The Register runs a story today on the return of the 950th Combat Support Company, based in Los Alamitos. The online story doesn’t include the picture on the front-page of the print edition. It shows a young woman soldier greeting her niece. Fortunately, no soldiers were killed, although four were injured in combat and six purple hearts were awarded.
It’s part of the craziness of this war, and of American life the past 35 years, that women are in combat positions in the military, as this story shows. It isn’t well known, but about 75 women have been killed in Iraq, most by “hostile fire.”
There are numerous reasons why women should not be anywhere near where they can get killed:
- This may come as a shock to the women’s libbers out there, but women get pregnant. When they’re pregnant, they can’t fight. It’s not clear what the number is, but many women have gotten pregnant in Iraq and been sent home.
- Women’s upper-body strength is half that of men. That means they can’t lift some heavy equipment, which means the men in their unit will have to do more heavy lifting than if the unit was made up only of men. I had first-hand experience with this problem when I was in a U.S. Army Military Intelligence field unit in West Germany from 1979-1982. The girls in our unit couldn’t pick up ammo boxes, barbed wire, encryption devices (then quite unwieldy), etc. So the guys had to do more work. And this was in peacetime, where the major health hazard was the junky vehicles we drove would break down when you’re driving them (this hurt several soldiers) — not wartime where people are trying to kill you.
- The basic small combat unit that wins wars is the platoon made up of about six to 12 young men. That’s why boys play team sports with each side having about that many guys on it. Sports are training for war. This comes from everyone’s ancestry, only a couple hundred years ago, as hunters and gatherers. The men hunt, usually for animals (protein) to take home to the family, fighting other men if necessary; the women gather. That’s why you like to shop till you drop, ladies.
- The Israelis tried women in combat in 1948 and it was a failure. Military historian Edward N. Luttwak studied the matter and found, “Men moved to protect the women members of the unit instead of carrying out the mission of the unit.” Women were barred from combat in 1950, even though Israel is a small country with a manpower shortage.
Although President Bush presents himself as a “compassionate conservative,” there’s nothing compassionate or conservative about sending women into combat. Conservatives used to have a strong sense of chivalry, of protecting women and children. No more, apparently.
he problem, of course, is that women now make up about 15% of the armed forces, so sending them home would make even more acute the military’s manpower shortage. This is just another way in which Bush’s Iraq war, instead of making America safer, is hurting our country.
Myblog's Blog 
December 31, 2007 at 1:30 am |
Having just completed a 4 year enlistment in the Air Force as an F-15 avionics maintainer I have to agree. Not because I am a male chauvanist pig who has been programed by society. But because I saw with my own astonished eyes just how much of a farce the whole thing has become. A disconnect with reality and unrealistic expectations have led to a sh*tty situation that no one is willing to acknowledge. Jobs not normally considered dangerous have become dangerous.
I personally had a female friend who had enlisted in the AirForce after being promised that vehicle operators dont have to deal with the kill or be killed dilema. Yeah I know a far right conservative hanging out with a flaming liberal. Silly wasn’t it. She would not have to carry a rifle or touch an airplane that would kill. No guilt trip, but an opportunity to make a contribution to national security and to womens lib. Guess who got stuck with convoy duty? She had accepted an assignment to her second base because staying at her first would have meant convoy duty.
Guess what orders she recieved shortly after ariving at her second duty station? Did I mention that she had wanted to join the Peace Corps? She didn’t have a college degree so she opted for a different social program… the US military.
While I was a bit miffed about working in a building without windows and not getting deployed, she was sweating the thought of having to smoke a raghead with a 50 cal. Shortly before her departure to the ‘sand box’ an attitude born of fantasy resulted in many anticipating her return with medals and accolades for bravery and heroism under fire. No pressure. Another friend who was part of the same deployment went essentially ignored, on his way out, while he was deployed and upon his return. Men in combat is so passe. A woman, now that’s something worthy of attention. Did I mention that he was decorated for leading a convoy out of a dead end in a residential neighborhood known to be inhabited by insurgents (through fences and over a few lawns) after they had been abandoned by their Army escort? Again, no interest. He’s a guy, that sort of thing is expected.
What did she do? She didn’t say much, she didn’t want to lie or dissapoint anyone.
In the shop where I worked I routinely witnessed an equally bizarre double standard. A guy unplugged a piece of test equipment once and in the process a poorly routed ground wire touched the prongs. Sparks, and a damaged ground wire and AC plug resulted. He never lived it down, ridicule and insult were accepted as normal when one of us guys screwed up. A week later a female did the same thing and actually managed to get herself shocked in the process. The errant act was conspicuously ignored, covered for and accepted as cute. The guy previously mentioned had to repair the damage he did himself. While the later female simply spouted excuses as her supervisor and myself carried out repairs to get the equipment back online. Her complaints of a metal taste in her mouth were interpreted as physical toughness, not an embarassing reminder of a screw up that could have had much more severe consequences.
Females were routinely given support jobs and time off to participate in base do-gooder projects to get them off the shop floor (another favor the guys did them which could have easily been interpreted as discrimination had the females been more ambitious.) Less conspicuous efforts were made to contain those who insisted on having an opportunity to make a name for themselves. You know the type, always breaking things that didn’t need to be fixed.
Did I mention that all of those volunteer bullets made early promotions more likely for the females, while the guys who spent their time actually doing their jobs struggled to set themselves appart? If you do your job and as a result don’t have time to feed homeless people or wash the general’s car, then you must not be a stellar airman. The military knows just how to handle those people. Saddle them up with more work and responsibility. Pass them over for promotion to keep them where they are and refuse to give credit and recognition where they are due.
