# US passes NO WOMEN IN COMBAT law



## Fusilier (19 May 2005)

Seems the Americans are at it again.  Below is an article refering to the issue of women in combat, not just the combat arms but in support of combat units.  This would cause many military women to lose the positions they are currently filling.  Isn't this going overboard? Are we(they) returning to the dark ages?  When are they issuing the veils and locking the compounds?

Imagine if this were to happen in the CF?  Take a look at the number of women that are effectively employed in support roles within our Combat Arms units...clerks, medics, MP's, cooks, supply techs, mechanics etc....where does it stop?

Ladies..Gentlemen, comments?

_Hunter plan bars women from Army 'forward support' _ 
_By Dana Wilkie and Otto Kreisher
COPLEY NEWS SERVICE
May 18, 2005 

WASHINGTON â â€œ Duncan Hunter is defying the government's top brass, pushing a "no women in combat" plan that puts him on a collision course with the Pentagon. 

The issue revolves around a disagreement between Hunter, R-El Cajon, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, and the Army over a 1994 policy that prohibits women from serving in direct combat positions. 

The Army has decided to assign women to small support units in the 3rd Infantry Division, which was recently deployed in Iraq. The units, called "forward support companies," provide supply and maintenance services directly to the infantry or armored battalions whose job is to engage in combat. 

Republican proponents of Hunter's measure contend it affects only about 30 women. A senior Army official said yesterday the provision would bar female soldiers from nearly 22,000 Army jobs that now are open to them. 

Lt. Gen. James Campbell, director of the Army Staff, provided the figure in what Army officials said was a narrow interpretation of the measure. 

Regardless of the numbers, Hunter believes the practice violates Army rules that bar female soldiers from units "assigned a direct ground combat mission." 

After failing last week to persuade Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's aides to block the move, Hunter added a provision to prohibit the action in the fiscal 2006 defense authorization bill. 

"Rocket-propelled grenades, machine-gun fire and all the other deadly aspects of war will make no distinction between women and men on the front lines," Hunter said in a statement. "The American people have never wanted to have women in combat and this reaffirms that policy." 

Although Hunter and Rumsfeld have been in lockstep on nearly every issue involved in the war against terror, Hunter's break with the Pentagon illustrates what some critics see as his allegiance to social conservatives who don't want women in combat. 

Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness â â€œ a conservative group fighting the increased use of military women in combat-related roles â â€œ said the amendment is not a "restriction" on the role of female soldiers but merely "codifies" existing law. 

"Congress should have a say here," Donnelly said. "If they (the Army) have a good case, they should come to Congress and make their case." 

Donnelly acknowledged that the amendment would have no effect on the hundreds of female soldiers and Marines who are in military police or larger support units, and who risk being killed or wounded daily in a conflict that has no front lines. About 30 military women have died in Iraq since the war started in March 2003. Most of them were serving in transportation or other support units. 

Some opposed to Hunter's provision also say it will limit advancement for women in the military. 

"It is a reality in the military that if you want to rise up in the ranks and ever hope to have a decent shot at being a general, for example, you have to serve in combat," said Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women. Limiting women to "farther back combat support positions not only disadvantages them in their efforts to rise higher in military command, it also makes it very difficult to supply those (combat) units." 

Today, the Armed Services Committee is expected to approve the bill with the Hunter-backed prohibition, which the Armed Services' Military Personnel subcommittee included in a last-minute move last week that angered Democrats. Rep. Susan Davis, D-San Diego, who is on the subcommittee, planned a press conference today to criticize the amendment. 

Army leaders also oppose the Hunter amendment. In a letter to Hunter's committee, Army Secretary Francis Harvey insisted the Army "is in strict and full compliance with the Department of Defense policies regarding women in combat." 

"The proposed amendment will cause confusion in the ranks and will send the wrong signal to the brave young men and women fighting the global war on terrorism," Harvey wrote. 

Though Rumsfeld has not been involved in the debate, he is likely to support the Army. 

The defense bill must still pass the full House and be reconciled with the Senate's version, which does not include a provision such as Hunter's. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 The Washington Post contributed to this report. _


----------



## muskrat89 (19 May 2005)

Seems the Americans are at it again?

