The Reality That Awaits Women in Combat

Doc91678

Rookie
Nov 13, 2012
753
99
0
Binghamton
Ryan Smith @ The WSJ:


America has been creeping closer and closer to allowing women in combat, so Wednesday’s news that the decision has now been made is not a surprise. It appears that female soldiers will be allowed on the battlefield but not in the infantry. Yet it is a distinction without much difference: Infantry units serve side-by-side in combat with artillery, engineers, drivers, medics and others who will likely now include women. The Pentagon would do well to consider realities of life in combat as it pushes to mix men and women on the battlefield.

Many articles have been written regarding the relative strength of women and the possible effects on morale of introducing women into all-male units. Less attention has been paid to another aspect: the absolutely dreadful conditions under which grunts live during war.

Most people seem to believe that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have merely involved driving out of a forward operating base, patrolling the streets, maybe getting in a quick firefight, and then returning to the forward operating base and its separate shower facilities and chow hall. The reality of modern infantry combat, at least the portion I saw, bore little resemblance to this sanitized view.

I served in the 2003 invasion of Iraq as a Marine infantry squad leader. We rode into war crammed in the back of amphibious assault vehicles. They are designed to hold roughly 15 Marines snugly; due to maintenance issues, by the end of the invasion we had as many as 25 men stuffed into the back. Marines were forced to sit, in full gear, on each other’s laps and in contorted positions for hours on end. That was the least of our problems.

The invasion was a blitzkrieg. The goal was to move as fast to Baghdad as possible. The column would not stop for a lance corporal, sergeant, lieutenant, or even a company commander to go to the restroom. Sometimes we spent over 48 hours on the move without exiting the vehicles. We were forced to urinate in empty water bottles inches from our comrades.

Many Marines developed dysentery from the complete lack of sanitary conditions. When an uncontrollable urge hit a Marine, he would be forced to stand, as best he could, hold an MRE bag up to his rear, and defecate inches from his seated comrade’s face.

During the invasion, we wore chemical protective suits because of the fear of chemical or biological weapon attack. These are equivalent to a ski jumpsuit and hold in the heat. We also had to wear black rubber boots over our desert boots. On the occasions the column did stop, we would quickly peel off our rubber boots, desert boots and socks to let our feet air out.Due to the heat and sweat, layers of our skin would peel off our feet. However, we rarely had time to remove our suits or perform even the most basic hygiene. We quickly developed sores on our bodies.

When we did reach Baghdad, we were in shambles. We had not showered in well over a month and our chemical protective suits were covered in a mixture of filth and dried blood. We were told to strip and place our suits in pits to be burned immediately. My unit stood there in a walled-in compound in Baghdad, naked, sores dotted all over our bodies, feet peeling, watching our suits burn. Later, they lined us up naked and washed us off with pressure washers.

Yes, a woman is as capable as a man of pulling a trigger. But the goal of our nation's military is to fight and win wars. Before taking the drastic step of allowing women to serve in combat units, has the government considered whether introducing women into the above-described situation would have made my unit more or less combat effective?




***snip***

Continue reading: ---->
Ryan Smith: The Reality That Awaits Women in Combat - WSJ.com
 
Women don't need your fucking protection. They're more than capable.
 
They will find out the hard way and come home injured and with plenty of mental scars. I wonder if they will be made to register for the draft as well. Can you imagine how a father will feel if his daughter is drafted in war time?

I guess that I should mention that I don't have an issue with it if they can pull their own weight and prove they are capable. If this is what some of them want them let them go out and get some.

I would not mind some females around in the field but most of them will likely be disgusting dykes.
 
Last edited:
110712_duckworthobama.jpg


Woman have already been serving in combat.
 
Women don't need your fucking protection. They're more than capable.

Women have much easier physical requirements than men in the military.

What's that tell you?

This is about promotions at the expense of our military readiness. It's bullshit.

Can you have the best military in the world with an all male force?

Yes.

Can you have the best military in the world with an all female force?

No.
 
Ryan Smith @ The WSJ:


America has been creeping closer and closer to allowing women in combat, so Wednesday’s news that the decision has now been made is not a surprise. It appears that female soldiers will be allowed on the battlefield but not in the infantry. Yet it is a distinction without much difference: Infantry units serve side-by-side in combat with artillery, engineers, drivers, medics and others who will likely now include women. The Pentagon would do well to consider realities of life in combat as it pushes to mix men and women on the battlefield.

