Wait a minute. You’re the one saying that feminists should be fighting for women to be eligible for the draft, even though there is no draft and won’t be one in the foreseeable future. But it’s the feminists who are putting “idealism over real world practicalities”? I’d say it’s pretty damn practical of them to decide that eligibility for a non-existent draft is irrelevant in the real world.
:dubious: The military has a…rather firm position on following orders. Somehow I don’t see "But she’s a girl!" cutting it as an excuse for disobeying orders.
Protecting women and children is one of the primary reasons for military power to begin with. It would be rather counter productive to draft them to the front line then. To assign them to any combat position in fact.
Cite that specifically protecting women and children is one of the primary reasons?
Well, I will certainly give that evidence the all the weight it’s due.
Eh. I don’t understand what gender has to do with one’s ability to shoot a rifle accurately. I do think size, regardless of gender, might have some effect on a soldier’s ability to make a forced march carrying 65-85 lbs of equipment. I suspect there’s a lot of never mentioned concern about a female POWs being raped by the enemy. They’re now beginning to mention the large percentage of female soldiers being raped by soldiers in their own units.
When I was in the Coast Guard, women were being integrated. Since it was in the Dept of Transportation, not Defense and a non-combatant Armed Force (unless a drug boarding went wahoonie shaped), the laws forbidding women serving on warships didn’t apply. So the Coast Guard Academy was the first service academy to accept women. By the time I was in, there were women in non-traditional specialties. I was an Electronics Technician and female ETs weren’t exactly common, but they were accepted. I served as an instructor and at the school I saw women go through Radar school, ET, Telephone Tech, and Gunner’s Mate schools. I wasn’t away of any women going through Damage Controlman’s school. And I commiserated with a female friend fighting her way into and through Electrician’s Mate school.
As it turned out, the real problem with females serving on Coast Guard ships was berthing and bathing. On larger cutters, it wasn’t much of an issue; this 6 person berthing area was declared female only, that one was declared male only. Not much of an issue with single person heads or shower stalls either. Smaller ships had problems. After I had gotten out, the CG got a pretty nice 110’ cutter to replace the 95’ boats. But after they had been out for a while, it was decided to refit them to accommodate mixed gender crews. So they had to add a 13 foot section for more berthing. Well, the new 123’s turned out to be unseaworthy and that whole class had to be retired. They should have figured in mixed gender when they first designed the 110’s. I bet they don’t make that mistake again.
Hm… I don’t agree. I think the comparison is too facile. Our current military is the strongest in the entire world, without conscription. Our economy is the strongest in the world…but would not be so without taxation.
The actual real-world experience suggests the argument is wrong. We need taxation now…and we do not need conscription now. The two cannot be compared against each other in that straight-up fashion.
Meanwhile, there are lots of us alive who remember the last large-scale use of conscription: the Vietnam war, where the draft was not used to protect our country, but to support a foreign adventure in propping up a nasty totalitarian regime. That one really bad example still stinks in the nostrils of a lot of people.
Generally speaking, conscription does have a number of practical drawbacks :
Firstly, and probably most importantly, draftees tend to leave in a hurry as soon as their mandatory minimums are over with; taking their valuable experience and training with them. Then you get to start over from scratch with a whole new bunch of unmotivated, malignantly lazy fuck-ups like yours truly. Enlisted personel tends to stick longer. You can stagger the rotation so that every unit will have at least a few guys who know what they’re doing at any time, but then that also means every unit will have a whole bunch of greenhorns dragging everybody down. Ask the Russians, who throughout the Cold War basically begged, blackmailed or threatened anyone with a smidge of actual skill to stay longer.
Secondly, morale tends to rise a bit higher and discipline be a tad firmer when you’re not forced to be there against your will and presumably have a personnal stake in wearing the uniform. Volunteers are not the kind of people who drink their planes’ radar coolant when the vodka ration’s late.
Thirdly, as seen in the Viet-Nam war, morale issues pass on to the general population, worsening support for whatever military adventure the country’s up to, which in turn directly impacts performance through the laws and decisions of the suits in charge, who have to pander to the civilians. It’s no big for a military dictatorship (like the Wehrmacht), but… well, Viet-Nam.
A 105 pound 5’0" woman … on PMS … at the trigger of an M61 … God I hope she’s on my side !!!
I think that women should be exempt from the draft, but then I’m not a feminist. I would think culturally conservative people would be much more likely to say 'women should be exempt from the draft than feminists would be, so it’s odd to me that the OP seems to be blaming feminists.
We don’t face a true national emergency now though.