At what, exactly? Governing?  :


----------



## Fusilier (19 May 2005)

Sorry...point taken :-[


----------



## Rubes (19 May 2005)

Fusilier said:
			
		

> Seems the Americans are at it again.   Below is an article refering to the issue of women in combat, not just the combat arms but in support of combat units.



Wrong.

This is from CNN, 



> The language would put into law a Pentagon policy from 1994 that prohibits female troops in all four service branches from serving in units below brigade level *whose primary mission is direct ground combat.*



http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/19/women.combat.ap/index.html

Combat support is still fair game.   Women will be in combat support units, as opposed to direct combat units _providing_ combat support.   I don't see the problem.


----------



## Gramps (19 May 2005)

I must agree that some of the the attitudes and ideas expressed in the above articles are a bit archaic. As far as I am concerned if you are up to the job both mentally and physically then your gender should not be an issue. From personal experience I have worked with and along side women from The Canadian, Australian, United States and Norwegian Armed Forces to name a few and I have not had any real problems thus far. That is to say that I have seen both men and women in various trades that are equally competent or incompetent in their professions. I say "If women want to serve, regardless of which trade or occupation they choose then let them regardless of where their job takes them or what the conditions that they have to serve under are".


----------



## Gramps (19 May 2005)

I do not mean to compare the US military or any other Armed Force with the CF. I was merely pointing out certain out dated mindsets. The strength issue is certainly one of the many barriers that are against women, I cant argue that one bit. There is also the "No women in combat" or the more extreme "no women in the military" attitudes that some people hold but I think (and maybe I am being naive here) that these attitudes are slowly fading away as society evolves. You see women as Police officers and they get shot at, punched and kicked as well as their male counterparts and the majority of them are quite competent in their chosen profession. I do see and understand your points though.  Cheers


----------



## Infanteer (19 May 2005)

Aww man, not this stuff again....


----------



## aesop081 (19 May 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Aww man, not this stuff again....



Did you not see it comming ?


----------



## TCBF (19 May 2005)

I think the Yanks have integrated their women well.

Pvt English is getting a new trial, and Gen Karpinski got busted.  They never even would have been charged in the Canadian Forces.  We would have found some guys to blame. ;D

Tom


----------



## oyaguy (19 May 2005)

I'm kind of curious why this has come up for the Americans. Why are they trying to enshrine in law a policy that is already at work in the US military?

Look at the casualty figures {http://us.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/ look for the graphical breakdown}. With 35 dead females, I sincerely doubt how that women are taking a disproportion number of casualties.

What I'm trying to get at though, is this really an issue that should be legislated?


----------



## TCBF (19 May 2005)

No.  You are right.   For women to ever be taken  seriously in military terms, their casualties must eventually rise to a proportionate share.  If we have another Dieppe and half of the 907 dead are women, then we will have true equality.


----------



## swanita (19 May 2005)

Well, (& I'm NOT comparing us with the Americans) I just wanna say that in my unit (Toronto Scottish Regiment, infantry), we have a female Sgt who is WAY more competent than some of the males of her rank. She kicks some serious ass at times & a lot of people in my unit & others, think she's excellent in her role as a section commander & gunner.   She's much more hardcore than some other individuals I've known or come across in the infantry!! However, I'm aware that she is, in fact, an anomaly!!   ;D   I feel that if the chick is able to carry out her job in the combat arms effectively....why the hell not let her carry on in that role!!

I'm sure lots of   people out there will agree with me


----------



## Sub_Guy (20 May 2005)

I've said it before and I will say it again


BEST PERSON FOR THE JOB

Every service should be open to everyone regardless of sex, and let the best people do the job.  No Quotas, nothing....No black, white, male or female....Just a bunch of humans who are the best at what they do....................And let them do it


----------



## Infanteer (20 May 2005)

Ok, does anything have something to add from the story, or should I just add this to the 40 page bunfight that we had a couple months ago?


----------



## brin11 (20 May 2005)

Yes, please keep it on this specific topic or else we will lock it up.  Been there, done that, got the t-shirt.


