Per this story Women taken out of Army squads women are being moved out of direct combat ground brigades. Is this is a prudent decision or not? The concerns of why women should not do these jobs is not addressed in the article other than citing a lack of “public support”. What specifically are the reasons they will not let women fight in direct ground combat squads and do these reasons make good sense or are they mainly based on sexist sentiments about what women should and shouldn’t do?
Until training methods are changed, I support the exclusion of women from small unit ground engagements as a matter of strategic planning.
Training methods currently accpet different performance levels by sex. Combat does not make that distinction. That doesn’t mean you ignore the fact that women can’t do push-up as well as men. It means you train everyone to deal with what you do after you can’t do push-ups any more. Big men fulfill some needs in combat and small men others. If training were done with the expectation that whatever skills and abilities you have were what you would be required to do, the sexual dimorphism would be just another factor.
That is not the case. Now it is a political factor. Commanders are expected to know what units have women in them, and that affects every combat decision. That is a weakness, in combat. Not the women, but the political influence of our society because the women are there. The army can’t change society. But it can change its combat strategy on the basis of that reality. Failure to do so is like any other strategic failure. Unimportant until you die in the field.
Tris
“Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.” ~ Sun-tzu ~
Yes, they are capable of doing anything a man can if not better!
There is the question of menses, though: many women have severe pain, nausea, diarrhea, dizziness and fatigue while on their period. I can’t imagine this would be good in a combat situation.
As long as a female soldier can complete the same level of training and meets the same requirements that the male soldiers can, I have no problem with it.
The only time I have concerns is when the requirements are “lowered” so females can get in.
Also, like it or not, men often instinctively seek to protect the women in their midst – whether necessary or not. In a combat situation, that can be disastrously bad.
So regardless of whether the women can do the job, their presence could be putting the mission at risk.
Men also instinctively run in terror when presented with mortal danger. Men instinctively don’t want to fight against great odds. The whole point of having professionally trained soldiers is so they can consciously rise above their instincts. I don’t see how the instict to protect women is any different.
I doubt if any woman who was incapacitated by her period ( a minute fraction of women anyway) could pass through Basic Training.
No, women should not be part of the combat arms of the Army or the Marines. (Infantry, Armor, and Artillery.)
Britian has recently concluded so in rather extensive studies. They show that women fatigue quicker then men, are more prone to stress-fractures during forced marches then men, can carry less gear then men, all on average.
While there are no doubt exceptional women who can easily meet the physical requirements, the military does not run on exceptions, it runs on averages.
There is a great article at http://www.strategypage.com/search.asp target=d:\inetpub\strategypageroot\dls\docs\20010910.htm&search=women dealing with this issue.
Absolutely!
I’ll be here in the bar, watching the football game. 
You raise a good point. However, the men are specifically trained to NOT run in terror in war. I don’t know that they are specifically trained not to protect the women though – at least, not currently.
Mnd you, I’m not saying that women should NEVER be allowed to serve in ground combat. However, if the men do wind up being overly protective of the women, then that would be an argument against letting the women serve for now. (Alternately, one could prohibit the men from serving, but that’s not likely to happen.)
If women do wind up being such a distraction, then I would consider that to be an argument against letting them serve in ground combat until the men’s training is changed to circumvent this. In addition, of course, the women should be able to demonstrate that they are up to the demanding physical challenges.
If she can endure long marches, use speed when necessary, carry all her own supplies like everyone else does, and fire a weapon accurately, I have no problem with it.
But a good point was raised above, namely the reactions of men to women present. If the cost of “retraining” men to be undistracted by the presence of women exceeds the cost of simply not using women on the battlefield, than they could justifiably excuse them. A military is a business, and victory is always the goal. If we’re spending money on some sort of namby-pamby program to make women more accepted by male soldiers, that’s money we aren’t spending on Tomohawk missiles and helicopters.
Personally, I imagine it would work out fine. Just no special treatment for the women, no special barracks, no special accomodations of any sort. Treat them the same, hold them to the same standards, and it should all work out. The exception, IMHO, is some of the physical exercises. Women have different muscle structures than men. As long as she can carry her pack and equipment, who cares if she can do 50 pushups or 100? The core field survival requirements should be the same, but general fitness exercises should consider differing physiologies.
bernse and RexDart said everything I wanted to say.
Looks like most people have already said my opinion; If they can pass the same tests everyone else can, of course they should be allowed in. Weakening the tests to allow certain people in is not good, though.
And a very big part of the basic training is teaching how to work in a team and what they’re supposed to do in a team. If a drill instructor saw one male recruit going against that training to help out a female recruit to the detriment of the whole team, BOTH those recruits would probably get a pretty serious reaming. If you remove the gender references in the last sentance, that’s how it’s done now.
And, of course, the whole mensus bit… Any female joining the millitary would go through 2-3 periods (Depending on branch of service) before leaving basic training. If they couldn’t handle themselves there, they aren’t moving on.
I’d be in favor of some sort of special forces duty for women. They might be better able to go unnoticed in some areas. It would certainly be unexpected.
Canada has allowed women to serve in all branches of the military, including front-line combat units, since around 1990. In my reserve infantry regiment, we had two women who had no problem keeping up, and there wasn’t an attitude of protectiveness on the part of the men. I think that argument is a straw man.
The training to prevent men from being distracted is the normal training itself: learning the capabilities of your squad mates, trusting them to do the same job as you do, and to look out for you the way you look out for them. Training in the infantry admits no special care for weak members, who are weeded out: the unit helps weaker members along only on the expectation that extra help is required to get them up to standard, at which point they’ll pull their own weight. If a woman survives that training, I can’t see a male soldier having any particular regard for her safety that he wouldn’t have for anyone in his unit.
In fact, in covert operations it would be pure folly not to include some women. Being an undercover cop is very dangerous, perhaps worse than modern combat, but we put women into those positions. You have to, it adds so much flexibility. Perhaps in some cultures, a woman wouldn’t be seen as a threat. Could you imagine some woman walking right up to Saddam Hussein while he didn’t think anything of it, and then blowing his brains out? I can, and I like it 
As for the menses argument, or the physical standards argument, it’s important to note that many women will self-select not going into the military on the basis of their own perceived fitness. If I was laid up with cramps once a month, I wouldn’t think of soldiering as a good career option, just as I wouldn’t if, as a man, I had serious back or knee problems.
Yes, but you have the intelligence to weigh that factor. What about the woman–ack! I forgot her name–who won a court battle to become the first female at the Citadel, and then expected special treatment?
Forgive me for not knowing my squadron from my platoon, but if men instinctively protect women then why not have an entire squadron/platoon of women?
As far as the menses situation, I used to swim and I was able to train just as much during that time of the month.