Women in Combat...updated on 2/20/2013

What About Women in Combat

Well, it’s now official.  The military policy now says women will serve in combat.  Personally, I have mixed emotions about that decision, but I’ll get to that later.  First I’ll examine what I believe to be common ground for both sides of the argument.

There are three things I think, or at least I hope, we can all agree on.

1…Women are entitled to equal opportunity.

2…MOST women do not have as much physical strength as MOST men do.

3…The goal of the military should be to have the toughest, most efficient fighting force possible.   OK, the second of the three is probably the controversial, so let’s take a closer look at it.

            

The Army's physical fitness test in basic training is a three-event physical performance test used to assess endurance. The minimum requirement for 17- to 21-year-old males is 35 pushups, 47 setups and a two-mile run in 16 minutes, 36 seconds or less. For females of the same age, the minimum requirement is 13 pushups, 47 setups and a 19:42 two-mile run. Why the difference in fitness requirements? "USMC Women in the Service Restrictions Review" found that women, on average, have 20 percent lower aerobic power, 40 percent lower muscle strength, 47 percent less lifting strength and 26 percent slower marching speed than men.

William Gregor, professor of social sciences at the Army's Command and General Staff College, reports that in tests of aerobic capacity, the records show, only 74 of 8,385 Reserve Officers' Training Corps women attained the level of the lowest 16 percent of men. The "fight load" -- the gear an infantryman carries on patrol -- is 35 percent of the average man's body weight but 50 percent of the average Army woman's weight. In his examination of physical fitness test results from the ROTC, dating back to 1992, and 74,000 records of male and female commissioned officers, only 2.9 percent of women were able to attain the men's average pushup ability and time in the two-mile run.

In a January report titled "Defense Department 'Diversity' Push for Women in Land Combat" Elaine Donnelly, director of the Center for Military Readiness, points to U.S. Army studies showing that women are twice as likely to suffer injuries than men.  Women are less likely to be able to march under load -- 12.4 miles in five hours with an 83-pound assault load -- and to be able to crawl, sprint, negotiate obstacles with that load or move a casualty weighing 165 pounds or more while carrying that load. Plus, there are muscle-challenging feats, even for men, such as field repairs on an M1A1 Abrams tank.

Finally, there's another difference between men and women rarely considered in deliberation about whether women should be in combat.  All measures of physical aggressiveness show that men, maybe because of testosterone levels 10 times higher, are more aggressive, competitive and hostile than women. Those attributes are desirable for combat.

I must confess, my eight years of military experience took place many years ago, long before the young men and women currently serving were even born.  In those days, women were NOT trained for combat and did not serve in combat zones.  The facts and figures stated above came from what I have read, not what I have personally experienced. Having said that, you probably think (and rightfully so) that my opinion is somewhat biased.

I also realize that technology has changed a lot over the years, and there may very well be a lot of “combat jobs” these days that doesn’t require the same physical strength as a foot soldier carrying a field pack, a weapon, and ammo.   I sincerely hope that the military is allowed to take all these things into consideration when training women for combat, but I’m afraid political correctness will trump common sense.     

Suppose a combat unit is retreating in mountainous terrain in Afghanistan, where a person's aerobic capacity really makes a difference and the women in the unit can't keep up with the men.  What are they suppose to do?   Would you propose, leaving the women behind to possibly be captured by the Taliban or having the unit slow down so the women can keep up, thereby risking causalities or capture?

There are other problems that would occur in combat.  Without getting into details, just imagine a woman in combat being forced to remain in a foxhole for several days with three or four men.  If you don’t know what a foxhole is, it’s a small hole in the ground with no bathroom facilities.   

I guess my gut feeling is, IF a women volunteers for combat, and IF she is physically qualified for it, then she should have that right.  But I still think it should be on a volunteer basis only.

There is one final issue I should mention.  The reason women have never been required to register for the draft in this country is because they have never OFFICIALLY been allowed to serve in combat.  Are we opening a can of worms?   Let’s hear your two cents.

Here is an update added on 2/15/13

Democrats already want to draft women...

http://thehill.com/video/house/283387-rangel-to-introduce-legislation-to-reinstating-the-draft-

  

Here is an update added on 20 February 2013.

It is an article written by Maj. General Patrick Brady.   I can assure you, he has much more expertise on the subject than I ever will.  He says women in combat will pose “an insane burden on readiness”.

http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/women-in-foxholes/