If women can defend Fort Hood, they can defend America.

[Are_grits_groceries]

Fort Hood, Texas, hosts tens of thousands of men who are trained to fight for their country. But none of them stopped Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan as he blew away 13 of their colleagues Thursday afternoon. It was a civilian police officer, Sgt. Kimberly Munley, who confronted and shot him in an exchange of gunfire. For her trouble, Munley took bullets in both legs and an arm. Maybe the president will pin a medal on her.

Here's a better way to honor Munley: End the ban on women in combat.

Department of Defense policy states that "women shall be excluded from assignment to units below the brigade level whose primary mission is to engage in direct combat on the ground." According to the policy, "Direct ground combat takes place well forward on the battlefield."

Well forward on the battlefield? In Iraq and Afghanistan, there is no forward. There isn't even a battlefield. We're living in a world of car bombs, snipers, suicide bombers, improvised explosive devices, and civilian airplane attacks. The battlefield is everywhere.

So are women. By the most recent count, courtesy of ABC News two weeks ago, there are 10,000 female personnel in Iraq and 4,000 more in Afghanistan. They're driving trucks, treating wounded, and shooting when attacked. More than 100 have given their lives in Iraq; another 15 have died in Afghanistan.
<snip>
Exposed to hostile fire? You mean, like Sgt. Munley? I'd say she acquitted herself pretty well. So did Spc. Ashley Pullen, who earned a Bronze Star in Iraq by running through a line of fire and using her body as a shield to save a wounded soldier. Spc. Monica Brown got a Silver Star for rescuing five injured comrades under heavy fire in Afghanistan. Sgt. Leigh Ann Hester led her team through a line of fire in Iraq to outflank and destroy the insurgents who had ambushed her convoy.
<snip>
That's the right principle. But its application needs updating. Today, combat is everywhere. Even on a stateside military base, a civilian police officer can find herself under fire. Like other women who have faced such threats in Iraq and Afghanistan, Kimberly Munley put the needs of her military and her nation first.

The exclusion of women from combat is a failed social experiment. It's time to end it.
http://www.slate.com/id/2234862/

To be fair, the soldiers on an army base aren't armed at all times so they were at the mercy of the shooter. However, Kimberly Munley is proof that women can handle combat. Not all women can, but neither can all men.

As stated, it's a joke to state that women won't be on the front lines. In most of the wars or whatever fought now, there are no front lines. It may be ten yards from you without warning.

[vadawg]

1. disagree with you on this one, engaging in a firefight in combat is a lot different than engaging

an active shooter, combat is much more physically demanding and whether we like it or not men and women are physically different, and these differences are glaring when you start to look at endurance, stamina and strength. Kudos to the officer for bringing this guy down but we shouldnt be using that as an excuse to make a mistake that we will come to regret...

[Are_grits_groceries]

2. They are in combat though.

They are thrown there by circumstance now, and no rules can change that. Because of circumstances women through history and today are thrust into the thick of things in certain countries. They have been no less formidible.

We aren't fighting the huge battles of WWII anymore. A lot of engagements are now more against armies that don't run along old parameters of battle.

In Iraq, we were caught flatfooted because the soldiers were not prepared to fight an insurgency. They weren't trained for urban combat against irregular forces. They didn't even have a manual for this kind of fighting until well after the war had started.

I remember hearing people here getting mad because the Iraqi opposition wasn't fighting right. I'm sure the British back home during the Revolutionary War were saying the same thing. There is no one 'right.' If we can't adjust to fight the way engagements are taking place now, we will lose our forces needlessly.

Women need to be trained for combat and used that way. They are being thrown into situations that they have to handle whether they have received the training or not. As was stated, there is no front anymore. Everybody better be ready for combat.

[vadawg]

4. they all are trained for that eventual firefight, but what i think you want is something different

i believe you want to make the teeth arms co ed, this is something that wont work, for reasons that are self evident due to the differences between men and women. Yes women have performed well in combat in the past, but its simple biology in the end and the male biology trumps the female when it comes to the attributes needed for combat....

[whathehell]

9. Do you mean "balls"...?...Honestly, it doesn't help..Just a place of vulnerability.

[vadawg]

44. no i mean endurance, stamina, strength, you know the things that allow a body to lift more, further

and for longer.. you know simple biological differences, the same reasons that women dont play sports at the same levels as men..

[whathehell]

45. Actually, vadawg, I believe women have more endurance than men

I believe that is a biological fact.

[aquart]

3. No way, Jose. No. No. No.

Sometimes people get the oddest ideas in the name of equality.

[Are_grits_groceries]

5. I'm not talking about equality in the name

of running around as an agent from NOW. Read what I wrote.

You can say NO until the end of time, but women are now in combat whether you like it or not. The rules of the 'game' are changing, and if women are in country, they are going to be all in.

[vadawg]

6. yup any combat veteran from the teeth arms will come to the same conclusion

for me its the emotional thing as well, you would end up with a lot of little sister syndrome going on, this is when under stress guys start to adopt the females as being under their protection, you end up with the guys carrying load for the females and generally looking out for them to the detriment of the mission...

