published Thursday, January 24th, 2013

Women in Combat

about Clay Bennett...

The son of a career army officer, Bennett led a nomadic life, attending ten different schools before graduating in 1980 from the University of North Alabama with degrees in Art and History. After brief stints as a staff artist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Fayetteville (NC) Times, he went on to serve as the editorial cartoonist for the St. Petersburg Times (1981-1994) and The Christian Science Monitor (1997-2007), before joining the staff of the ...

124
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
carlB said...

Under the "guerrilla type" of long wars of Afghanistan and Iraq without front lines, then if Women are allowed into the military, the war zones cannot be separated between where the troops are. I will be the choice of the women who volunteer.

January 24, 2013 at 12:34 a.m.
EaTn said...

The Bush's duped war in Iraq would have been short lived had women been allowed in combat there. Once women veterans (and often moms) started coming home with missing limbs, the absurdity of that war may have been brought to light much sooner.

January 24, 2013 at 6:59 a.m.
mlhshu said...

This change opens up career opportunities in artillery, infantry, and armor units that were previously off limits to women.... 'for better or for worse' -- to use marriage verbiage.

January 24, 2013 at 7:15 a.m.
MTJohn said...

EaTn said...Once women veterans (and often moms) started coming home with missing limbs, the absurdity of that war may have been brought to light much sooner.

Wouldn't it be nice if the absurdity of every war were to come to light much sooner, preferably before the first shots are fired.

January 24, 2013 at 7:36 a.m.
jesse said...

Infantry?? Bad idea!

Any thing else they can prob.handle!

January 24, 2013 at 7:36 a.m.
gdh66 said...

To EaTn, I am a recently retired U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel and I can tell you that Improvised Explosive Devices (IED) do not discriminate between male and female or race. What was left of female service members came home from the very beginning in remains containers. There were and are armless and legless female casualties and there were well in the thousands of them. We will have the"absurdity" to the end of time. This should also open up the opportunity that women should be eligible for the Selective Service. Equal Opportunity means you are eligible for all the privileges and consequences of a "right," eh? You're going to see a lot more women come home in remains containers because al Qaeda will make it a point to snatch female solders and video tape what they typically do to women and put it on the internet. They are truly a brutal and barbaric people.

January 24, 2013 at 7:39 a.m.
GreenKepi said...

Seldom you do; but, you finally made a statement/drawing that I agree with...!

January 24, 2013 at 7:56 a.m.
Lr103 said...

gdh66 said... al Qaeda They are truly a brutal and barbaric people.

Yeah, gdh66. Just like the invaders and occupiers were recorded on video using the head of an Iraqi as a soccer ball? Or raping and murdering 13yr old Iraqi girls; killing the entire family, including a 5 year old, to cover up their crime and blaming it on insurgents? Yeah! War is brutal, sadistic, wicked and evil from all sides, even the side of the liberators.

January 24, 2013 at 9:21 a.m.
alprova said...

I've got a much better idea.

Why not bring all the troops home, stop involving our people in combat around the world, and utilize our military only in the direct defense of our nation?

If any woman has the desire to involve herself in combat, I think that is fine, but no American, male or female, should die in combat not in the direct defense of our sovereign nation.

It's truly long past time for the American people that the war machine and profiteers, who love supplying this thing we know as the world police, be put out of business.

I'm very aware that the effort to eradicate terrorists around the world is a result of what happened on 9/11, but the casualty list of innocents has been too high and those whom we seek to find are ghosts for the most part.

With every passing day, we embolden a new set of terrorists, who want to kill Americans in retaliation for the deaths of their loved ones, who have had nothing to do with 9/11.

Enough with this expensive, ghost chase.

January 24, 2013 at 9:23 a.m.
chatt_man said...

I guess this all sounds good to some, not me. When, or if, we ever institute a draft again, Obama's soccer moms are gonna be pitching a b!tch about their 20 something old daughters having to go to combat. And leave their kids behind?

January 24, 2013 at 9:28 a.m.
Easy123 said...

chatt_man,

You obviously don't realize that there are rigorous physical requirements in order to be able to go into combat that many women cannot meet. IF there was a draft, very few of the women drafted would be able to meet those requirements to go into combat. Very few women will ever see combat even though this ban was removed. It's not like they are sending every woman in the military to the front lines.

Think before you speak.

January 24, 2013 at 9:39 a.m.
jesse said...

EASY, IF they don't lower the standards!!

The way war goes now the front line is everywhere!

There were NO lines in Nam!Get your ass shot off in downtown Saigon!!

January 24, 2013 at 9:46 a.m.
patriot1 said...

Easy...what physical requirements exist other than the APFT to go into combat? I've spent a lot of time around the military and I know of none. Yes, I know women do not have to do as many situps as men, pushups as men, or the 2 mile run as fast as men to meet APFT standards, but this does notbing to address that.

