• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Women at War

Status
Not open for further replies.

big bad john

Banned
Banned
Inactive
Reaction score
0
Points
360
Feb 26, 11:14 PM EST

Female Soldiers Face More Danger in Iraq

By ROBERT BURNS
AP Military Writer



 
WASHINGTON (AP) -- When a roadside bomb in Iraq exploded on Feb. 9, Army Sgt. Jessica M. Housby became the 21st female soldier killed in action since the war began nearly two years ago.

That may seem a small number, given that hostile deaths among U.S. troops recently surpassed 1,000 and is getting closer to 1,500 when fatal accidents and other nonbattle deaths are included.

But by historical measure it is high, and reflects the fundamentally different nature of this war, where even a truck driver such as Housby is a target.

No one is suggesting that women be kept off the modern-day battlefield. But some question whether an Army that is being reconfigured to respond swiftly and more effectively to conflicts such as the one in Iraq is placing some female soldiers in what amounts to the front lines of fighting.

 
As in past wars, women are barred from units assigned to direct ground combat. That keeps women out of the infantry, armor, artillery, combat engineers and Special Forces. But it does not keep them out of danger.

The nature of combat itself has changed a great deal in Iraq since the toppling of Baghdad in April 2003. Within weeks a violent insurgency took hold. It remains a deadly force.

In Iraq, there is no front line in the traditional sense of armies fighting armies. The front lines are everywhere - at a site where insurgents lay an ambush, plant a roadside bomb, lob a mortar or detonate an improvised car bomb.

Thus it is not just infantrymen, trained to kill in close combat, who are dying in Iraq, although they are taking the heaviest losses. Soldiers whose roles are categorized as "support," where most of the women in the U.S. military are found, sometimes find themselves in the insurgents' line of fire.

Housby, 23, from Rock Island, Ill., had been in Iraq since October as a member of the Illinois Army National Guard's 1644th Transportation Company. Two other female soldiers of the Illinois Guard have been killed in Iraq - one by mortar fire, the other by a roadside bomb.

In all, 31 female soldiers have died in the Iraq war, including 10 whose deaths were declared nonhostile, according to the Pentagon.

The most recent death was Spc. Katrina L. Johnson Bell, 32, of Orangeburg, S.C., who died in a vehicle accident in Baqubah on Feb. 16.

In the 1991 Persian Gulf War, five women were killed in action and 10 were nonhostile casualties. In the Vietnam War, women's roles were restricted to administrative, medical and communications work that was mostly performed in more secure rear areas. During that war, only one woman was killed in ground combat. Five others died in military plane and helicopter crashes; two died of medical problems.

Shortly after the Gulf War, the Pentagon opened more military jobs to women, including piloting attack and scout helicopters. The military also spelled out the kinds of assignments that would remain off limits - any job requiring a female soldier to "physically collocate and remain with" ground combat units that are closed to women.

The distinction then was clear. Now, the Army is redesigning its main fighting forces to make them "modular," or interchangeable.

Some in Congress are asking whether the reconfigured combat brigades have placed women in positions that violate either the letter or the spirit of the policies meant to keep women out of direct combat.

Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said recently that his committee is investigating the matter. David Chu, the undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, said his office is "working closely with the Army staff" to review the matter.

Army leaders say they see no reason to doubt that the policy against assigning sex-integrated support companies to ground combat battalions is the correct one.

In letters to the Republican chairmen of the House and Senate Armed Services committees in mid-January, Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey said his staff had reviewed compliance with the relevant laws and policies on women in combat in light of the new configuration of Army brigades.

"My assessment is that in our new brigade combat teams no women will be assigned to a unit below brigade level whose primary mission is direct ground combat," Harvey wrote. "Neither will women be routinely collocated with units assigned a direct combat mission." Therefore there is no policy conflict, he said.

Not everyone agrees.

Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, says the Army is misleading Congress by denying that women in support companies are being placed at the front lines of combat. She argues that the presence of female soldiers beside male ground combat troops undermines morale, weakens cohesion and could lead to troublesome "romantic entanglements."

"You set a precedent that would affect all of the combat units, including Special Forces and the Marine Corps. These are radical changes," said Donnelly, a leading opponent of expanding the role of women in the military.

A senior Army spokesman, Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks, denied that the Army has altered its policy on women in combat. He stressed that female soldiers are making major contributions in Iraq.

"We're not interested in glossing over the reality that women are exposed to the hazards of combat," he said.

---


 
Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, says the Army is misleading Congress by denying that women in support companies are being placed at the front lines of combat. She argues that the presence of female soldiers beside male ground combat troops undermines morale, weakens cohesion and could lead to troublesome "romantic entanglements."

Unfortunately, when you treat poeple like children they are likely to act as such.  Is this not the same argument the U.S uses when refering to allowing homosexuals in the military?

I think what gets me on all of this is that they are inadvertently telling the men that the women are more important and the men more expendable by placing the men in combat situations.  As honourable as this may seem on the surface (protecting women I mean) it is degrading to both sexes.

It's obvious that, with Canada's stance on women in front line roles, that we indeed have a different culture.  That and poutine of course.
 
They just need to look to the north and see how the Canadians serving in places such as afghanistan match up to the male counterparts.

It's like religion, when a new age dawns you have people accepting it (like homosexuality) and you have people sitting in the bandstands shouting it's wrong.

Might aswell suck it up and get on with life because sooner or later it'll come to fruition.  They joined for a reason and they knew you could die, so quit whining.
 
If women aren't allowed to fight directly then why do they train women Marines.  Do these women marines only do non-combat arms duty which takes away of the uniqueness of the Marine Corp (if thats the case).
 
Interestingly enough, all Female Marine recruits are segregated and trained by Female DI's from the Males for Basic Training at Parris Island.   From what I can tell, they prefer the system that way because it allows the women to focus on training to become a Marine without having to worry about the boys who will almost always outnumber them and leave them behind because of their physiological differences.
 
Infanteer said:
Interestingly enough, all Female Marine recruits are segregated and trained by Female DI's from the Males for Basic Training at Parris Island.   From what I can tell, they prefer the system that way because it allows the women to focus on training to become a Marine without having to worry about the boys who will almost always outnumber them and leave them behind because of their physiological differences.


Never knew that!, Questions, didn't Russia use Females in WWII Combat Zones and were just as efficient and deadly as their Male counterparts ?.

Haven't Women been fighting alongside their Men through out the ages?.

If a person (female) volunteers to fight and die for her Country, whats the problem with where or how she does it?.

Is a Soldier is a Soldier, is a Soldier with a weapon pointed at the Enemy. Believe me a Woman can kill just as quickly and without thought or compassion as any male, so why the distinction or concern now?.

Is this some product of the Victorian Age?.

You being a Infantryman, would you have any reasons or concerns about going to the front with several Women in your Platoon?._
 
CFL said:
but are they allowed to go to the front line and do battle
What "front lines"?  During Desert Storm 1, I saw US MP's in Hummers manning MGs.  They were women.  My only concern about someone backing me up is that they can hit their target.
 
What "front lines"?

Of course, that's the whole point of the article.  It's very hard to distinguish what this line is in today's modern warfare.  If the U.S. Government is hoping to stand by their decision to keep women out of combat situations and away from the front lines they will have to remove them from jobs they have been holding for years.  This will just open a whole new can of worms.

Interestingly enough, all Female Marine recruits are segregated and trained by Female DI's from the Males for Basic Training at Parris Island.  From what I can tell, they prefer the system that way because it allows the women to focus on training to become a Marine without having to worry about the boys who will almost always outnumber them and leave them behind because of their physiological differences.

