Althouse: "The U.S. military will end its policy of excluding women from combat, officials said."

January 23, 2013

"The U.S. military will end its policy of excluding women from combat, officials said."

"Defense Secretary Leon Panetta will announce Thursday plans to open combat jobs and direct combat units to female troops, multiple officials confirmed to CNN."

Email, just now, from CNN.

294 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 294 of 294

Anonymous said...: Chip, part of that is that they are all 18 y/o draftees. lots of people look good at 18, Even I did :); 1/23/13, 7:39 PM
Revenant said...: Well I rather think it is when they provide aid and comfort to the nasty folks that launch attacks that kill thousands of people in this country.

So, to sum up:

Despite our military having approximately a hundred thousand times the budget of our enemy, said enemy was able to blow up (a) our military's headquarters smack in the middle of our national capital and (b) a major civilian installation in our largest city. The sole defensive success against the attackers came from unarmed, unpaid civilians acting in defiance of government recommendations.

So, having utterly failed at their actual mission of "defending the United States", our military proceeds to spend $220 million per original civilian fatality getting revenge not on the people who attacked us, but on people who "gave them aid and comfort". Oh, and lose more people than actually died in the original attacks in the process. Ten years in "victory" remains absolutely nowhere in site and the population of the country in question has gone from "we hate the Taliban" to "and actually we hate America too".

Your complaint about this: that we haven't spent enough money kicking the crap out of them yet.

This isn't defense of America. This is macho bullshit. Very, very expensive macho bullshit.; 1/23/13, 7:40 PM
Colonel Angus said...: Women are not less able to tolerate heat and dirt, they may not be able to physically carry or lift to the same degree a man could, but I'm sure that they could serve a purpose.

Aren't we jumping to conclusions about just how they will be utilized in combat roles?

Yes because probably 90% won't be in the infantry. AFVs, fighter pilots, helicopter most likely.

Don't even want to think about them becoming a POW.; 1/23/13, 7:40 PM
Anonymous said...: As my boy (and some other Althouse commenters' bête noire) Steve Sailer puts it:

"But, so what? It's not like any of this matters in a practical sense. If more co-ed combat degrades American military performance, it's not like the Axis is going to win WWII, it's that a few more brave Americans will get killed in some inconclusive puttering around in Mali or wherever.

This kind of thing is like gay marriage: a symbolic war on the realities of biology."

Yup - this is a sign of a deeply unserious nation. "A symbolic war". A jobs program. A tale told by an idiot, signifying nothing.; 1/23/13, 7:41 PM
Jason said...: Stupid, stupid, stupid.

It's going to be our best young women who try, and then it's their careers who will be cut short by stress and pelvic fractures, simply because the female body is not designed for this shit.

I was straight Guard, minus a deployment to Iraq as a light infantry officer. 16 years combat arms, 12 of it infantry and the rest tanks, so I know both MOSs.

I was also a scout platoon leader and later commanded a headquarters company, so I know all about the MOSs and the problems of gender integration in an environment more austere than any of these knuckleheads can imagine.

Women are more vulnerable to debilitating and expensive stress fractures. They are more vulnerable to infections. They are more vulnerable to potentially deadly heat stroke.

This is not a fucking joke. I've seen as many women go down with the heat as men under sustained operations, with women being a tiny minority of the troops I served with under those conditions.

They are making policy like all the infantry does is do a three hour patrol or six-hour cordon-and-search mission and then go back to the FOB to shower and get chow.

It turned into that in some areas of Iraq and Afghanistan after a while. But they forgot how we got TO Ramadi, Fallujah and Baghdad, Kandahar and Kabul and scores of tiny FOBs in the first place. We fought our way there, crapping on the side of the road, scrounging for fresh water when we could get it, our whole lives on our backs.

I went close to six months before I could take a shower that wasn't out of a 5 gallon water can or a garden hose. That's as an officer who got around a fair amount.