January 24, 2013 at 9:58 a.m.
chatt_man said...

jesse - you can't get Mr. Know-It-All to listen to anything. Kiss my a$$ Easy. Now go and flag me, you pitiful piece of wasted DNA. There, now that I spoke, I'll think... Yeah, I've thought, and you're still a pitiful piece of wasted DNA. Ooo... have I angered the all-knowing site monitor, Easy.

Grow up kid! You're the problem, not the solution.

Maybe your attitude will improve and you'll grow up and mature some after you've had Obama's baby. LMAO

January 24, 2013 at 10:10 a.m.
Easy123 said...

jesse,

The standards are already lower. Yet the standards are still more difficult than most women can meet.

January 24, 2013 at 10:15 a.m.
jesse said...

The way i understand it the APFT is just to get in!

The requirements for a combat unit are much more rigorous!

January 24, 2013 at 10:18 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Lr103 said... "Just like the invaders and occupiers were recorded on video using the head of an Iraqi as a soccer ball? Or raping and murdering 13yr old Iraqi girls; killing the entire family, including a 5 year old, to cover up their crime and blaming it on insurgents? Yeah! War is brutal, sadistic, wicked and evil from all sides, even the side of the liberators."

I would submit that the limited examples of poor behaviour on the part of our troops was not as damaging as our presence in general. Our troops are obviously a foreign occupying force in the eyes of people they are expected to exercise control over. The mere act of doing their job invites hatred towards the United States. Every door kicked down creates another enemy of our country, every street cleared creates dozens more. Every drone strike that kills a bystander creates hundreds or thousands of enemies.

We are going to be living with blowback from the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan and our lawless drone strikes for decades to come. We have created a generation of terrorists.

January 24, 2013 at 10:18 a.m.
Easy123 said...

patriot1,

I was referring to the APFT standards. I don't know very many women that can do 20 pushups, 53 situps and run a 18:54 minute 2 miler.

January 24, 2013 at 10:19 a.m.
Easy123 said...

chattt_man,

Why would I listen to you when you're flaunting your ignorance? Do you think it makes you look cool or something when you rant? I'm not the site monitor, I don't flag people. I like to let everyone see how moronic and childish you can make yourself look. I'm the guy that is speaking in facts. You're the one talking out of your ass, you dolphin-faced mongrel. You haven't angered me. You seem to be the one steaming. You don't see me going off like you are. Calm down, sweetheart. LMFAO!

Grow up, old man. You are the problem. Stupid people like you are the problem.

My attitude is great and I'm grown up. You'll never mature. You'll still be a crybaby bitch until the day you die. You can't stand to get called out. That's why you go off. It pisses you off to feel stupid. I just like to put you in your place. LMFAO!

January 24, 2013 at 10:23 a.m.
gdh66 said...

Lr103, seriously? Any student of warfare throughout the ages will tell you that atrocities are committed by both parties. There are no "good" wars. I can recite atrocious acts for every war, on every continent, for the past 200 years. With every population you are going to get abhorrent behavior but it is a question if it is accepted as normal and punished accordingly. I can assure you that the U.S. military does investigate allocations of illegal acts according to the Geneva and Hague conventions and take the steps necessary to punish the offenders. Please don't be one of the "hate America" crowd. We're not perfect but we have done some of the most good in the world (military, USAID, U.S. non-governmental organizations). If you don't think so, then please, step out into the world and volunteer and go to some of these backward, filthy, murderous places on this planet and try to make them better.

January 24, 2013 at 10:23 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

patriot1 said... "what physical requirements exist other than the APFT to go into combat?"

It does not matter to the current leadership. What matters is equality of outcome. Appropriate qualifications are secondary to feel-good politics. Washington has screwed up our health care, our retirement, the family, our economy, has stolen our wealth... Why not move on to screwing up the only thing that they ever did reasonably well?

January 24, 2013 at 10:25 a.m.
Easy123 said...

BRP,

"Washington has screwed up our health care, our retirement, the family, our economy, has stolen our wealth..."

Seriously, get real.

January 24, 2013 at 10:29 a.m.
Easy123 said...

gdh66,

"If you don't think so, then please, step out into the world and volunteer and go to some of these backward, filthy, murderous places on this planet and try to make them better."

Why is that America's job? Why do we have to "make them better"? Is "making them better" worth the death of thousands of soldiers?

January 24, 2013 at 10:36 a.m.
jesse said...

Holy cow,i'm agreeing w/easy!

Once Osama was got,our job was DONE! Bringum home, leave Karzai swingin in the wind!!

January 24, 2013 at 10:39 a.m.
chatt_man said...

I don't know what you're listening to Easy, you've never heard my voice (that I know of).

You'll also learn, when you mature, that looking cool is not what adults search for.

