US passes NO WOMEN IN COMBAT law

[TCBF]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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.

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)]

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

 

[GK .Dundas]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.