We had women attached, briefly, yes. Ambulance drivers, translators, etc. They were with us a few days and rotated out or moved to the next mission and that was fine. They were good soldiers, but they were not - not a single one of them, and that includes the ones I pulled out of their trucks and had stuck with IVs so they wouldn't die of heat stroke on me mid-mission - not a single one of them would have lasted a day as a line dog infantryman. It would take an olympic athlete to do that, and that STILL doesn't solve the stress fracture problem.

Combat arms are an order of magnitude different than combat support and combat service support gigs.

I'm finishing up my Guard career now in a combat support unit with a lot of women in it. Very fine women, and great soldiers.

But when the going get tough for days at a time with sustained support operations even from garrison, it's the women who pass out from exhaustion/dehydration. Not the men.

This shit's all about a few hotshot officers wanting to punch their command tickets.

That's all.

Glad I'm retiring this year. I love the Army and the soldiers in it, male and female.

But we've gone off the rails.; 1/23/13, 7:42 PM
Jason said...: Stupid, stupid, stupid.

It's going to be our best young women who try, and then it's their careers who will be cut short by stress and pelvic fractures, simply because the female body is not designed for this shit.

I was straight Guard, minus a deployment to Iraq as a light infantry officer. 16 years combat arms, 12 of it infantry and the rest tanks, so I know both MOSs.

I was also a scout platoon leader and later commanded a headquarters company, so I know all about the MOSs and the problems of gender integration in an environment more austere than any of these knuckleheads can imagine.

Women are more vulnerable to debilitating and expensive stress fractures. They are more vulnerable to infections. They are more vulnerable to potentially deadly heat stroke.

This is not a fucking joke. I've seen as many women go down with the heat as men under sustained operations, with women being a tiny minority of the troops I served with under those conditions.

They are making policy like all the infantry does is do a three hour patrol or six-hour cordon-and-search mission and then go back to the FOB to shower and get chow.

It turned into that in some areas of Iraq and Afghanistan after a while. But they forgot how we got TO Ramadi, Fallujah and Baghdad, Kandahar and Kabul and scores of tiny FOBs in the first place. We fought our way there, crapping on the side of the road, scrounging for fresh water when we could get it, our whole lives on our backs.

I went close to six months before I could take a shower that wasn't out of a 5 gallon water can or a garden hose. That's as an officer who got around a fair amount.

We had women attached, briefly, yes. Ambulance drivers, translators, etc. They were with us a few days and rotated out or moved to the next mission and that was fine. They were good soldiers, but they were not - not a single one of them, and that includes the ones I pulled out of their trucks and had stuck with IVs so they wouldn't die of heat stroke on me mid-mission - not a single one of them would have lasted a day as a line dog infantryman. It would take an olympic athlete to do that, and that STILL doesn't solve the stress fracture problem.

Combat arms are an order of magnitude different than combat support and combat service support gigs.

I'm finishing up my Guard career now in a combat support unit with a lot of women in it. Very fine women, and great soldiers.

But when the going get tough for days at a time with sustained support operations even from garrison, it's the women who pass out from exhaustion/dehydration. Not the men.

This shit's all about a few hotshot officers wanting to punch their command tickets.

That's all.

Glad I'm retiring this year. I love the Army and the soldiers in it, male and female.

But we've gone off the rails.; 1/23/13, 7:42 PM
Revenant said...: Furthermore, with the effort to normalize evolutionary dysfunction, there is actually an incentive (albeit perverse) to remove individuals, men, women, and other, engaged in dysfunctional behaviors from the gene pool.

I dunno, judging from the praise Sarah Palin received here for not aborting her genetically defective youngest son I would say that at least a few of you are able to overcome this "incentive". When it is politically convenient to do so, at least.; 1/23/13, 7:44 PM
Colonel Angus said...: So, having utterly failed at their actual mission of "defending the United States", our military proceeds to spend $220 million per original civilian fatality getting revenge not on the people who attacked us, but on people who "gave them aid and comfort". Oh, and lose more people than actually died in the original attacks in the process. Ten years in "victory" remains absolutely nowhere in site and the population of the country in question has gone from "we hate the Taliban" to "and actually we hate America too".

Your complaint about this: that we haven't spent enough money kicking the crap out of them yet.