It would take a lot more than you've got to make me a crybaby b!tch.

Easy, I'm over 50 years old, am I'm still growing up. If your "I'm always right", and your "my way or the highway", attitude doesn't ruin you thru life, you'll admit at 50 you're still growing up, and learning.

January 24, 2013 at 11:23 a.m.
Handleit said...

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not about terrorists. That was just the excuse used by Washington politicians. Those wars are all about oil. Pure and simple our troops are there to make the fat cats richer at our expense. When was the last time you heard anyone in Washington mention reducing the deficit by bring home our troops?

January 24, 2013 at 11:30 a.m.
Easy123 said...

chatt_man,

"I don't know what you're listening to Easy"

Remember when you said this?

"you can't get Mr. Know-It-All to listen to anything."

Your attempt at wit just blew up in your face.

"You'll also learn, when you mature, that looking cool is not what adults search for."

You'll learn, when you mature, that adults don't rant like bratty children or wax indignant when someone questions their opinion.

"It would take a lot more than you've got to make me a crybaby b!tch."

Think what you will but you seem to be the one on here whining and bitching all the time. It didn't take very much from me to get you to fly off the handle.

"If your "I'm always right", and your "my way or the highway", attitude"

I don't have that attitude. You're the one that got mad when I questioned what you said. Apparently, YOU are the one with the "I'm always right" attitude. I'm open to criticism. Obviously, you aren't.

"attitude doesn't ruin you thru life, you'll admit at 50 you're still growing up, and learning."

I'll always be learning (I never stated otherwise), but "growing up" has a lot of definitions. You were referring to maturity. Most people mature by 17-18. I've "grown up" in that instance. If you were referring to mental maturity, I've done that as well. Sorry to burst your bubble but I won't be "growing up" when I'm 50.

January 24, 2013 at 11:37 a.m.
patriot1 said...

I'm all for getting out of Afghanistan and Iraq...shouldn't be there....but consider this: Since the beginnings of civilization some force or country has influenced or ruled the known world militarily at the point of a spear or the point of a gun. A little history will show you it was the Greeks, Ottomans, Romans, etc. and in modern times the French, UK and in our lifetime the United States. If the US was not filling that role now then who?...the Chinese, Russians, Iran, Muslim Brotherhood? History tells us someone would, and if not for a strong military force able to project its might as we do, I shutter to think who that force might be.

January 24, 2013 at 11:44 a.m.
Sailorman said...

You would think if they can meet the PULHES and strength criteria of Army 11B and 11C for example, which are substantial, they would be good to go. There are differing opinions even in the services.

One Marines' opinion

Get Over It! We Are Not All Created Equal

Capt Katie Petronio

http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal

January 24, 2013 at 11:47 a.m.
Easy123 said...

patriot1, "If the US was not filling that role now then who?"

You can still have a strong military and not go to war or every one else's aid all the time.

"the Chinese, Russians, Iran, Muslim Brotherhood?"

Considering all of those entities are 50 to 100 years behind us militarily, I'd say no.

"History tells us someone would, and if not for a strong military force able to project its might as we do, I shutter to think who that force might be."

And look how bloody history is. Maybe we should try something different.

January 24, 2013 at 11:48 a.m.
Easy123 said...

JonRoss,

Title IX isn't about 1:1 gender ratios.

January 24, 2013 at 12:02 p.m.
ibshame said...

Bush sold the Iraq War to the American Public on the lie Saddam Hussein had a vast array of WMD's that he eventually planned to use to attack the United States in conjunction with Al Qaeda. When it became evident there were no stockpiles of WMD's and never had been any connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden in the attack on 9/11, Bush's story changed and all at once the war then became all about establishing democracy in Iraq.

It was strange because Saddam Hussein was captured and eventually executed but the hunt for the person who actually did mastermind the attack on the United States was allowed to go cold. Bush even became angry when asked about the search for Bin Laden and told reporters he didn't know where Bin Laden was and basically didn't care. Even stranger still because over 2000 Americans died on the morning of 9/11/2001 and over 4000 U.S. soldiers were killed in Iraq. The only connection that ever existed between the two was in the mind of Bush and his neocon cronies who were all too willing to send those soldiers to their deaths while Osama Bin Laden was safely tucked away in Pakistan.

President Obama did what he promised to do about Iraq. The number of troops went from 144,000 at its peak to about 200. However, he failed to bring the soldiers out of Afghanistan and the needless deaths continued on his watch. This Spring it will change and the American Troops will start to leave Afghanistan and return home.

Someone asked if having women on the front lines would have changed the public's attitude about going to war in Iraq. What some fail to see is that women have been in combat zones in Iraq and Afghanistan all along. Maybe not as actual foot soldiers but in combat zones just the same and their lives in danger foolishly in Iraq and for far too long in Afganistan.