Many articles have been written regarding the relative strength of women and the possible effects on morale of introducing women into all-male units. Less attention has been paid to another aspect: the absolutely dreadful conditions under which grunts live during war.

Most people seem to believe that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have merely involved driving out of a forward operating base, patrolling the streets, maybe getting in a quick firefight, and then returning to the forward operating base and its separate shower facilities and chow hall. The reality of modern infantry combat, at least the portion I saw, bore little resemblance to this sanitized view.

I served in the 2003 invasion of Iraq as a Marine infantry squad leader. We rode into war crammed in the back of amphibious assault vehicles. They are designed to hold roughly 15 Marines snugly; due to maintenance issues, by the end of the invasion we had as many as 25 men stuffed into the back. Marines were forced to sit, in full gear, on each other’s laps and in contorted positions for hours on end. That was the least of our problems.

The invasion was a blitzkrieg. The goal was to move as fast to Baghdad as possible. The column would not stop for a lance corporal, sergeant, lieutenant, or even a company commander to go to the restroom. Sometimes we spent over 48 hours on the move without exiting the vehicles. We were forced to urinate in empty water bottles inches from our comrades.

Many Marines developed dysentery from the complete lack of sanitary conditions. When an uncontrollable urge hit a Marine, he would be forced to stand, as best he could, hold an MRE bag up to his rear, and defecate inches from his seated comrade’s face.

During the invasion, we wore chemical protective suits because of the fear of chemical or biological weapon attack. These are equivalent to a ski jumpsuit and hold in the heat. We also had to wear black rubber boots over our desert boots. On the occasions the column did stop, we would quickly peel off our rubber boots, desert boots and socks to let our feet air out.Due to the heat and sweat, layers of our skin would peel off our feet. However, we rarely had time to remove our suits or perform even the most basic hygiene. We quickly developed sores on our bodies.

When we did reach Baghdad, we were in shambles. We had not showered in well over a month and our chemical protective suits were covered in a mixture of filth and dried blood. We were told to strip and place our suits in pits to be burned immediately. My unit stood there in a walled-in compound in Baghdad, naked, sores dotted all over our bodies, feet peeling, watching our suits burn. Later, they lined us up naked and washed us off with pressure washers.

Yes, a woman is as capable as a man of pulling a trigger. But the goal of our nation's military is to fight and win wars. Before taking the drastic step of allowing women to serve in combat units, has the government considered whether introducing women into the above-described situation would have made my unit more or less combat effective?




***snip***

Continue reading: ---->
Ryan Smith: The Reality That Awaits Women in Combat - WSJ.com

I'm sure they have.
 
Women don't need your fucking protection. They're more than capable.

Women have much easier physical requirements than men in the military.

What's that tell you?

This is about promotions at the expense of our military readiness. It's bullshit.

Can you have the best military in the world with an all male force?

Yes.

Can you have the best military in the world with an all female force?

No.

Can you have the best military in the world with a combination of the two? Yes.
 
110712_duckworthobama.jpg


Woman have already been serving in combat.

Exactly...only (correct me if I'm wrong) - they don't get combat pay for it do they? I think this change means that they will get paid the same as men in a combat zone?
 
My first political speech took place in the late 70s at my state's capitol before the legislature. It was a speech in favor of rescinding my state's ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment.

NOW had a strong presence there.

One of the key points of my speech was that if the feminists had their way, we would be seeing women in combat.

The feminists said I was being thoroughly ridiculous and that such a proposition was completely outrageous. They used much coarser language, though.
 
My first political speech took place in the late 70s at my state's capitol before the legislature. It was a speech in favor of rescinding my state's ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment.

NOW had a strong presence there.

One of the key points of my speech was that if the feminists had their way, we would be seeing women in combat.

The feminists said I was being thoroughly ridiculous and that such a proposition was completely outrageous. They used much coarser language, though.

And if you'd told me gays would be legally married, I'd have told you the same thing. (And probably with the same language) Good damn thing someone disagreed with me! :lol:

Times change.
 
110712_duckworthobama.jpg


Woman have already been serving in combat.

Exactly...only (correct me if I'm wrong) - they don't get combat pay for it do they? I think this change means that they will get paid the same as men in a combat zone?