----------



## ghazise (22 May 2005)

It is all political posturing, now lets think about, this amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill out of the House of Representatives to limit women to rear support, a missguided interpretation of defense policy, and an attempt to make defense policy into law.  The bill coming out the Senate is not expected to have any such amendment. The combined bill which is sent off to the President most likely will not have this amendment, and if it did, the President could do a line item veto.

Now hypothetically, if the amendment did become public law and no longer Defense Policy,  essentially eliminating women from the Army and Marine Corps, the Supreme would take up the discriminating Law, and rule that under Equal Protection/Application of the Constitution, that limiting women from any position in the Military would be unconstitutional.  Reversing Public Law and defense policy and hence women would be allowed into all Military Occupational Specialties.


----------



## GO!!! (22 May 2005)

For a perfect example of exactly why this legislation is being pursued - look at the jessica lynch story - We as members of the western world are not prepared to see our daughters come home in bags.


----------



## Infanteer (22 May 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> For a perfect example of exactly why this legislation is being pursued - look at the jessica lynch story - We as members of the western world are not prepared to see our daughters come home in bags.



Red herring - Jessica Lynch did not come home in a body-bag.

And, as for the 39 females that have come home like this (http://icasualties.org/oif/female.aspx), not much "unpreparedness" in the form of anger and emotion seems to be expressed; well, not anymore then the other 1800 or so that have died in Iraq.


----------



## TCBF (22 May 2005)

Does anybody have stats of US casualties by trade?   People always assume the combat arms in general - and infantry in particular - suffer the highest casualty rates, but I am not so sure that is the case in Iraq.

Remember, even mnvr units will have some integral CSS.  Our old 'Corps 86' ORBATS had something like 16 trades and 6 classifications in an armoured regt.  If we read that 3/164 Inf suffers ten dead, we assume the US has lost ten infantry.  Whereas, they may well have lost two veh techs, two turret mechs, four rad techs and two cooks when their HHC got mortared.


----------



## FastEddy (22 May 2005)

TCBF said:
			
		

> Does anybody have stats of US casualties by trade?     People always assume the combat arms in general - and infantry in particular - suffer the highest casualty rates, but I am not so sure that is the case in Iraq.
> 
> Remember, even mnvr units will have some integral CSS.   Our old 'Corps 86' ORBATS had something like 16 trades and 6 classifications in an armoured regt.   If we read that 3/164 Inf suffers ten dead, we assume the US has lost ten infantry.   Whereas, they may well have lost two veh techs, two turret mechs, four rad techs and two cooks when their HHC got mortared.




So far as you have probably read the Casualtie lists for U.S.,total 1811, 39 being Female and 12 of those
not by Enemy Fire. These Lists only seem to indicate Branch, Unit, Name Rank and cause of Death.

I imagine more detailed information must be compiled some-where. The use I can only guess at eg:
Total Causalities 1811, 611 Cooks KIA..
 Concern - Why the Hell and how did 611 Cooks get KIA. Action - immediate steps at all levels to replace them. 
Please note that it is not my intention to make light of this matter.

However, I would be quite interested in hearing how these additional statistics will assist you.

HAND.


----------



## TCBF (23 May 2005)

We have an Army that is stuck on the WW1 idea that only the front line soldiers die.   The prob is that, ever since the development of vertical envelopment - and even more so today - there is no front line.   We have a CSS and NSE org who operate and think on tour like they were posted to Lahr or Baden.   We have done a very poor job of instilling in all of our soldiers - especially CSS - the concept that any enemy with half a brain is going to try to kill the people who are NOT in the AFVs or trenches, vice those who are.   Some of our CSS types are doing a bit of professional study and swimming upstream trying to counter this WW1 thinking.   Others just seem to think that the guvmint wil pull them out of a gong show tour before anything bad can happen to them.

So, I will be interested to see if ALL pers on a tour know that  - whether or not they feel themselves to be a soldier - they WILL be a target.   And, like the pre-roto trg in Edmonton in spring 04 pointed out, the more prepared you look to do battle, the more chance they will pick on someone softer and slacker looking.

Stats will help us get this point across.   A lot of the dead are not young twenty year old grunts, some are 45 and 50 year old CSS types.   When our enemy looks at us, they only see one trade - TARGET.


