that fall into one of the above four cats – CA, CS, CSS, or SS, which all have one mission in common in war: to support the combat arms, whose mission is to support the infantry.
Jessica Lynch’s 507th Maintenance Co. was a combat service support Ordnance Corps. logistics unit. Her MOS was “92-Alpha” – i.e., she was an “Automated Logistical Specialist”, or supply clerk. (What we in the infantry called REMFs).
The problem as her Time interview so succinctly identified was that the “front” turned out to be “beside, behind and all around them.” Lynch herself said about the ambush and her unit’s preparation “…we never really had a chance,” and that her unit had never trained on how to react to ambushes. Hell, they didn’t even have any defensive weapons, like a 50 cal or MK-19.
I think the problem is that the Army recruiter probably took advantage of her naivete, and sold her and her family downriver on all the travel and educational benefits, but failed to impress on an ingenue like Jessica that every unit in the U.S. Army is a “combat” unit, and that in modern warfare, there are rarely clearly defined front and rear areas.
Even Army terminology has evolved over the past few decades to adopt this change in warfare. Terms like “frontline” and “rear areas” are no longer used officially in the Army, as they are relics of a WW2-era set-piece battle theory last experienced in mid-intensity conflicts like Korea, and even to a certain extent in Vietnam.
In the Air-land Battle concept theory of warfare currently being promulgated by the Army, which applies to the invasion of Iraq, the term “frontline”, has been replaced with the more accurate “FEBA” – forward edge of the battle area. So while Jessica’s unit was not in the FEBA – or tip of the spear, so to speak – she definitely was in a combat unit in a combat zone – which was unfortunately, perhaps the last thing she ever expected to experience in her Army career if preparedness is a measure of such.
Like I said previously, I think women can do any job in the military that a man can do, as long as that job plays to their strengths. Facing direct ground combat in my opinion, however, does not play to a woman’s strength.
Women in the military have done, and can do exceptionally well in so many jobs. But put a woman in ground combat in a combat support, combat service support or even service support position, as Jessica was put in – and call me sexist if you want to – but I firmly believe that females invariably become a liability or teetering liability to a CS or CSS unit in a combat situation. What I mean is that Jessica’s presence aboard the HUMMVEE during the ambush in Nasiriyah was a total ‘null’ factor, i.e., it was almost as if she wasn’t there, and it wasn’t her fault either. She just was out of her element.
On the other hand, women have demonstrated great ability, skill and acumen while serving in MOS’s such as pilots, intelligence specialists, analysts, public affairs personnel, cryptologists, CID agents, etc.
My hope is not to insult women in the military, nor is it to discourage women from pursuing careers in the military. My hope is that women will enter the military with a full understanding of modern warfare, the services and how the combined arms work, before being seduced by the empty talk and invariable lies and ommissions that are oftentimes propogated by desperate recruiters.
Such ignorance may be unavoidable, but it’s rarely desireable. It’s my experience as a soldier and a (low-ranking) commander that troops work best when they know exactly what they’re doing and why. Better for morale, better for initiative, better for dealing with the unexpected.
That doesn’t mean that such provisions are actually applied. The Israeli courts stated an equivalent principle after the Kafr Kasem massacre, but not a single soldier successfully used it as a defense when refusing to execute orders in the territories, in fact the very same behavior -shooting indiscriminately at people out during a curfew- has been repeated time and again.
It especially doesn’t mean that the reciprocal is done: actually investigating if the death of civilians was, in fact, due to illegal orders.
However, your argument collapses in that the first paragraph excludes the second from having relevance. If orders are to be executed without thinking, then whether they are unlawful is not a factor at all. The soldier would have to reflect on the order, which you say he shouldn’t do.
There are laws against murder all over the world. That they are broken every day by some does not negate them. We are not allowed to follow unlawful orders, just as civilians are not allowed to break the law just because they were told to. Anyone in the US Military who does is breaking the UCMJ.
