I am a former Army Officer and combat veteran. I was commissioned from the University of Arizona’s Army ROTC Program. As a Cadet and as a young Lieutenant I believed that women should not serve in combat units for all of the same reasons we are used to hearing; physical ability, unit cohesion, rape, capture, etc. However, as most of us know, actual experience vs theory often changes one’s opinion. Once in combat my opinion changed as I witnessed all of my seemingly legitimate reasons fall to pieces one by one; they just never materialized. I expected to see combat units fall apart once a woman was attached, I expected to see women fail physically on the combat field and get men killed, I expected to see women raped when captured, I expected to see men flee a post or duty because a woman was in danger ... none of it happened, none of it. Experience trumps theory every time, and when it does intelligent humans must begin to change their mind.
I am about 98 percent sure I could not have rose to the physical standard to serve in a combat unit, and I was in very good physical shape. I am not sure I would have wanted to. ... maybe? However, there are women who can, I know them, have served with them, and that opportunity for promotion and extension of one’s career, should be extended to them. I guess we will see, wont we? Many will try and few will be able to, and there will be a lot of injury and a lot of adjustment but we will see, wont we? We cannot fail to at least offer equality to women in the military. Our military has and must continue to take risk. We are taught as Officers that in order to crush your enemy one must take risk; so let’s just see how it all shakes out Hooah. Ponder this: right now there is a Senior Cadet at West Point or in ROTC that will likely spend her entire military career in a combat branch, and will be promoted to the General Officer ranks accordingly. Panetta’s decision is life-altering for women in the military, a little scary for some men in the military, but mostly it seems that talking heads and politicians with absolutely zero combat experience are the ones with all the “reasons” that women should not serve in combat units.
Shelly Burgoyne
Ahwatukee
Cerulean posted at 6:52 pm on Fri, Jan 25, 2013.
Yes, Shelly I agree. There are all kinds of women in the US, just like there are all kinds of men. I think most women who 'want' to serve combat duty should have the opportunity to do so. She makes that decision, I believe, by her choice of occupation specialty.
bobunf posted at 11:41 pm on Fri, Jan 25, 2013.
I wonder how much combat experience you've had Leon.
bubba posted at 9:13 am on Sat, Jan 26, 2013.
I see Leon has logged in his alter ego (Ateam1) again to make it appear as though somebody agrees with him. Pitiful Leon, just pitiful. But then I guess when you have multiple personality disorders you're never alone
Mike McClellan posted at 9:50 am on Sat, Jan 26, 2013.
I have no problem with women in combat, but they better be able to meet the same physical standards that are currently in place.
Any lessening of those standards to accommodate some women is not only wrong but dangerous.
downtownresident posted at 10:23 am on Sat, Jan 26, 2013.
I've never been in combat, nor the military, except for two years of mandatory ROTC in college. If women want to go to war, that's not for me to say.
But, my experience with my ex-wife leads me to believe that there are certain times of the month that some women would probably rather kill you than look at you.[beam]
bubba posted at 12:13 pm on Sat, Jan 26, 2013.
downtownresident ...LOL
Ateam1 posted at 7:56 pm on Sat, Jan 26, 2013.
Mike: I agree with you on this one.
Abstract01 posted at 2:30 am on Sun, Jan 27, 2013.
Heard a couple of American Legioneers speaking Sat. evening about this subject.
One of the ladies mentioned something called "bamboo spine" that afflicts women who have been carrying 80 lb. loads.
I don't believe that the proponents are considering this or any other long-term effects of their edicts.
Cerulean posted at 9:03 am on Sun, Jan 27, 2013.
I recall the movie ‘Saving Private Ryan’, where in a young man froze under stress. I also remember stories my father told me about WWII, before the all-volunteer military, he said there were men who had no business in combat situations; they could not function or handle duress.
Also, the military, in most cases, is not a place where the fastest or longest distance runners are trained; nor the heaviest weight lifters or the smartest individuals are sought. The military is an institution that fosters ‘group- think’, teamwork, oorah!
If a woman can train for a position and she wants that position, then I think there is no reason to keep her from jobs that were once off limits.
downtownresident posted at 9:19 am on Sun, Jan 27, 2013.
Anybody out there think that changes won't be forthcoming as a result of granting women combat status? Separate bathing and toilet facilities? Sleeping quarters? Assaults?
Let's see a show of hands.
Rich posted at 10:56 pm on Mon, Jan 28, 2013.
My wife is a master archer, within thirty yards, with her compound bow, she can kill anything that walks on the Earth. We planned a hunting trip to Canada, to hunt Bison. She had a shot, and dropped her bow on the ground. She'll eat them, she does that, in fact had Bison for dinner tonight. Always thought that made her better than I was. She wouldn't kill, and I would. Seemed a fair division of labor, I killed, she found reasons I shouldn't. I thought that might be mankind's salvation, that we split 50/50 on killing, and that eventually it would only be done in necessity, and then away from our eyes. Just when you find a way to make it better, some %^& politician finds a way to make it worse.
Bluepoet posted at 10:45 am on Tue, Jan 29, 2013.
There's nothing inherently wrong with women being warriors, if that is their desire, calling, and if they can perform, just as it is, for a man.
We glorify our warriors, as a species, and we probably always will idolize the athletic, the heroic, and the self-sacrificing that comes with being a warrior.
Will there be problems? Of course, as with any new social structuring. However, it seems that our military is always at the vanguard of these changes, as much as at the vanguard of protecting our freedoms.
I firmly wish that we, as a species, were beyond all of this, but I also know the difference between a wish for a more advanced society, and the reality of it not happening anytime soon, if at all...
DonMey posted at 2:43 pm on Tue, Jan 29, 2013.
I have no problem with women serving in combat role, provided they meet the EXACT SAME requirements a man is expected to achieve.
If the argument is that technology allows a woman to fight with lesser physical stamina, then shouldn't that be applied across the board?