[Are_grits_groceries]

7. I always think of this person and her story.

I wonder what she would say about women in combat if she were still here.

What would you say to her now?

A Death in the Class of 9/11


http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1540856-1,00.html

That is the picture that always gets to me.

[Bluenorthwest]

15. That sounds like an issue for the men. Not professional of them.

As usual, the men want to blame the women for their own issues. I assume the chain of command says they are equals to you, but the men reject the order, and 'adopt' their fellows, to the detriment of the mission? Were they ordered to 'adopt' them? Or were they ordered to fight along side them? If the men are derelict in their duties, that is their problem, their doing.

[eShirl]

8. absolutely.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

10. Who are "we" defending against?

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

11. [phone]

[C_Lawyer09]

12. You answered your own question

Woman are in combat, and you're right there are no front lines. Having acknowledged that, one would have to examine what exactly women are prohibited from doing. Appx. ten specifically combat jobs, infantry, artillery, combat engineer etc. It's mainly a practical matter. Though I'm not opposed to working with a female ground pounder, it's a rare women that can hump a basic load of 75-100 lbs for any length of time.

[old mark]

13. Women have been conscripted into the Israeli Defence Force for decades

and can volunteer to serve in direct combat jobs. Women cannot by law be ordered into direct combat jobs without volunteering because of the instances of rape and sexual abuse if they are captured. Women ae usually drafted for 2 years, men for 3 years - women volunteering for combat are in service for 3 years as well - this is because of the length of extra training given to Israeli combat soldiers. Even the women not in combat roles are given basic arms and combat training becasue there can be times when they will be fighting due to circumstances of war.

Women also provide a large number of soldiers in the Border Patrol and some special combat units.

FWIW, openly gay soldiers serve in the Israeli military witn no discrimination since 1993.

mark

[Bluenorthwest]

17. Gay soldiers serve openly in the militaries of all the oringinal

NATO nations except for the USA and Turkey. That is the fact of it. Israel as well as you say.

[noamnety]

21. I don't know what to make of this:

"Women cannot by law be ordered into direct combat jobs without volunteering because of the instances of rape and sexual abuse if they are captured."

Given how many women are raped by their fellow US soldiers in their own barracks, and that women contractors over there have to sign statements basically agreeing that it's okay if their coworkers rape them, why am I reading an explanation that the policy is because women are likely to get raped if - hypothetically - they were caught by the enemy?

Is it worse to be raped by the enemy than by a US soldier or US contractor?

[Are_grits_groceries]

22. That's a good point. nt

[old mark]

29. Don't get mad at me - it's Israeli law. Go piss on their leg. nt

[noamnety]

30. I thought you were bringing it up

to explain it was a reasonable justification for women not serving in combat (in the US as well).

I guess I missed your point or its relationship to this thread, if it wasn't that.

[Gwendolyn]

32. Perhaps female Israeli soldiers don't face the same issues. n/t

[DRoseDARs]

14. Know what would have been a hoot and would have made freeper heads explode?

If Sgt. Kimberly Munley were a lesbian. Not saying she is, just saying "DOES. NOT. COMPUTE." would be the phrase of the day on Planet Wingnuttia. They'd be walking into walls all day trying to process the information. :hide:

[StarfarerBill]

16. 110% with you, Grits!

The continuing sexist prohibition of women in combat is a sign of the lingering fear men in power have of being usurped by equally, or even more, capable women. This, one of few remaining bastions of male dominance, should be torn down and thrown in the dustbin of history along with the rest.

[C_Lawyer09]

27. Definition

There obviously is no shortage of women in combat right now, as the battlefield is no longer liniear in nature. As I mentioned before, there are only a few jobs that women are not able to enlist for. As I previously mentioned, there are few women that biologically can haul a 100 lb. rucksack for any length of time.

[Are_grits_groceries]

28. See post # 19 .

Weight is an issue for all apparently.

[StarfarerBill]

41. All women who can pass the physical requirements...

...for the infantry, armor, Special Forces, combat aircraft and ships, etc., should be allowed to go on any and all missions only men are now authorized to undertake.

This is more than a stopgap measure due to shortages of male combat troops (as in Iraq and Afghanistan); it's giving female soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines the opportunity to fulfill their duties in any way for which they're qualified, not just what they are allowed to do under the current duty segregation regime.

On edit: it will also give them more tools with which to render male sexual assailants inoperable, if you'll pardon the euphemism.

[vadawg]

43. the biological differences between the sexes seem lost on some

its not just a matter of humping 100lbs of gear over a long distance its having the ability to then fight a battle at the end of the hump, physically males are more likely to be able to do this. People who dont get this have never had to hump the load and dont realise how difficult it is to do....

[itsrobert]

18. Armed Woman = Unarmed Men?

"Fort Hood, Texas, hosts tens of thousands of men who are trained to fight for their country. But none of them stopped Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan"

These men weren't armed at the time. The officer was and doing the job she was trained to do. Not sure if you are saying that unarmed men should have been able to take the killer down?