Actually my complaint is we spent more time on nation building and bug hunts.

My position is we should have left there 7-8 years ago after paying off the biggest clan to maintain some semblance of order and the charter to make life inhospitable for terrorists that target us with the promise that we'd come back, kill them and replace them with someone else.

Then again if we're going to go to war, go and win. All we are doing at this point is colonial policing.; 1/23/13, 7:47 PM
Anonymous said...: This isn't defense of America. This is macho bullshit. Very, very expensive macho bullshit.

Inga, Barack, Nancy, and Chuck made us spend so much. Glassy craters could have been done for less that 220 million a pop...

It's the complete avoidance of collateral damage and friendly losses that increases the price. Old fashioned sloppy war with $268 dollar Mark 82 500 pounders dropped in the hundreds from flying trucks (e.g. BUFFS) is a lot cheaper than 1 ATACMS at $100k a shot...

neatness is pricy; 1/23/13, 7:48 PM
Anonymous said...: Meth, this is a thread about WOMEN in combat roles, so I AM going to be here to discuss it, so fuck you.; 1/23/13, 7:53 PM
chickelit said...: Outrageous costs of military hardware and missions used to be fair game for members of Congress to address. In-so-far as they were aware, real journalists used to write about these things and care. But ever since Vietnam, the tactic has been to undermine the mission itself at every turn. Iraq was the extreme example of this. I live around real people who actually fought over there and they bear that cause no ill will. It's the Kerry's and the Obama's and the disgusting cabal of DC Journolists who fail to do the real work of investigative reporting on military spending. That would be serving the country & they'd rather debate the philosophical merits of war and intervention, trying to defeat the Pentagon, hoping to better position themselves for the next blow job or anal receptive opportunity amongst their peers.; 1/23/13, 7:53 PM
edutcher said...: While Revenant hands us the usual Lefty sophistry, let's remember a lot of his (and some other people's) examples of our problems in A-stan stem from the brilliant leadership of Commandante Zero.

In half the time, he has managed to sustain thrice the casualties as Dubya thanks to his outreach to the Tahleebahn and his (and the Hildabeast's) foreign policy reset.; 1/23/13, 7:57 PM
Revenant said...: My position is we should have left there 7-8 years ago after paying off the biggest clan to maintain some semblance of order and the charter to make life inhospitable for terrorists that target us with the promise that we'd come back, kill them and replace them with someone else.

That, I would agree with.

The thing is, the original toppling of the Taliban used a comparative handful of American troops and cost very little. We could have pulled that off with a military a tiny fraction of the size of the one we've got.

As I see it we need nukes as a deterrent, we need state militias for homeland defense, we need *some* amount of air, land and sea capability, and we need good special forces. That's it. We could get that for ten or twenty percent of what we spend now.; 1/23/13, 8:02 PM
Revenant said...: In Germany for example, a revenge-seeking Soviet Union could have extended its borders to the Rhine if not beyond.

I would argue that the superpowered USSR of post-WW2 was our own creation. Absent our industrial and agricultural support and our opening of a second front it is highly unlikely they would have been able to defeat Nazi Germany. The likely outcome would have been a Cold War (with occasional flareups) between the Nazis and Soviets.

However, had they taken all of Europe that would not have increased the threat to the United States. Maintaining its empire was always a huge financial drain on the USSR -- they lost a LOT of money on East Germany and Poland alone.

There is and was a "defense of world freedom" argument for facing down the Soviets (and the Nazis, before them). But neither was ever a credible threat to the USA itself.; 1/23/13, 8:07 PM
Revenant said...: Revenant hands us the usual Lefty sophistry

Please, this is *libertarian* sophistry. Totally different stuff.

Besides, the argument over whether or not we need a huge military is academic. We can't afford it, ergo we're not going to have it much longer whether we need it or not.; 1/23/13, 8:09 PM
XRay said...: Haven't read the thread. But I feel for the men who will have to shoulder this new load of shit on top of the rest of the shit under which they already shoulder.

It is difficult not to see this as yet one more part of the progressive plan to destroy this country.