You’re right about the second part. I was using a phrase from my younger days in the Marine Corps, which is somewhat misleading. When you hear “left face” your brain is very familiar with the command. A platoon of marines will hear a command like that and react almost instinctively, that’s what the training is for. Commands to load your weapon, hit the deck, advance on a position are all things that can at least began to be executed without reflection. A command like “kill everyone in that village” is hardly something that can be done without thinking, unless maybe you have men who have been training for murdering non-combatants and children. There is no way NOT to reflect on an order like that. After having served time in the US Marines in an infantry (TOW Missile) platoon, The Army res. and The Air Force res. I can tell you unequivocally that average US Military personnel don’t train for that.
How do you know? How can you even proove that such an illegal order was ever given - or that, if disobeyed, it ever reached trial? If I ever refused such an order, all I’d get was a sterm admonition not to talk to the press… and the offending officer would have been forcibly welded to a desk.
[quote]
** in fact the very same behavior -shooting indiscriminately at people out during a curfew- has been repeated time and again.**
And yet, there has never been an atrocity even close to the scale of Kafr Kasem, where nearly 100 were killed. The fact is, that defense has never reached court because it was never needed - the precedent is enough of a deterrant.
You should read posts a bit better before replying to them. What I said was no soldier ever successfully used the argument in his defense when refusing to obey an argument.
The fact is that the lack of event does not prove an actual deterring effect exists. It can very well be caused by a lack of opportunity. The fact that kids are being shot at by tanks because they are out during a curfew suggests that in fact, no deterrant effect exists.
Several hundred reservists are refusing to serve in the territories, and the Kafr Kasem judgment is one of their prime arguments. Yet consistently, they are sentenced to prison terms.
That doesn’t mean he is convicted of doing so. Nor that the case is even investigated. The marketplace explosions in Baghdad never were, despite promises to do so.
The problem is that it is entirely unnecessary to train soldiers for that. All you have to do is to dehumanize the enemy enough, or scare the soldier enough. Once the soldier believes that the only proper reaction to hearing gunfire is shooting back at the enemy, and defines enemy as ‘anyone not wearing a US uniform’, it happens all by itself.
On Monday, three Iraqis, including a child, were killed when US troops opened fire after hearing a gun shot -on an arms market! Someone had been testing a gun sold there. Only one incident out of many in which civilians are killed due to indescriminate use of force after perceiving a threat. When you tell people often enough that it’s ‘kill or be killed’, you don’t have to tell them to go into the village and kill everything that moves. You only have to tell them to go there and take out hostiles, and watch the carnage unfold.
Cf. the fact that the British have criticised US checkpoint design from the very beginning, and the fact that it was a factor in many a civilian dying an unnecessary death.
I’m aware that there is, today, what in my opinion is the fiction that all soldiers are exposed to combat and should be ready for it at all times. They always were. However, I’ll wager that the maintenance company convoy that Lynch was part of didn’t have the support that units in combat are provided. For example, the ability to call air strikes or artillery support. The means and ability to report their position and request reinforcements to help. A logistical connection to get more ammunition if their supply ran low.
Lynch wasn’t the only one wounded or captured and the OP didn’t single them out for their failure. It is the doing of the Army command which, in order to score a PR coup, elevated Lynch to public notice. She didn’t ask for it and has since disavowed it at almost here first opportunity to do so and I’m at a loss as to why she is marked out for censure on the grounds that she is a tool of the feminists.
"United States v. Kinder1953
Kinder was tried and convicted of premeditated murder and conspiracy to commit murder. Captured a Korean intruder while on sentry duty at an ammunition dump. Later shot detainee on orders from supervisor, Lt. Schreiber. (see below)
United States v. Schreiber 1955
Lieutenant Schreiber was convicted of premeditated murder by general court-martial
United States v. Keenan 1969
Keenan was convicted for following an order to shoot an elderly Vietnamese citizen
United States v. Calley 1973
The court-martial and premeditated murder conviction of First Lieutenant William Calley for his participation in the My Lai Massacre on March 16, 1968"
The info above is transcribed from my handwritten notes during a class on this very subjet in US Marine Corps bootcamp in Aug 1990.
We are taught from the beginning that it is against the law to follow unlawful orders and that we will be prosecuted if we do, and are then given examples of soldiers who were.