[Are_grits_groceries]

20. Here is my comment after the article:

"To be fair, the soldiers on an army base aren't armed at all times so they were at the mercy of the shooter. However, Kimberly Munley is proof that women can handle combat. Not all women can, but neither can all men."

I think I addressed that statement.

[Are_grits_groceries]

19. The issue of weight that is carried is being reviewed and not because of women.

<snip>
With the Corps now preparing for a long stay in Afghanistan, Marine officials are pushing forward with plans to cut weight from the 65-plus pounds other than armor, researching lighter ammunition, a better pack and next-generation optics and gear that could improve agility and combat readiness.

“As an expeditionary force, we say that we are fast, austere and lethal,” Commandant Gen. James Conway said Aug. 13 at the 2009 Marine Corps Energy Summit. “In order to be fast, you need to be light.”

The plans reflect new needs for Marines, who have performed patrols primarily in vehicles during the last few years in Iraq. It’s another story in Afghanistan: Last year, 2nd Battalion, 7th Marines, of Twentynine Palms, Calif., conducted about 70 percent of its patrols on foot, and suffered more than twice the joint, back and chest pain than did members of 1st Battalion, 9th Marines, who deployed around the same time to Iraq from Camp Lejeune, N.C.

In 2/7, about 27 percent of the 786 Marines who completed post-deployment health forms reported experiencing back pain, with 23 percent reporting joint pain and 4 percent acknowledging chest pain, said Mark Richter, head of the Marine Expeditionary Rifle Squad program that oversees efforts to engineer existing gear to best suit Marines. By comparison, 13 percent of 1/9 Marines reported back pain, with 9 percent experiencing joint pain and 2 percent acknowledging chest pain.
<snip>

There's a lot more in this article about changes they are looking at. A reduced burden would make a much more mobile force, and a healthier one.

Note: During the Civil War, Stonewall Jackson wreaked havoc in the Shenandoah Valley. One tactic he employed was rapid movement. His troops carried little, moved fast, and ended up in places nobody expected them to be. They also had an advantage in that they knew the land.

The enemy in Afghanistan has some of the same advantages.

[BootinUp]

23. Ripley convinced me a long time ago.

seriously though, I think women should be able to serve in combat if that is what they are good at and want to do.

[Warpy]

24. Women have always been on the battlefield

only in less enlightened times, we've been there in drag as older teenagers.

Some women will always volunteer to join the fight and they need to be allowed full access. They'll pull their weight, they always have. If some men have problems with it, then that's their problem, not ours.

Forcing us onto the battlefield, though, is not a good idea because few of us are inclined that way.

[StarfarerBill]

42. Exactly.

During World War II, the Soviet Union formed units of female artillery troops, and fighter and bomber pilots; from all historical accounts, they performed every bit as well as their male counterparts. Had the need been even more dire, I imagine Stalin would have authorized the formation of female infantry units.

Women also fought in the Republican militias in the Spanish Civil War (or Revolution, depending on how far left you are) before the Communists forced the Republican government to allow women on the front lines only as cooks and nurses.

They fought in many partisan units in World War II and with a great number of liberation groups against the colonialist powers, including in Viet Nam, Africa, and Central America.

Let's face it: it's a conservative mindset that proclaims that women are less capable than men in any field of endeavor; is that the kind of non-thinking we progressives would want to do, much less admit to?

[philly_bob]

25. Glad to see you're feeling better, Grits. /nt

[Are_grits_groceries]

26. Thanks.

My brother kept me safe from rampaging Palmetto bugs if any were on the loose.

[DerekG]

31. Yeah, let's throw some more folks into the meat-grinder

If the gals want their share of imperialism and murder, let 'em. They'll find out how empowering it is to massacre goat-herders and children.

[Are_grits_groceries]

34. What do you think some of them are out there doing now.

They aren't knitting in Baghdad or Kabul. It's not about empowering. It's about the reality of what is really going on.

[Iggo]

33. They can and do. (n/t)

[Arugula Latte]

35. I agree, but when was the last time our military "defended" this country? WWII?

Seems to me it's always we go bomb the shit out of brown people for corporate gain.

[krabigirl]

37. seriously

[krabigirl]

36. No thans, our wars have nothing to do with defending America. ro

But sure, I'd fight on the front lines if we were actually being attacked. I don't want more of our children going to wars of offense.

[anonymous171]

38. Some people don't care about anything unless it directly affects them

Those people need to wake up to the reality of our current foreign policy. I see no better way to do this than forcing their sons AND daughters to fight our imperialist wars. People need to realize that empires are not built by "hard work" but by coercion.

[Retired AF Dem]

39. If you knew anything about an Army base

you would know the Army is very anti-gun. NO active military carries a firearm with ammo anywhere on base except for the range. That brave young woman that shot that Islamic terrorist was a DOD Police officer. A Govt Civilian Police Officer.

[C_Lawyer09]

40. Enlightening

Thank you for taking up the simple explanation, of the seemingly unexplainable. I've heard more crazy generalizations about about the military, forts bases posts etc., especially relative to guns on fed installations than I'm likely to see on any combination of discussion boards for the next year.