It is an ignorant decision.; 1/23/13, 8:11 PM
Jason said...: The Russians would eventually have wrestled the Nazis down, and taken as much of Europe as they wanted.

That was decided when they successfully moved much of their industrial capacity to East of the Urals in a few months - a rare success story of a command economy.

Read Why The Allies Won for more.

The Germans did not have the combat power to consolidate their gains in Russia as long as Russia had the will to fight.

And they had the will to fight.

So no, Revenant. Your dreams of successful isolationism are a fantasy.; 1/23/13, 8:14 PM
Methadras said...: Chip Ahoy said...

[women army israeli hot]

This...; 1/23/13, 8:16 PM
edutcher said...: Revenant said...

Revenant hands us the usual Lefty sophistry

Please, this is *libertarian* sophistry. Totally different stuff.

No, not really. A lot of doctrinaire Libertarian positions are hard core Lefty and a good many Libertarians come across as Leftists who don't feel the stereotypical Liberal guilt about being rich - i.e., they want to hang on to it.

the other problem was stated by Rumsfeld in '01. you go with the Army (and Navy and Air force) you have. we won't have 4 years to build a new one nad we have no British or french Overseas or Dutch Empires to provide cover while we do.

we certainly can't count on Russia and China the way we did.

If we haven't got it on day 1, we're screwed. It's the Welfare State and the crooked politicians we can't afford.

That's the real problem.; 1/23/13, 8:21 PM
Anonymous said...: Jason said...
The Russians would eventually have wrestled the Nazis down, and taken as much of Europe as they wanted.

lots of uncertainities there. one must consider:
1. USSR was a Nazi ally, when France/UK made the decision to Defend Poland.
2. 40% of the German army faced West/south. Absent a war against France/UK, that extra 40% would have gone East.
3. The partition of Poland gave Stalin a buffer. If the Germans had started 200 miles East, would they have had the juice to take Moscow, Stalin and the rail node?
4. The limits on Nazi advance were logistical.
5. A different Nazi policy in the Ukraine would have been a challenge for the USSR
6. Germany declared war on the US, (Japanese solidarity), if Hitler had not, could fdr have gotten a war on Germany?; 1/23/13, 8:25 PM
Revenant said...: Inga, Barack, Nancy, and Chuck made us spend so much. Glassy craters could have been done for less that 220 million a pop...

Come on, now, we both know that's a bullshit argument. Bush had six years to end the war that way and he was, if anything, MORE concerned about blowing up innocent civilians than the Obamessiah is.

The American people aren't comfortable with mass slaughter of civilians anymore.; 1/23/13, 8:25 PM
TosaGuy said...: Jason is spot on. Glad I'm retiring in a few years too.; 1/23/13, 8:27 PM
Revenant said...: The Germans did not have the combat power to consolidate their gains in Russia as long as Russia had the will to fight. And they had the will to fight.

Maybe you should read what I actually wrote? I didn't say Germany would defeat Russia, I said it would turn into a stalemate and Cold War.

Germany couldn't consolidate its gains. Russia couldn't feed, clothe, or transport its military -- until we flooded the country with trains, trucks, fuel, food, and uniforms. That's a recipe for stalemate.; 1/23/13, 8:29 PM
TosaGuy said...: 7. Germany got bogged down in Greece for a month bailing out the Italians. Could have invaded USSR a month earlier and done more damage before winter hit.; 1/23/13, 8:30 PM
Methadras said...: Inga said...

Meth, this is a thread about WOMEN in combat roles, so I AM going to be here to discuss it, so fuck you.

Fuck you too, but that might actually give you some form of credibility.; 1/23/13, 8:30 PM
Revenant said...: No, not really. A lot of doctrinaire Libertarian positions are hard core Lefty

If I meet a "doctrinaire Libertarian" I'll be sure to tell him you think that.

That being said, if you think the libertarian arguments I offer sound left-wing you either don't understand the Left or you don't understand what I'm saying.; 1/23/13, 8:34 PM
Methadras said...: Revenant said...