One can only hope the American Public will never allow another President to start a war unless there is irrefutable evidence the U.S. is in danger of an attack. It shouldn't matter whether the soldiers who defend this country are male or female. What should matter is their lives not be placed in danger unless the danger is REAL and not based on some politician's lies.

January 24, 2013 at 12:08 p.m.
carlB said...

If the voters were to continue accepting the well known objectives of the Republican Party of taking away and being against the Governments' role in helping the "Masses" after the private enterprise (Capitalist) policies have forced the working conditions, as in the unfair "free trade agreements" (global economy) and the fraud involved causing the 2007 deep recession. All of which have played a part in decreasing of the middle class workers. Even if the Republicans want to increase the spending for more military, where do they think the money will come from?
Every political policy and every ideological principle they have is for depressing and oppressing the workers while increasing THE WAGE GAP between the workers and the 1% - 2%. If this Republic is driven into another great depression by the Republicans just to be able to blame it on the Democratic persons,instead of helping prevent prevent it, what are the unemployed people and the military Veterans supposed to do during this condition?

January 24, 2013 at 1 p.m.
jesse said...

The link sailorman provided is spot on. everyone needs to heed what she is saying!

January 24, 2013 at 1:52 p.m.
fairmon said...

Something drastically different is needed with our military but does anyone see that happening? Alprova said it well. We can be prepared and anniliate anyone attacking us without military bases through out the world. The fact is we cannot afford to continue to protect everyone whther they like us or not. Democracy will never break out and be the government of choice in the middle east even in the life time of a kid born today?

January 24, 2013 at 4:43 p.m.
jesse said...

The entire mid east is about "TRIBES"!

It would take a thousand years for democracy to take hold there,IF ever!

January 24, 2013 at 5:05 p.m.
fairmon said...

Jesse...I guess it is in our DNA to muck with tribes. Ask the American Indians or whatever the politically correct label is. Some of those same people that use the term voluntary rape think being a little pregnant is possible also. That is our status in the middle east and Africa, about half pregnant. We need to either go to war and blow the damn places up or leave if not both. Who used the term collateral damage when we ended the war by dropping the atomic bomb in Japan? We are more concerned about being politically correct than about our military personnel.

What would be the reaction of Americans if some country sent people here to assist one side against another side in America? I hope and think we would turn on them and try to run them out.

We need to insist that those injured in these stupid wars have all the medical care needed including psychological and that they have an income sufficient to live a good life whether injured or not. I get irate when I see some of those in charge talking like people in the military are pawns like in a chess game. Those sending our young and brave to war should be required to go with them and set a good example. Arm chair generals that insist we are in the right and must show out might piss me off.

This rant is for all my buddies that didn't return from Vietnam.

January 24, 2013 at 5:46 p.m.
jesse said...

WOW nooga,who was that directed at?

BTW: where and when and what branch did you serve with???

January 24, 2013 at 6:10 p.m.
Lr103 said...

gdh66 said... Lr103, seriously? Any student of warfare throughout the ages will tell you that atrocities are committed by both parties. There are no "good" wars. I can recite atrocious acts for every war, on every continent, for the past 200 years

Well, wasn't that my point, gdh66? Atrocities aren't only committed at the hands of the other side? Your attempts to demonize the other side as nothing short of barbarians? My point: There are barbarians on all sides. Even the side of the good guys.

January 24, 2013 at 6:24 p.m.
fairmon said...

nooga, good 5:49 & 6:43 pm post. You said it right and well.

January 25, 2013 at 3:54 a.m.
conservative said...

The standards will either be lowered to allow women in certain fields of combat or they will lie about women meeting the same standards as men.

Also, women will be allowed to chose their field whereas a man will not always be given that choice.

January 25, 2013 at 7:40 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Conjecture and blatant misinformation from the woman-hating Christian (redundant?), conservative.

January 25, 2013 at 7:44 a.m.
dude_abides said...

conservative said... "Also, women will be allowed to chose their field whereas a man will not always be given that choice."

LOL! I bet you've never held a door for a lady, have you? Hey, we've got to have jobs for the people that can spell! You just don't women to have the right to choose, period, do you? LOL

January 25, 2013 at 7:49 a.m.
conservative said...

Just yesterday I stopped and asked for directions at a fire station in a small town in Georgia. The first to greet me was a young woman not over 5 foot 5 inches tall, 120lbs at the most. She said she was new and was not sure if she could help me. Then this giant of a man came out to the bay where we were standing. They were both wearing the same blue uniform.

This little woman who actually looked like a woman and not male woman would not be able to pull her weight if she were needed in a situation to pull a grown person out of a burning building.

What a tragedy for a victim and what a joke on the taxpayer!

January 25, 2013 at 8:10 a.m.
Easy123 said...