I've heard of the success in this training method and remember reading an article where females and males were segregated for "Power" training in the Air Cadets with remarkable results.  The only flaw is that neither sex has been training together (in the case of the USMC) but are expected to work together without any depreciation of output.  Since they were not together during basic training they have not been given the opportunity to learn how to work with each other or gauge the reactions of the opposite sex in stressful work situations.  Now they are expected to deal with them in an operational (albeit supposedly non-combat) situation.  This can lead to many problems and several misunderstandings.
 
big bad john said:
What "front lines"?  During Desert Storm 1, I saw US MP's in Hummers manning MGs.  They were women.  My only concern about someone backing me up is that they can hit their target.
[/color

If you had said a rifle  your point could be considered, but a weapon basically designed for rapid supressing and strafing fire on possibly a moving platform.

As for "What front lines", maybe the center and immediate area of armed engagement with hostile forces whilst under fire from said forces.

Your first reference to the Female M.P.s is positive and complimentary however you then take it all back by
saying you "hope they can hit their target".

These Women who have volunteered to fight and die for their Country, should be allowed to do so, where ever and when ever.

If they are going to be killed, I would imagine they'd rather die with a weapon in their hands defending them selves than a typewriter by a suicide bombmer.
 
You mistook my reference.   All I care about anyone who supports me is that they can hit their target.   Please do not infer that I am not supportive of women in combat.   

Personally, I think anyone would rather have the means to defend themselves, not just women. 
 
Strike said:
Of course, that's the whole point of the article.   It's very hard to distinguish what this line is in today's modern warfare.   If the U.S. Government is hoping to stand by their decision to keep women out of combat situations and away from the front lines they will have to remove them from jobs they have been holding for years.   This will just open a whole new can of worms.

I've heard of the success in this training method and remember reading an article where females and males were segregated for "Power" training in the Air Cadets with remarkable results.   The only flaw is that neither sex has been training together (in the case of the USMC) but are expected to work together without any depreciation of output.   Since they were not together during basic training they have not been given the opportunity to learn how to work with each other or gauge the reactions of the opposite sex in stressful work situations.   Now they are expected to deal with them in an operational (albeit supposedly non-combat) situation.   This can lead to many problems and several misunderstandings.


Boy are you out in left field,  Basic MarineTraining is,Shit,Yelling,More Mud,More Yelling,Hard work and all the Stress you can handle for both Male and Female Recruits. And that goes right on down the line which at the end produces a Marine, Male or Female.

When a Marine looks at another Marine (male or female) all they see is another Marine who's been there, done that. And a bond and comradship unsurpassed.

 
In this scenario, Iraq (the whole country) is the Front Lines.  The "Rear" is in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Germany, Sierra Del where ever, Where ever the Americans are staging and supplying from.  So in fact the US Army IS committing females to the Front Lines.

 
When I served, the women were outnumbered by the men in field postions, but they were not uncommon. The women who wanted and could meet the same standards as the men certainly performed as well.  I think the Americans are buying the worst of both worlds, if they permit women to serve, but not fight, they guarantee that the women who do encounter insurgents will be a)not embedded in combat formations, and b)not trained/prepared for a firefight.  A woman trained to fight, serving seamlessly with her fellow soldiers can be expected to perform better in unexpected combat situations, because she will react like a soldier, not a female-non-combatant.  I have served with many women who would have no problem sending insurgents to Allah if ambushed, with the same discipline and elan as any of their male counterparts.  Perhaps if insurgents met more women like this, they would become less of a target.
 
Even the title of this article irritates me "Female Soldiers Face More Danger in Iraq". More danger than their male counterparts? Maybe. But only because they likely lack the skill and confidence necessary to defend themselves should they come under attack because they have not received appropriate training.

Or is it more danger than than they would face at the county bake-off? Because I get the feeling that the powers that be, or at least the reporter conveying their stance, would like to see women tethered to their mix-masters and female soldiers shackled to their desks (or dentists chairs or whatever they deem appropriate and to be 'out of harm's way').