The American people aren't comfortable with mass slaughter of civilians anymore.

That is due to the western cultural practice of chivalry on the battlefield that has been inculcateded by the leftards for god knows how long. A real offensive with no rules of engagement would have been a much better viable option to execute vs. the touchy feely conundrums of war. Find your enemy, kill them all regardless of how many human shields get in their way. Declare victory, get the fuck out. Show your enemies you will not be fucked with and if you are, this is how you will be treated. You can also show them that you can also be a good neighbor ally.; 1/23/13, 8:35 PM
Anonymous said...: Meth, how stupid of you to think that you have my more right to post a comment on this thread than I do. This concerns women, its just as stupid as Republican hearings on birth control issues with no women present, so go fuck yourself.; 1/23/13, 8:36 PM
Chip Ahoy said...: What's the big deal about schlepping heavy loads anyway? We'll have anti-gravity platforms and robot mules. Hanging there instead of pull-ups, pffft, doesn't matter when you're Ripley inside her power loader. While being misted.; 1/23/13, 8:38 PM
chickelit said...: Jason said...
The Russians would eventually have wrestled the Nazis down, and taken as much of Europe as they wanted.

Agree. And Stalingrad was the turning point. It would have been stupid to have fought through the Western front and then said "OK, Joe, the country's yours--here's the keys. Oh, and that von Braun guy? Don't even bother."

At the time of Germany's defeat, it possessed the most advanced chemical industry ever assembled. It was no accident that we set up shop in I.G. Farben's HQ--it wasn't just an accommodating structure.; 1/23/13, 8:39 PM
Jason said...: Germany could have taken Moscow if he had launched Barbarrosa a month or so earlier.

That is irrelevant, because Moscow was not the center of gravity. Stalin's people managed to move the center of gravity east of the Urals.

Napoleon took Moscow. It didn't help him and may have hurt him.

Hitler rolled the dice on knocking out or capturing Russia's industrial base. That didn't happen. One the Russkies had their manufacturing and metalsmithing capabilities moved out safely behind the Urals, it was just a matter of time.

The same Russian capacity to manufacture T-34s would have also manufactured trucks of their own -and perfectly serviceable ones. Or bought them in exchange for oil.

Once the Russky economy retreated to Siberia before Germany could overrun it, it was all she wrote. It was over.; 1/23/13, 8:39 PM
chickelit said...: The American people aren't comfortable with mass slaughter of civilians anymore.

Did someone mention 9/11/01?; 1/23/13, 8:42 PM
Anonymous said...: Senator Kelley Ayotte is in favor as are many Republicans, sorry guys the train has left the station. You'll get used to the idea.; 1/23/13, 8:43 PM
Revenant said...: That is due to the western cultural practice of chivalry on the battlefield that has been inculcateded by the leftards for god knows how long.

So, for example, the Pope is a leftard? Reagan and Bush, leftards?

I should take notes for the next time the local social conservatives argue that atheists like me lack a moral compass. :); 1/23/13, 8:43 PM
Bob said...: While Panetta is busy opening slots to females the President has sacked the CENTCOM Commander with no prying questions from our press corp.

I am glad I retire next year.; 1/23/13, 8:44 PM
I Have Misplaced My Pants said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 1/23/13, 8:47 PM
Revenant said...: Stalin's people managed to move the center of gravity east of the Urals.

But it was our deliveries, especially of food and transport capability, that made that possible in the first place.; 1/23/13, 8:52 PM
edutcher said...: Revenant said...

The American people aren't comfortable with mass slaughter of civilians anymore.

The American Left, maybe.

The American people can live with it just fine when they just seen people jumping out of burning buildings.

Inga said...

Meth, how stupid of you to think that you have my more right to post a comment on this thread than I do. This concerns women, its just as stupid as Republican hearings on birth control issues with no women present, so go fuck yourself.

The expert speaks.

Actually, this is about the defense of the United States, the whole woman thing is a crock.

And Methedras, caring about this country, does have more right that the hypocritical Oop.

Senator Kelley Ayotte is in favor as are many Republicans, sorry guys the train has left the station. You'll get used to the idea.