That is the same false narrative everyone that is agains this lifting of the ban has been spouting for days now. There are rigorous physical requirements to be a firefighter and to be in combat. Personally, I do not believe your story. You just think it will lend substance to your argument when, in reality, it really has nothing to do with it at all.

When will people like you start talking in facts instead of trying to create these elaborate "what-if" scenarios? The tragedy is your outlook on women.

January 25, 2013 at 8:24 a.m.
alprova said...

I still love G.I Jane. No one has been tougher than Demi Moore.

January 25, 2013 at 9:15 a.m.
jesse said...

Here's a fact!

For a 5 day patrol the average trooper is loaded w/,on average.80 lbs.of gear and rations!You not only have to hump all that stuff BUT be effective !I'm sure there are women that can do that but they are gonna be scarce!

Alpo, G.I. Jane was a great move but i don't think there is a woman alive that can get thru that entire program!Hell week is just the start!

January 25, 2013 at 10:04 a.m.
conservative said...

So, does the loontoonist think or wish the barracks were coed? I guess that will be next on the Liberal agenda.

January 25, 2013 at 10:04 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

How do you know the "little woman" you met wasn't a paramedic, conservative? Most fire departments are staffed with paramedics and EMTs.

January 25, 2013 at 10:30 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

For a 5 day patrol the average trooper is loaded w/,on average.80 lbs.of gear and rations!You not only have to hump all that stuff BUT be effective !I'm sure there are women that can do that but they are gonna be scarce

You are probably right, jesse- the number of women who could do this are small. But there are plenty of men who could not. If the woman is capable of meeting the physical requirements, she should have the chance to serve.

January 25, 2013 at 10:33 a.m.
Easy123 said...

conservative,

"So, does the loontoonist think or wish the barracks were coed?"

Some already are. Get a clue.

January 25, 2013 at 10:46 a.m.
Easy123 said...

JonRoss,

"There are no porta potties in front line combat zones for females to hide in. How is Obama going to handle that ?"

Women don't need a toilet to evacuate their bowels. They just have to squat a little to urinate. I've experienced this first hand with my sisters on long road trips.

Situation handled.

January 25, 2013 at 10:50 a.m.
Easy123 said...

JonRoss,

"In combat situations almost always there are no places to go hide to dump and urinate."

And? A woman is just as capable of defecating and urinating around other people as any man.

"Will men now be ordered to crap their pants to avoid offending women, or being charged for lewd conduct ?"

Will women be ordered to crap their pants to avoid offending men, or being charged for lewd conduct?

Keep going.

January 25, 2013 at 10:57 a.m.
jesse said...

Jon, when you are in a free fire zone and the crap is flyin the FIRST thing out the door is modesty!You just ain't spendin a lot of time worrin about the small stuff!If you have never been in a fire fight then there is NO WAY you can ever understand what it's like!It just flat out cannot be put into words,movies or anything else!

January 25, 2013 at 10:59 a.m.
conservative said...

A number of years ago, I saw in a Florida paper, The Florida Times Union, a picture of two Navy women posing with a large chain over their shoulders. The story was about Navy women doing the same work as Navy men and carrying their load. These two were reportedly slinging those chains around on an aircraft flight deck.

However, the picture belied the story. One of the women, a black woman, had 2-3 inch painted nails! 2-3 inch painted nails!

Now, a question for Liberals, how long would those nails last if that woman was really doing that job?

January 25, 2013 at 11:45 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

conservative, if a woman (or a man for that matter) can pass the physical tests necessary to do a particular job, what reason would there be to discriminate? And, no, 2-3 inch nails on a posed PR picture is not a factor.

January 25, 2013 at 12:10 p.m.
jesse said...

They were prob.naval reservists to start with!

January 25, 2013 at 12:14 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

I think we should let women play on NFL teams. Oh, wait... having the best possible people on a football squad is more important than having the best possible people in a combat team.

January 25, 2013 at 12:32 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Football and combat are two entirely different things.

January 25, 2013 at 12:46 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Yeah, the performance of a football team is on the front of many American's minds, every mistake televised. If a soldier gets killed because of underperformance of a team mate Easy will never know. That is the basic difference.

Easy can sit back in his lounge chair patting himself on the back over his support of equality for women while the parents of the dead soldier bury their child.

January 25, 2013 at 12:49 p.m.
patriot1 said...

I don't think Easy has much life experience except with his sisters on long road trips.

January 25, 2013 at 1:16 p.m.
Easy123 said...

BRP,

You've mischaracterized me again. I'm very anti-war. But if a woman can meet the standards, then I think she should be allowed to serve in combat. Your hypotheticals mean absolutely nothing. And your pretentious ranting means even less.

January 25, 2013 at 2:07 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Patriot1,

You have no life experiences at all.