Women sitting behind a desk in a Foward operating base get combat pay despite having never left the wire. Basically if your in the vicinity of a designated combat zone you get combat pay regardless of your mission. As of now the whole of Afghanistan is a combat zone, and thus, everyone serving near or in Afghanistan get combat pay.
 
Last edited:
Ryan Smith @ The WSJ:


America has been creeping closer and closer to allowing women in combat, so Wednesday’s news that the decision has now been made is not a surprise. It appears that female soldiers will be allowed on the battlefield but not in the infantry. Yet it is a distinction without much difference: Infantry units serve side-by-side in combat with artillery, engineers, drivers, medics and others who will likely now include women. The Pentagon would do well to consider realities of life in combat as it pushes to mix men and women on the battlefield.

Many articles have been written regarding the relative strength of women and the possible effects on morale of introducing women into all-male units. Less attention has been paid to another aspect: the absolutely dreadful conditions under which grunts live during war.

Most people seem to believe that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have merely involved driving out of a forward operating base, patrolling the streets, maybe getting in a quick firefight, and then returning to the forward operating base and its separate shower facilities and chow hall. The reality of modern infantry combat, at least the portion I saw, bore little resemblance to this sanitized view.

I served in the 2003 invasion of Iraq as a Marine infantry squad leader. We rode into war crammed in the back of amphibious assault vehicles. They are designed to hold roughly 15 Marines snugly; due to maintenance issues, by the end of the invasion we had as many as 25 men stuffed into the back. Marines were forced to sit, in full gear, on each other’s laps and in contorted positions for hours on end. That was the least of our problems.

The invasion was a blitzkrieg. The goal was to move as fast to Baghdad as possible. The column would not stop for a lance corporal, sergeant, lieutenant, or even a company commander to go to the restroom. Sometimes we spent over 48 hours on the move without exiting the vehicles. We were forced to urinate in empty water bottles inches from our comrades.

Many Marines developed dysentery from the complete lack of sanitary conditions. When an uncontrollable urge hit a Marine, he would be forced to stand, as best he could, hold an MRE bag up to his rear, and defecate inches from his seated comrade’s face.

During the invasion, we wore chemical protective suits because of the fear of chemical or biological weapon attack. These are equivalent to a ski jumpsuit and hold in the heat. We also had to wear black rubber boots over our desert boots. On the occasions the column did stop, we would quickly peel off our rubber boots, desert boots and socks to let our feet air out.Due to the heat and sweat, layers of our skin would peel off our feet. However, we rarely had time to remove our suits or perform even the most basic hygiene. We quickly developed sores on our bodies.

When we did reach Baghdad, we were in shambles. We had not showered in well over a month and our chemical protective suits were covered in a mixture of filth and dried blood. We were told to strip and place our suits in pits to be burned immediately. My unit stood there in a walled-in compound in Baghdad, naked, sores dotted all over our bodies, feet peeling, watching our suits burn. Later, they lined us up naked and washed us off with pressure washers.

Yes, a woman is as capable as a man of pulling a trigger. But the goal of our nation's military is to fight and win wars. Before taking the drastic step of allowing women to serve in combat units, has the government considered whether introducing women into the above-described situation would have made my unit more or less combat effective?




***snip***

Continue reading: ---->
Ryan Smith: The Reality That Awaits Women in Combat - WSJ.com

Women have served as nurses for hundreds of years where they have seen men urinate into bottles at close range and suffer from dysentery.

Why didn't you complain then?
 
110712_duckworthobama.jpg


Woman have already been serving in combat.

These women just "ended up" in combat zones. Most of the women soldiers all have MO's that are not combat related. When my son first went in the Army he was a fueler. He spent a year in Baghdad in 2006 as a fueler. He was out on the streets at least 4 times a week, getting shot at, fighting....and that wasn't what his job was! So women may be in combat "zones" but not designated as being in combat......
 
Women don't need your fucking protection. They're more than capable.

Women have much easier physical requirements than men in the military.

What's that tell you?

This is about promotions at the expense of our military readiness. It's bullshit.

Can you have the best military in the world with an all male force?

Yes.

Can you have the best military in the world with an all female force?

No.

We should do away with all of that. If women want to serve in combat they should be required to pass the same physical standards as men, do the same 20 mile ruck marches with the same amount of weight, and complete the mos specific fitness tests. That should do away with about 99.9% of female applicants. What then?
 