Which Republicans?

More RINOs?

And, no, we won't.

But let's put Oop's "daughter" on the first plane to Mali (or Syria) and see what happens.; 1/23/13, 8:53 PM
ken in tx said...: Some women will do well, but not many. The standards should not be changed for them. Doing that would just get more people killed.; 1/23/13, 8:55 PM
Ralph L said...: I don't recall a single instance of the US military coming to the aid of Israel.
It wasn't combat, but Golda Meir said the US resupply saved Israel in 1973. The stuff wasn't bought at Kmart and didn't get there by UPS.

Of course, there was a lot of blowback from that support.

Revenant, if you try to take a penny of my father's Navy retirement, my step-mother will cut your balls off with her oxygen tube.; 1/23/13, 8:56 PM
Cedarford said...: Angus - My belief is credible threats we face are from rogue actors such as the ones we did on 9/11 that killed more people than the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Unfortunately, for the purpose of budgeting, you have to maintain defense against less plausible scenarios - like a nuke attack by Pakistan, Russia, N Korea or China - so we cannot disarm our nuke deterrent on "low credible immediate threat grounds". Nor cede air supremacy nor give up the Navys capacity to keep any sea lane open, nor the AF ability to give us satellite assets and defend our satellite assets.

We just can't afford the stupidity of declaring the last attackers means our military dealt with as the only sort of defense we need to spend money on.
Declaring Muslim terrorists as the only credible threat America faces is stupidity.; 1/23/13, 8:58 PM
Revenant said...: The American people aren't comfortable with mass slaughter of civilians anymore.

The American people can live with [mass slaughter of civilians] just fine when they just seen people jumping out of burning buildings.

You're just being childish. You know as well as I do that fury over the 9/11 attacks doesn't equate to a desire to murder children in Afghanistan, no matter what part of the political spectrum you lie on.; 1/23/13, 8:59 PM
Cedarford said...: I agree with Revenent though..the days of us being the free Global 911 service? Of us jumping to fight and die for those who have internal US support as "Freedom Lovers" but not in the vital interest of the US - are coming to a close.
We can't afford that shit anymore, not in blood and treasure when it doesn't directly serve America's vital interests.
Same with the Neocon's on the rights wars of nation-building and adventure, and the Samantha Powers school of lefties that thing we are obligated to war if any "innocent civilians in any 3rd World locale are threatened." on humanitarian grounds.

All that side shit is ending thanks to globalization, free trade, and the ensuent crushing debt the US bears.; 1/23/13, 9:03 PM
Revenant said...: Revenant, if you try to take a penny of my father's Navy retirement, my step-mother will cut your balls off with her oxygen tube.

See, take that thought and hold it. You just described the reaction you'll see if you try cutting Social Security and Medicare.

Military spending plus Social Security plus Medicare will, by themselves, exceed total tax revenue in the near future. So if you don't like the idea of cutting your dad's retirement benefits, you better start planning on making cuts to current, non-retirement military spending.

If for no other reason than that non-veterans outnumber veterans. If there's a vote on whose retirement benefits go first, guess who loses?; 1/23/13, 9:06 PM
Synova said...: So I missed this whole thing.

Without reading 200+ comments: This is a good thing, if and only if, the change is from congressional prohibition on women in combat to military discretionary power over assignments.

For most of the last 12 years the military has been fudging the rules and women have been in the line of fire, which was a no-no, or doing "police" work in a war zone, or (for a while anyhow) serving attached to teams kicking down doors so someone could be there to talk to the women and kids. (That *may* have been stopped after it made the news.) And, of course, flying helicopters into battles to pick people up or provide air cover.

If someone is going to try to stick women in the infantry, though, that needs to wait on really decent mech suits.; 1/23/13, 9:08 PM
Anonymous said...: Retired Col. McSally says combat decision long overdue; 1/23/13, 9:13 PM
Cedarford said...: AS for women in the military in combat, fine. As long as women agree that if they can serve ANY position if they Choooooooooozzzzee! to.....then they have no right to say that the delicate flowers are to remain off-limits if emergency or the sheer cost of a voluntary military makes a return to the Draft unfortunately necessary.