See how that works? I can talk out of my ass about you too. You don't know me. I don't know you. If you would like to refute my points, be my guest. But you know nothing of my personal experiences.

January 25, 2013 at 2:10 p.m.
patriot1 said...

Uh...Easy, you're the one who said you have had experience with your sisters, so yeap, you're ahead of me there.

January 25, 2013 at 2:57 p.m.
Rebus said...

Easy has said, read, and done, everything.

January 25, 2013 at 3:16 p.m.
Sailorman said...

While the decision is the politically correct one, I'm not holding my breathe waiting for a woman to successfully make 11B. You never know, as PC fu has been strong before. If they "normalize" the physical requirements, they may have a revolt on their hands - or the body count will increase rapidly.

If one should successfully complete the course, more power to her.

I liked G.I. Jane too

January 25, 2013 at 3:48 p.m.
Leaf said...

You people are weird. Well, what do other countries do? How has it worked for them? I don't know much about it, but I know lots of countries have had women serving in combat. How has it worked for them?

January 25, 2013 at 3:55 p.m.
Sailorman said...

Leaf

It depends on what you call a "combat role". Even in the Israel IDF, often held up as the model, there are no female infantry (except maybe in one specialized drug busting unit). Women have been in "combat roles" for a long time - pilots, convoy drivers and escorts, door gunners. The contention revolves around the front line infantry and special operations. As my neighbor, a 3 tour veteran, put it: "Returning fire from a fleeing convoy is not the same as turning into the teeth of the enemy to maneuver and destroy packing a hundred pounds of gear and ammo in 120 degree heat."

January 25, 2013 at 4:31 p.m.
dude_abides said...

I remember videos of our poor old local reservists getting ready to ship out to Iraq for Bush's War of Choice to Quash the Imminent Threat That Didn't Exist. Those poor bastards could hardly get out of the foxholes they, no doubt, used a Bobcat to dig. Not trashing the men, just the nonexistent readiness.

January 25, 2013 at 6:33 p.m.
alprova said...

JonRoss wrote: "...But he believes frontline combat that Obama is pushing will be damaging to readiness."

As usual, you are blaming the wrong person.

President Obama had not one thing to do with the directive to allow women in combat. He supports it, but has not pushed for it in the least.

The person, or people who spearheaded this directive are General Martin Dempsey, now chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff and Leon Panetta.

This one started and ended with the Pentagon.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/24/us/military-women/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

January 25, 2013 at 6:59 p.m.
alprova said...

JonRoss wrote: "My USMC son and buddies in his platoon during combat missions routinely take dumps and urinate wherever they are and whenever possible during patrols. No privacy whatsoever. There are no porta potties in front line combat zones for females to hide in. How is Obama going to handle that ?"

What a silly, but stupid question. The President will travel to wherever women are, he will turn his back to them, and shield them from prying eyes while they take care of business.

Your problem is shared by many other silly and stupid men, who think that a woman evacuating her bladder or bowels is an open invitation for sex.

January 25, 2013 at 7:04 p.m.
alprova said...

BRP wrote: "Easy can sit back in his lounge chair patting himself on the back over his support of equality for women while the parents of the dead soldier bury their child."

You offer this as if there have never been instances where fellow male counterparts have never been guilty of dropping the ball, resulting in death.

January 25, 2013 at 7:09 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Leaf asked: “Well, what do other countries do? How has it worked for them? I don't know much about it, but I know lots of countries have had women serving in combat. How has it worked for them?”

In Israel, every citizen must serve in order to keep their citizenship, including women:

"The Israeli military is considered one of the best in the world, and every citizen must serve in it in order to keep their citizenship.

One of the main distinctions of Israeli conscription is that it includes women. While a portion are exempt for a variety of reasons, often religious, most serve their time, and many are assigned to infantry combat units that put them directly in harm's way.

The CNN report below is an interesting look at Israeli women soldiers and why they are just as capable as their male counterparts. They certainly don't lack confidence. Staff Sgt. Davida Loecher makes her case:"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/17/israeli-female-soldiers-o_n_290765.html

January 25, 2013 at 7:15 p.m.
conservative said...

The thinking of Liberals boggles my mind.

I went looking for Liberal comments on women in combat to see their reasons for supporting this stupid notion.

Conservatives often bring up the scenario of rape if American women are captured by the enemy.

Liberal Adam Serwer of Mother Jones writes about the matter:

"The Daily Beast's David Frum, appearing on CNN, also raised a misguided objection to the new policy. Frum claimed that servicewomen will face sexual violence from America's enemies and therefore shouldn't be allowed to serve on the front lines:"

"The people we are likely to meet on the next battlefield are people who use rape and sexual abuse as actual tools of politics. In Iranian prisons, rape is a frequent practice. Women are raped before they are executed. In Iran, in Pakistan, in Afghanistan rape is a conscious tool of subjugation and it is something women will be exposed to. In the name of equal opportunity they will face unequal risk."