Obviously they are facing danger! They are soldiers in a war zone.

And this statement is simply ignorant...

...the presence of female soldiers beside male ground combat troops undermines morale, weakens cohesion and could lead to troublesome "romantic entanglements."

Nevermind women for a minute....what does her statement say of the men of the US forces? That they are all pig-headed, sex-crazed, jackasses? Lets give everyone a little credit here.

IMHO, as long as a person is mentally and physically able to do their job, it doesn't matter what their gender is. Most women (and men) join the military knowing what they are getting into. And most just want the opportunity to do their jobs and make a difference.

:cdn:
 
big bad john said:
As in past wars, women are barred from units assigned to direct ground combat. That keeps women out of the infantry, armor, artillery, combat engineers and Special Forces. But it does not keep them out of danger.

This is what happens when the brass of a military refuse to let poltically correct idiocy get in the way of combat effectiveness.  There are several things about Americans that I am not the biggest fan of; but the way they run their military is indisputably correct in this regard!

ps said:
IMHO, as long as a person is mentally and physically able to do their job, it doesn't matter what their gender is.

PLEASE.  While great advances have been made in the field of gender equality-which is good-a women has no place being on a battlefield anymore than a man has working in a daycare.   All PC dogma aside, no one can argue that there are basic physiological and psychological differences between the genders that place limitations upon roles that they are naturally suited to do.

There are hunters and there are nurturers.  One generation of feminism can never completely undo the results of eons of evolution.  Women truck drivers, male nurses-fine!  Women infantrymen . . . hell, the title itself is a study in contradictions!

To silence those of you who would label me a sexist; consider this. There is a big difference between sexism and realism; I am a realist.
 
I have fought beside women in combat situations for the last 23 years.  They work as well as men.  By the way, my nephew who spent 5 years in the Royal Marines owns and operates a daycare in Belfast that has won awards for the last two years.  Ask I guess under your rules he shouldn't be doing that.  I am glad that you are not Prime Minister.

Please ask anyone who has served with women in combat zones how they feel. 
 
mo-litia said:
To silence those of you who would label me a sexist; consider this. There is a big difference between sexism and realism; I am a realist.

Are you sure you want to stick to your guns now that a combat-proven Officer of the Royal Marines has told you that you're talking out of your hat?
 
On the Russian Front during WW2, the Russians utilised full battalions of women armed with PPSH41 SMGs to great effect against the Germans. I reckon when its the fate of your homeland at stake, things change.

During frontal attacks outside of SMG range the Germans picked them off with their 7.92mm Kar98K's and MG's, but as the women came closer, with the Germans now in range of the 7.62 x25mm cartridge, the overwelming SMG firepower of a battalion of women was a proven sucess.

So never sell trained women soldiers short. Its our culture which prevents them for being on the pointy end.

Here in Australia, women are NOT allowed in combat arms trades, although I have seen RACT females driving gun tractors etc, so there are loopholes for them to be 'in the shyte' but from a different angle.


Cheers,

Wes

 
mo-litia said:
PLEASE.   While great advances have been made in the field of gender equality-which is good-a women has no place being on a battlefield anymore than a man has working in a daycare.   All PC dogma aside, no one can argue that there are basic physiological and psychological differences between the genders that place limitations upon roles that they are naturally suited to do.

There are hunters and there are nurturers.   One generation of feminism can never completely undo the results of eons of evolution.   Women truck drivers, male nurses-fine!   Women infantrymen . . . heck, the title itself is a study in contradictions!

To silence those of you who would label me a sexist; consider this. There is a big difference between sexism and realism; I am a realist.

I completely agree that certain people are not suited to certain tasks. But being male does not endow you with the mental and emotional fortitude necessary for the battlefield anymore than being female makes you a caregiver. This is not an issue of political correctness...at least not in my mind. If a person can do the job...let them.

:cdn:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top