Go back two wars though; conscription was needed in WW2. FDR was able to get the first ever peacetime draft in US history passed through Congress because he saw the national emergency coming. That rapid expansion of the Army and the time spent training, exercising and shaking things down before the US entry into the war happened just in time. Even with the wild popularity of the war and the mass of volunteers flooding in after Pearl Harbor, that surge of patriotism didn’t produce the manpower needed for the war and the draft continued throughout the war. Going back to the Civil War, a national emergency if ever there was one, the draft was needed to produce enough warm bodies. The argument can also be made that blatant military adventurism ala Bush’s invasion of Iraq is made much easier with an all volunteer military. Everyone’s sons and daughters aren’t being put at risk and the sentiment that they knew what they were signing up for was one often expressed at the time.
But yeah, Vietnam and the stink that the draft left is a- or rather the big reason for the popularity of a volunteer military. It also leaves a bit of a distorted view on the relative battlefield merits of conscripted vs. volunteer militaries. The US military was not defeated in Vietnam, but it was reduced to a shambles due to the unpopularity of the war which evinced itself in a breakdown of discipline, insubordination, racial tensions, fraggings of officers and widespread drug use amongst military personnel by the end of the war. The conscripted military that was sent to Vietnam in 1965 was a very good and professional one. Eight years of fighting an increasingly unpopular war took a very great toll on it; the one that left in 1972 was in very bad shape.
It’s weird to me when the women who would volunteer for combat positions are characterized as being super touchy feely and feminine. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, and it’s possible to go too far in the other direction for the tomboy stereotype, but from my (very limited) experience women in the military are the type who would probably beat you up as a kid and steal your lunch money. Or light things on fire. Not so much with the dolls. Unless they were taking their heads off.
This was a bigger factor in the past. Population growth is bottlenecked by the number of women, so making women cannon fodder is suicidal. But that doesn’t really apply nowadays, does it? The world is too integrated and people can move around too easily for that to matter.
But another consideration is that, even with that granted, maybe there are conflicts in the past where one side could have won if they had included women in the army. Especially in a fight for survival. May as well throw out everything you have if everyone in the city will be slaughtered if you lose anyway.
I kinda think if we had women on the front lines and we had a real war and there were pictures of hundreds or thousands of women dead there would be a huge outcry. Less so if a ship went down with hundreds of women on board.
Agreed. Among other reasons, we don’t use cannon-fodder tactics any longer. We fought the two Gulf Wars and the war in Afghanistan with a very low casualty rate (certainly when compared to WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam.)
The American people have become accustomed to relatively bloodless wars, bolstered by force-multipliers, technology, and extensive (and expensive) training. A woman can program and launch a cruise missile every bit as competently as a man.
This bothers me. I am very touchy freely and a feminine woman. I just happen to have heavy weapons quals too (they may be out of date now, my job has changed). As a matter of fact, when it went to Jamaica with hubby, the resort staff was beyond amused that I was the one in the military (army luggage tags). It took him a good twenty minutes to convince them (then the comment was “But she looks like a Barbie” - wanted to punch them, but I did not).
Now, while I agree we do have women that are a little masculine, not all of us are - despite the fact I am not a tiny, petite-type female.
Please don’t stereotype all women in uniform this way.
Okay, hijack over. Carry on.
I believe that male – only draft is a great injustice to men.
Draft is also an injustice to minorities who do not identify with their country. Why should they fight for USA?
Thank G-d there is no draft in USA.
women can be in the combat “IF” the can pull a full geared soldier ( which can be 200 lbs plus depending on the individual ) out of line of fight to cover
if they can not do that, they are open targets … which in that situation, who is going to pull them to cover along w/ the one that was already injured
Yes, it’s well known that no women or children died in WWII. They were all protected!
Women are being assigned to combat positions–if they meet the qualifications. There’s no draft now & no plan for one.
I do wish the macho he-men in this thread would tell us of their own, personal experiences in combat. (A boxing ring doesn’t count.)
You’re being unfair. Men are physically stronger and larger than women. Being mad that I point that out is your problem I think and not any flaw in my reasoning. I’m not saying physicality the only factor involved. But to pretend it is not a difference at all is a bit unrealistic.
This is actually one of our yearly physical assessments, reagrdless of job, to be able to drag 250 pounds over a set distance (if I recall correctly, it’s 50 metres). It used to be a fireman’s carry - until someone realized that, if under fire, we really wouldn’t be carrying someone upright (bigger target).
It’s actually tougher than you think, but not impossible if you do weighted squats in training. During the test, you lift and pull by the straps (simulating the tactical vest straps), can’t stop and can’t put the weight down. The weight is a bunch of sandbags together, in a body-shape. Completely dead weight.