"It's true that women face the danger of sexual assault if captured. The same could be said of men. Frum's objection seems somewhat selective; women in the US military are more likely to face sexual assault from their comrades in the service than they are to be killed by enemy fire. Perhaps that's less sensational than the thought of scary foreigners violating American women, but it's a more urgent threat."

Notice, how rampant the rape of women is in these Muslim countries without war and then how Sewer tries to compare that with what might happen to American men and women if captured. He just says they both " face the danger of sexual assault if captured" as if the treatment of men wouldn't be any different then that of women. Only a Liberal would believe that.

He really gets Liberal (synonym for crazy) with this - "women in the US military are more likely to face sexual assault from their comrades in the service than they are to be killed by enemy fire."

So, do we put even more women in harms way? Why are these physically tough women always the victim? Where are the stories where these physically tough women overpower American soldiers who would sexually assault them? If physically tough military women can't defend themselves against their comrades why put them up against an enemy soldier? If the sexual assault of physically tough women is so common why do we want to exacerbate the problem?

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/01/conservatives-republicans-women-combat-military

January 25, 2013 at 7:25 p.m.
hambone said...

Another typical day at the "TFP hate Clay Bennett and Everyone Else Club"

Where wild stupid name calling can always substitute for thoughtful debate!

January 25, 2013 at 7:25 p.m.
jesse said...

This will clear up all the B/S about women's role in the Israeli army!ALSO WHY changes were made!

http://www.your-krav-maga-expert.com/women-in-idf.html

January 25, 2013 at 7:33 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

So, conservative: answer the question: if a woman (or man) can meet the physical requirements for a specific position in the military should they be allowed to do that job, regardless of gender? Why or why not?

PS: nice dodge on the woman you met at the fire station. Your silence speaks volumes.

January 25, 2013 at 7:34 p.m.
Sailorman said...

Al

"Your problem is shared by many other silly and stupid men, who think that a woman evacuating her bladder or bowels is an open invitation for sex."

Geez Al. That's just sick

January 25, 2013 at 7:42 p.m.
conservative said...

mountainlaurel:

The Puffington Post is very Liberal. They know their readers are mostly Liberal and thus easily mislead.

The Israeli people are vastly outnumbered. It is out of necessity that virtually every able bodied person serve in the military. It is a matter of survival. THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT HAVE THAT PROBLEM.

Notice the cleverly stated "many are assigned to infantry combat units that put them directly in harm's way." The typical reasoning Liberal (oxymoron) would interpret that as women are combat infantry, fighting along side the men. However,the major infantry units are still all male.

January 25, 2013 at 7:52 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

The Israeli people are vastly outnumbered. It is out of necessity that virtually every able bodied person serve in the military. It is a matter of survival.

So they do this and have no problem? Why are Israeli men and women different from American?

January 25, 2013 at 8:02 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Sorry for the duplicate post. The TFP server is having issues tonight.

January 25, 2013 at 8:02 p.m.
conservative said...

Ike,

No, because it is not just about physical fitness and even if it were women would still not qualify. Why?

Well, because the military branches have greatly reduced the physical requirements that I had to meet in the late sixties. This is all the proof that one needs to see/know that women and many men are not capable of doing the job. Lowering standards and then meeting those lower standards does not improve the soldier, it is an illusion surely to be revealed in the day of testing on the battlefield. Our present death tolls would surely be less if the physical standards for men had not been reduced.

Also, a woman's body will not hold up over the long haul under military conditions. They just have way too many ankle, knee and back problems

January 25, 2013 at 8:23 p.m.
conservative said...

IKe,

Your "So they do this and have no problem? Why are Israeli men and women different from American?" makes no sense.

Israeli women are not combat soldiers, so they are not different.

January 25, 2013 at 8:30 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Okay, so back to my first question: if a woman met the standards, why not let her fight?

January 25, 2013 at 8:42 p.m.
conservative said...

Why do you constantly ask questions that I have already answered?

January 25, 2013 at 8:47 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Ikeithlu,

Conservative thinks his responses are rational. You're fighting a battle that was lost long ago. Let him bitch and moan. He can't do anything about it. The decision has already been made to let women fight. Any argument to the contrary is irrelevant. You can't convince an ignorant fool to think rationally. These are the same people that coin terms like "legitimate rape" and fight tooth and nail to keep women from being provided contraceptive coverage on their insurance. It's backward-thinking sexism. They preach small government but they want a government big enough to oppress those they deem unworthy e.g, women, homosexuals, anyone that isn't white and/Republican, atheists, and anyone that isn't Christian.

