Women in combat
by Greg Krehbiel on 24 January 2013
I don’t like the idea of women in combat for lots of reasons, but my main concern is that different strength and fitness requirements will apply.
If you need run a mile in boots with a 50-pound pack on your back and a rifle in your hands, then that’s what you need to do — whether you’re a man or a woman.
But we’ve seen this before (e.g., with policemen and fireman), and we know what will happen. They’ll let the women in on easier terms than the men.
-- 2013-01-24 » Greg Krehbiel
24 January 2013 @ 9:04 am
From what I heard on NPR, and granted this was only soldiers speculating out loud about what would happen, the general expectation is that there will be a two-track requirement. I could be wrong but the average grunt int he barracks probably has a decent sense of which way the wind is blowing.
And that doesn’t make any sense at all. If the job description of “combat soldier” actually requires you to be able to do physical feats X, Y, and Z, then reality isn’t going to observe that it’s a woman and slack off a little. And if the job never really required that, than the military was cutting itself out of having a lot of willing and capable men to do the job by making the standards too high — and I kinda doubt that.
Woe unto the 200 pound guy who doesn’t get carried out of the fire zone after being wounded, or helped over the wall, because the lady who got in with the relaxed standard is the only one around to do it.
24 January 2013 @ 11:27 am
I have several objections to women in combat. The first objective is similar to the above… that the US military might apply different standards for men and women, but an enemy force chasing a retreating army could not be counted upon to be lenient towards squads with women soldiers.
Second, if the program is being rolled out further, that would seem to imply that people are happy with the results so far. But what had been the results so far? What about the thousands of rapes which are occurring each year? According to this article:
http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/109083/why-wont-the-military-take-troop-troop-rape-seriously#
there are about 3000 rapes and sexual related cases which are reported annually, and no one knows exactly how many go unreported. Is this acceptable? How can these statistics be ignored?
But I also have a third issue. In the past, men and women have had more defined roles in society. as a part of that role, then have accepted the responsibility to take a stand between their families and danger, to take a stand against armies or wild animals or criminals at the risk of their lives. The social compact between men and women to some degree rewards men for their willingness to play this role. But if we are going to put our wives and girlfriends and families and children on the front line, why should men feel compelled to volunteer to do this?
If I were running for president, my first action as commander in chief (before kissing my wife on the migration platform) would be to sign an executive order that all sexual-harassment complaints be copied to my office. In other words, if you hear a rumor of something, and you do not send me a notification, you will be dishonorably discharged and lose your military pension.
The rape of American service women by American servicemen is totally and completely unacceptable. The rapes of American service women which we can expect from hostile forces will be humiliating, discouraging, a national disgrace, and a threat to our national security.
24 January 2013 @ 11:33 am
sorry for the errors. I meant to say that men have traditionally accepting the responsibility to stand between their countries and families and women and children and danger… and I meant to say the inauguration platform…
I guess I posted in haste before checking what Dragon NaturallySpeaking had said… but these statistics about sexual assaults and rapes against American service women really get me angry and upset.