As a mediocre maintainer who simply did what he was told, I was miffed at having to watch the guys who did the bulk of the work (including things that I myself couldn’t fix) go ignored while the females who were even more of a pain than myself essentially skated. Having done a descent job of staying out of the way, I none the less received my fair share of ‘paperwork’ and ‘counseling.’ Fair enough, but what about the female dead weight? Oh I forgot, they can jiggle, wiggle and giggle. That more than makes up for any professional shortcomings.
The apparent cause for this absurdity seems to be that women’s lib makes sense in a college lecture hall but for some strange reason just doesn’t seem to work in the real world. In the military it has been generally accepted that the public has spoken. There will be women in the military and they will be successful. Any other outcome will simply be dismissed as sexual discrimination. This puts the military in the awkward position of having to recruit unmotivated females and manufacture their unqualified success. Say what you want about Bush, but he went to war with the product of 10 years of a kinder gentler circus. Responsibilty for the more unsavory and ineffective features of this war lies squarely with those who took the relative peace of the 90’s for granted when they pulled out the military’s teeth in an effort to preserve the self esteem of those who don’t belong in the military.
January 3, 2008 at 2:47 pm |
Oh what a load of crap this is – I fell off my office chair laughing at this guy…. I bet he never got farther than Airman 2C in his entire Chair Force career.
The thing that caught my eye the most? This guy’s statement that he
“… received my fair share of ‘paperwork’ and ‘counseling’…”
Oh, I certainly do believe he did. And, yeah, of course he was passed up for promotions and awards just ’cause he wa a poor widdle white guy. Uh-HUH.
As a former member of the US military – and as a female who did very very well indeed during my service (and is now employed at a Fortune 100 company and continuing to do quite well) – I can only say “thanks” for giving me a chuckle and fond memories of all the losers like this writer. It made it so, so much more fun to watch them flounder around in the military, not “get it” at all, and then blame it all on everyone else.
For this poster, I can only give these words of comfort and advice:
“The unexamined life is not worth living”
April 24, 2008 at 10:09 am |
Well, I am first of all an iranian, and might not appreciate the way you termed it the “sand box”, but i totally agree with you and what you say. I see nothing wrong with your remarks and fully support them. All of what you said makes total sense.
May 8, 2008 at 1:13 pm |
I think women are just as capable as men in combat zones. We’re strong, brave, and can handle WAY MORE pain that men ever could. Just because we may not have as much upper body strength as men doesn’t mean that we’re weak. I know lots of women that would kick ass out in a combat zone. And women know the risks just as well as men. There’s always a chance of getting killed in combat zones….or anywhere else. Life isn’t guaranteed. You could die just about anywhere. You could get killed by just walking down the street. Whats the point in worrying if you’re going to die in the military? Everybody dies someday. I think women should have the same treatment in combat zones as men. We’re just as brave, loyal, and strong as they are.
May 28, 2008 at 10:47 am |
I got news for all you female servicemembers. Air Force Maintainer just summed up 15 years in the Army for me. Its the taboo of taboos to talk about what working with females in the military is really like. Its never the same standard. Hell, not even PT is the same standard. Wouldn’t it stand to reason that if you want to be treated “equally” on the battlefield where the bullets don’t discriminate you’d have to at least be held to the same physical standards??
And you females that think, “oh I LOVE my section.” “They are really nice and we’re such a good team.” Let me tell you what your males are thinking, if you’re hot, “man I’d like to tap that,” and if your not, “G@#dammit, why do I always have to…” Yes, that’s right! There’s not a man I’ve met in the military that does any more that “tolerate” their female counterparts. Without you, we’d still drink beer in the company area and have playboys in the bathroom. Thanks.
Look, I’m not suggesting that women have no role in the military, I’m only saying that there is a vicious, PC double standard out there. Also, just because a woman can react to contact while mounted, dismount and put some rounds down range doesn’t mean she has any business in the battle plan for any offensive, movement to contact scenarios.
I’m 6 foot 220lbs. I and served with a Special Forces Unit in Iraq and I know what its like to move distances to targets in the middle of the night. With everything I had on, the speed we were moving, there’s no woman I’ve ever met that could’ve kept up. Sorry ladies. Perhaps some Olympic Athlete in tip top shape could keep up with the average male in decent shape. Moreover, once we got on target, you can’t imagine the fear we’d elicit by kicking in the doors of bad guys. Imagine if that stack was full of females. That’s just silly.
Now, for the final proof, ask yourself this: could the military survive without men? Hell no. OK, now ask yourself the same about women. Hell yes it would survive, and with better lethality and less distractions.
You can have every other facet of society, feminists, but the fact is that that more and more data is coming out of this war that shows what a catastrophe having “women in combat” really is. No matter how many BS Silver Stars are awarded to women for doing things that men would get nominated for an ARCOM downgraded to an AAM downgraded to a POB (pat on back) the fact remains that war is the realm of men. It’s what we do, sadly, and I for one don’t want to live in a world where mommies die in combat.
August 12, 2008 at 3:20 pm |
The problem is 1) that women are assigned to the same type of roles as men, roles that need physical strength that they don’t have to the same level. For instance, a woman piloting a combat plane is just as good as a man, you don’t need physical strength, it’s all about the skills. But a woman is not necessarily going to be as good if you have to say run X miles with X pounds of stuff on your back. Women should takes roles in things they naturally excel in better than men: Women have better sight at night and have a more acute sense of smell, taste and hearing. They also are better at language. Anyhow, they do belong in the army, but not as the positions as men. Men should take ground jobs, and women should become coordinators and pilots.