January 25, 2013 at 9:05 p.m.
dude_abides said...

conservative said... "Also, a woman's body will not hold up over the long haul under military conditions. They just have way too many ankle, knee and back problems."

Are they inferior creatures, like poorly bred livestock? If ignorance was indoor retail space, you'd be the King of King of Prussia.

January 25, 2013 at 9:15 p.m.
alprova said...

Sailorman wrote: "Geez Al. That's just sick"

You and I think so, and indeed it is, but there are those out there, but apparently there are a couple of people discussing this very issue in this forum, who think with their penis, and in their minds, the very second that a female who displays an inch of her nether regions, it is veiwed as an invitation to ogle the goods...or more.

I'm quite sure that gay men have served for eons in the military and on the battlefield. Almost all of these men are experts at keeping their minds and body under control.

To even bring up the subject of "whipping things out" and "squatting to pee." etc. demonstrates where some people's minds wander to and it is a revelation of their inner demons.

January 25, 2013 at 9:50 p.m.
Easy123 said...

You couldn't get any more asinine, JonRoss

January 25, 2013 at 9:51 p.m.
Easy123 said...

No.

January 25, 2013 at 10:01 p.m.
alprova said...

All this crap about women being inferior, with physical ailments like "ankle, knee and back problems" that would prevent them from holding their own, is quite hilarious.

Granted, most women would probably never have the desire to be front-line combatants in the military, but any belief that a woman could not be just as physically able to do the job is highly misplaced.

Think Linda Hamilton. Think Demi Moore. Think Angelina Jolie. At various times in their lives, these women have been buff as can be and I personally wouldn't have wanted to be the victim of a kick or a punch by any of them.

Gyms across the country are filled with women that can put most men to shame, in terms of being physically fit and as strong or stronger than most men.

January 25, 2013 at 10:04 p.m.
dude_abides said...

JonRoss said... "While on combat patrol my son and his fellow Marines routinely whipped it out..."

Did you really discuss a group of men "whipping it out routinely" with your son? Really? Do you truly have the inside dope on Marines' whipping it out? LOL How often did your son practice auto eroticism? LMAO! Did you discuss that also?

Ladies and Gentlemen! Mr. JonRoss! The foremost expert on USMC urination techniques and logistics.

January 25, 2013 at 10:11 p.m.
alprova said...

JonRoss wrote: "Another move that would acclimate females to front line combat would be to eliminate gender separate showers and toilets in public facilities. That would bring them up to speed in the type of culture they would be entering."

I have no doubt that any woman who would desire to be a front-line combatant would have no issue whatsoever with communal amenities.

You illustrate exactly which gender would be the more uncomfortable in such a situation. It wouldn't be the women.

"There are no porta potties or shower curtains on the front line."

You've done a fine job of exposing yourself as a perfect, sexist pig. No need to repeat yourself.

January 25, 2013 at 10:13 p.m.
alprova said...

dude_abides wrote: Ladies and Gentlemen! Mr. JonRoss! The foremost expert on USMC urination techniques and logistics."**

He most certainly seems to be fixated on the subject of "whipping things out," that's for sure.

January 25, 2013 at 10:16 p.m.
fairmon said...

The best solution would be to disengage from all the combat we have initiated in other countries, close most of the military bases around the world, bring our troops home and train men and women to defend the U.S. at all cost if attacked. Any response should be aggressive and short taking the offending country completely out without worry about being politically correct or collateral damage. It wouldn't take long until we had all the intel needed to prevent an attack.

Why is the economy in and around Washington D.C. the only thriving area in the country? The flow of money including that extracted from citizens is staggering. Some companies have a better return on their lobby investments than on the products or services they are in business to provide. It is a family affair in D.C. with many in office having family as a lobbyist. Over half of the large corporations have former office holders on their boards or have them employed as a lobbyist, many in the defense and industrial military complex. Harry Reid has several family members active in various ways in and around D.C.

When will people get fed up with all the crap from both parties and react as they should?

January 26, 2013 at 12:18 a.m.
fairmon said...

The best solution would be to disengage from all the combat we have initiated in other countries, close most of the military bases around the world, bring our troops home and train men and women to defend the U.S. at all cost if attacked. Any response should be aggressive and short taking the offending country completely out without worry about being politically correct or collateral damage. It wouldn't take long until we had all the intel needed to prevent an attack.

Why is the economy in and around Washington D.C. the only thriving area in the country? The flow of money including that extracted from citizens is staggering. Some companies have a better return on their lobby investments than on the products or services they are in business to provide. It is a family affair in D.C. with many in office having family as a lobbyist. Over half of the large corporations have former office holders on their boards or have them employed as a lobbyist, many in the defense and industrial military complex. Harry Reid has several family members active in various ways in and around D.C.

When will people get fed up with all the crap from both parties and react as they should?

January 26, 2013 at 12:18 a.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.