110712_duckworthobama.jpg


Woman have already been serving in combat.

These women just "ended up" in combat zones. Most of the women soldiers all have MO's that are not combat related. When my son first went in the Army he was a fueler. He spent a year in Baghdad in 2006 as a fueler. He was out on the streets at least 4 times a week, getting shot at, fighting....and that wasn't what his job was! So women may be in combat "zones" but not designated as being in combat......

They can be now...if they want to and can meet all the requirements.
 
Ryan Smith @ The WSJ:


America has been creeping closer and closer to allowing women in combat, so Wednesday’s news that the decision has now been made is not a surprise. It appears that female soldiers will be allowed on the battlefield but not in the infantry. Yet it is a distinction without much difference: Infantry units serve side-by-side in combat with artillery, engineers, drivers, medics and others who will likely now include women. The Pentagon would do well to consider realities of life in combat as it pushes to mix men and women on the battlefield.

Many articles have been written regarding the relative strength of women and the possible effects on morale of introducing women into all-male units. Less attention has been paid to another aspect: the absolutely dreadful conditions under which grunts live during war.

Most people seem to believe that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have merely involved driving out of a forward operating base, patrolling the streets, maybe getting in a quick firefight, and then returning to the forward operating base and its separate shower facilities and chow hall. The reality of modern infantry combat, at least the portion I saw, bore little resemblance to this sanitized view.

I served in the 2003 invasion of Iraq as a Marine infantry squad leader. We rode into war crammed in the back of amphibious assault vehicles. They are designed to hold roughly 15 Marines snugly; due to maintenance issues, by the end of the invasion we had as many as 25 men stuffed into the back. Marines were forced to sit, in full gear, on each other’s laps and in contorted positions for hours on end. That was the least of our problems.

The invasion was a blitzkrieg. The goal was to move as fast to Baghdad as possible. The column would not stop for a lance corporal, sergeant, lieutenant, or even a company commander to go to the restroom. Sometimes we spent over 48 hours on the move without exiting the vehicles. We were forced to urinate in empty water bottles inches from our comrades.

Many Marines developed dysentery from the complete lack of sanitary conditions. When an uncontrollable urge hit a Marine, he would be forced to stand, as best he could, hold an MRE bag up to his rear, and defecate inches from his seated comrade’s face.

During the invasion, we wore chemical protective suits because of the fear of chemical or biological weapon attack. These are equivalent to a ski jumpsuit and hold in the heat. We also had to wear black rubber boots over our desert boots. On the occasions the column did stop, we would quickly peel off our rubber boots, desert boots and socks to let our feet air out.Due to the heat and sweat, layers of our skin would peel off our feet. However, we rarely had time to remove our suits or perform even the most basic hygiene. We quickly developed sores on our bodies.

When we did reach Baghdad, we were in shambles. We had not showered in well over a month and our chemical protective suits were covered in a mixture of filth and dried blood. We were told to strip and place our suits in pits to be burned immediately. My unit stood there in a walled-in compound in Baghdad, naked, sores dotted all over our bodies, feet peeling, watching our suits burn. Later, they lined us up naked and washed us off with pressure washers.

Yes, a woman is as capable as a man of pulling a trigger. But the goal of our nation's military is to fight and win wars. Before taking the drastic step of allowing women to serve in combat units, has the government considered whether introducing women into the above-described situation would have made my unit more or less combat effective?




***snip***

Continue reading: ---->
Ryan Smith: The Reality That Awaits Women in Combat - WSJ.com

Women have served as nurses for hundreds of years where they have seen men urinate into bottles at close range and suffer from dysentery.

Why didn't you complain then?

And how many of those women ended up as POWs in the past 100 years?
 
Women don't need your fucking protection. They're more than capable.

Women have much easier physical requirements than men in the military.

What's that tell you?

This is about promotions at the expense of our military readiness. It's bullshit.

Can you have the best military in the world with an all male force?

Yes.

Can you have the best military in the world with an all female force?

No.

We should do away with all of that. If women want to serve in combat they should be required to pass the same physical standards as men, do the same 20 mile ruck marches with the same amount of weight, and complete the mos specific fitness tests. That should do away with about 99.9% of female applicants. What then?

/agree. But you know how it will likely go when the politicians tell the generals to make this happen.
 

Forum List

Back
Top