----------



## FastEddy (24 May 2005)

TCBF said:
			
		

> We have an Army that is stuck on the WW1 idea that only the front line soldiers die.
> 
> Stats will help us get this point across.   A lot of the dead are not young twenty year old grunts, some are 45 and 50 year old CSS types.   When our enemy looks at us, they only see one trade - TARGET.




Very good point TOM, I take it you might be suggesting that the AF.s are lacking in keeping and bringing this
awareness to the forefront. Admittedly I am not up to date on Training or Awareness Procedures and cannot comment on this matter. But I was taught, that Trades Personnel should keep their Weapon handy and One Eye on what their doing and the Other eye over their shoulder.

Is this part of the meat of your concern and inquiry ?.

HAND.


----------



## Rebel_RN (24 May 2005)

Why is it that this debate/argument must be consistently brought up and talked to death? You can only beat a dead horse so long before you and the others watching get tired of it. I for one am at that point, it is an issue that no matter what happens will be brought up again and again from various parties around the world, for heaven's sake let it rest. is it just me or is any one else tired of this melodrama? :


----------



## old medic (24 May 2005)

It's talked about because it's a current affair. It's something that's going to be talked about for some time to come.
People are going to discuss this, and that is what forums are for.
Right now, this thread has some good discussion on casualties by trade, and how those numbers might relate to
the original news article. 
You always have the option of not reading the thread if your not interested in it.

OM


----------



## Fusilier (24 May 2005)

Thank you Old Medic, to Rebel_RN; apparently you've miss read some of this discussion.  The issue is not specifically about women in the infantry, it's about the fact that the US wants to remove female CSS from front line units.  These are positions that approx 22 000 US military women are currently serving in as medics, clerks, cooks, drivers etc.


----------



## Gramps (24 May 2005)

"Why is it that this debate/argument must be consistently brought up and talked to death? "

If you are tired of the topic then don't read it, and if you are sick of talking about it or debating it then don't post on the thread. Its as simple as that. Cheers.


----------



## Rebel_RN (24 May 2005)

My apologies, last night in my rush to respond I am afraid that I did miss some very key points. It's not that I find the article or the tread tiring it's that it seems no matter what women are able to do or how they are able to prove themselves there is always someone who doesn't want them on the "front lines" I guess that's what bothers me. The way I see it is, if a woman wants to be there she should be allowed to, we as women know the inherent risks that are out there yet we continue to joing the ranks. It's maddening when other's can't seem to see it that way. Granted, most women (certainly not all) are not as strong physicaly as men but with training and dedication women the world over have been able to overcome that obstacle. Women play a key and integral part in the forces and it's a shame to see that trying to be undermined. That's what I meant with my previous statement, just that i'm tired of having woman have to prove themselves adequate over the same issue time and time again.


----------



## Fusilier (24 May 2005)

Well said Rebel_RN, women don't always want to be combat arms (as you can tell by the difficulty we have in recruiting them) but are very happy to serve as CSS alongside their "brothers/sisters in arms".  In most cases the CSS (men and women) are well aware that although they are in a support role they may come under fire.  It should not come down to what sex you are that determines which unit you are posted to...a clerk is a clerk regardless of sex.  If I was a male clerk for example I would be asking why my female counterparts always get the "base side" postings and I have to go to the field all the time - fair - I think not.


			
				Rebel_RN said:
			
		

> Women play a key and integral part in the forces and it's a shame to see that trying to be undermined. That's what I meant with my previous statement, just that i'm tired of having woman have to prove themselves adequate over the same issue time and time again.


Again, well said!


----------



## LF(CMO) (24 May 2005)

Why is the CF the position on the above seem to be diametrically opposed to that of the US Armed Forces?


----------



## GK .Dundas (25 May 2005)

What an incredibly chuckleheaded  idea "would the ladies kindly move to the rear of the ambush!" Has any one explained to the ladies and gentlemen of congress what it's like to be in a shooting war?
Hey perhaps they should just  ban women period from the military. Of course if they did that about all the American military would be able to do is hold parades. :


----------



## Fusilier (25 May 2005)

GK .Dundas said:
			
		

> What an incredibly chuckleheaded   idea "would the ladies kindly move to the rear of the ambush!" Has any one explained to the ladies and gentlemen of congress what it's like to be in a shooting war?
> Hey perhaps they should just   ban women period from the military. Of course if they did that about all the American military would be able to do is hold parades. :



Can't stop laughing at that, move to the rear of the ambush... ;D  Good comeback.  I am thankful that the CF does not have the same opinion.


----------



## DogOfWar (26 May 2005)

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_women_051905,00.html?ESRC=dod.nl

WASHINGTON - Women in the military would be barred from serving in direct ground combat roles, under a House bill that sets Defense Department policy and spending plans for the upcoming budget year. 

The House Armed Services Committee approved the overall measure early Thursday on a 61-1 vote. The same committee in the Senate passed a different version last week. The House and Senate are to vote on their respective bills next week. 

President Bush requested $442 billion for defense for the budget year that begins Oct. 1, excluding money to pay for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

The House bill, like the Senate's version, envisions creating a $50 billion fund for the conflicts for next year - but provides no money for it. 

The measure also calls for increasing the military by 10,000 Army soldiers and 1,000 Marines, boosting pay grades for uniformed personnel by 3.1 percent and permanently providing all Reserve and Guard members access to military health care services. 

In a nearly 15-hourlong committee hearing, the most contentious issue was the role of women in combat. 

The language would put into law a Pentagon policy from 1994 that prohibits female troops in all four service branches from serving in units below brigade level whose primary mission is direct ground combat. 

"Many Americans feel that women in combat or combat support positions is not a bridge we want to cross at this point," said Rep. John McHugh, R-N.Y., who sponsored the amendment. 

It also allows the Pentagon to further exclude women from units in other instances, while requiring defense officials to notify Congress when opening up positions to women. The amendment replaced narrower language in the bill that applied only to the Army and banned women from some combat support positions. 

The Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps currently operate under a 10-year-old policy that prohibits women from "direct combat on the ground" but allows the services discretion to open some jobs to women in combat as needed. 

"We're not taking away a single prerogative that the services now have," McHugh said. 

Democrats opposed the amendment, saying it would tie the hands of commanders who need flexibility during wartime. They accused Republicans of rushing through legislation without knowing the consequences or getting input from the military. 

"We are changing the dynamic of what has been the policy of this country for the last 10 years," said Rep. Vic Snyder, D-Ark. 

Added Rep. Ike Skelton of Missouri, the committee's leading Democrat: "There seems to be a solution in search of a problem." 

The issue arose last week, when Republicans, at the behest of Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., added a provision that would have banned women from being assigned to "forward support companies." 

Those units provide infantry, armor and artillery units with equipment, ammunition, maintenance and other supplies in combat zones. The Army started allowing women to staff such support posts last year and says it is complying with the 1994 policy. 

Some Republicans aren't so sure. "The Army is confused. They're all over the place on this one," Hunter said. 

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Wednesday the Army is working with Congress and battlefield commanders "to find an appropriate way that's consistent with our country's view on that subject." 

He said the Army's attempt to reorganize and an asymmetrical front line on the battlefield muddies the issue. 

Rep. Cynthia McKinney, D-Ga., cast the lone dissenting vote on the overall bill.


----------



## 1feral1 (26 May 2005)

This was coming wasn't it, and I have no problem with women fighter pilots, helo pilots, etc, but face it, I am 100kg, 182cm, and if I am wounded, I don't think a 160cm 55kg woman would be able to 'fireman' carry me out. Just imagine QCB.

I guess its called 'lessons learned in combat', and after more than 2yrs fighting intense battles in a shitty far off land, full of an angry enemy with a vast cultural difference, so I am sure they are not talking out of their arses. 

Enough of the PC world, and I am not being sexist. I have worked along side with women in the field, and up at the pointy end here, but females are not allowed to be in cbt arms trades, yet can be in CSS trades in cbt arms units.

Just an opinion, and no female bashing here, its an age old agrument, and I know here I stand, but condemming this would be wrong, and besides its really none of our business as the US can do what it sees fit to benifit their forces. If it works for them, why not.

I am sure there will be a lot of relieved parents of female soldiers out there.

Regards,

Wes


----------



## winchable (26 May 2005)

Seeing as the combat appears to be afflicting roles that aren't traditionally combat I'd say that women will continue to be directly involved in it.


----------