And conservative fools need to wake up and realize that their old school chivalry will serve the feminazis quite well...Then women will demand and get 50% of officer or glamour jobs or sought after military non-combat specialties that they can leave the military with...but Drafted involuntary to hard, brutal jobs??? COnservatives will serve the feminazis having their cake and eating it too by saying despite that, women have to be exempted from any future Draft...NOT our daughters!!

Just as dumb conservatives and Republican free marketers took it in the ass for fellating the rich "CEO Heroes and Hero Job Creators needing huge tax cuts". Despite most of those rich people ladling PAC money out to the Democrats by truckload from the Goldman Sachs sort of people, the Hollywood types.
When the fiscal meltdown happened, the Republicans were so identified as the Party demading tax cuts for rich Democrat donors that THEY..not the Democrats..took it in the ass and were blamed by most of the American public.; 1/23/13, 9:15 PM
Synova said...: "As I see it we need nukes as a deterrent, we need state militias for homeland defense, we need *some* amount of air, land and sea capability, and we need good special forces. That's it. We could get that for ten or twenty percent of what we spend now."

For that to work we have to actually use the nukes from time to time. The fact that we WILL use them is necessary for them to work as a deterrent at all.

Part of why our military is as large and expensive as it is, is that we won't.; 1/23/13, 9:16 PM
XRay said...: "If someone is going to try to stick women in the infantry, though, that needs to wait on really decent mech suits."

Yes.; 1/23/13, 9:17 PM
edutcher said...: And how many retired Colonels don't?

As Col McSally is seeking political office, her comments have a certain caveat to them.

Revenant said...

The American people aren't comfortable with mass slaughter of civilians anymore.

The American people can live with [mass slaughter of civilians] just fine when they just seen people jumping out of burning buildings.

You're just being childish. You know as well as I do that fury over the 9/11 attacks doesn't equate to a desire to murder children in Afghanistan, no matter what part of the political spectrum you lie on.

No, i'm being honest. As I said, it's the American Left that goes all nuancy and squeamish and worries about world opinion.

Most Americans, when hit, want to hit back. They remember the Arabs dancing in the street at the news of 9/11. That's why the Lefty media doesn't show the pictures of people jumping to their deaths, rather than die in the Towers.

It's the only way they can make people forget how we got into this.; 1/23/13, 9:20 PM
XRay said...: Not just that though, the mech suits.

A pill that will subdue emotion for gender, and sex.; 1/23/13, 9:23 PM
Anonymous said...: Women have always served in combat roles; 1/23/13, 9:25 PM
Ralph L said...: If for no other reason than that non-veterans outnumber veterans. If there's a vote on whose retirement benefits go first, guess who loses?
The veterans are better organized.

You're quite right--the screeching when the money runs out will wake the dead.; 1/23/13, 9:27 PM
McTriumph said...: Inga, I believe the prohibition of women flying in combat ended in the 1990s.; 1/23/13, 9:34 PM
Anonymous said...: "On The Front Lines: Women In War
Timeline: Women On The Front Lines
Women, the lawsuit claimed, were already serving in combat roles, but were not receiving recognition for it. The ACLU said the combat exclusion kept women from more than 200,000 positions.

CNN explains:

"The Army and Marine Corps, especially, will be examining physical standards and gender-neutral accommodations within combat units. Every 90 days, the service chiefs will have to report back on their progress.
"The move will be one of the last significant policy decisions made by Panetta, who is expected to leave in mid-February. It is not clear where former Sen. Chuck Hagel, the nominated replacement, stands, but officials say he has been apprised of Panetta's coming announcement.

Update at 5:20 p.m. ET. 'Fantastic News':

Carey Lohrenz, a former Navy Lieutenant and one of the first women to fly F-14s on air craft carriers, tells our Newscast unit that this is "fantastic news," but it's really just catching up with the reality on the ground.

"We have women in combat roles right now. We are just not able to promote them," she said. "They're on the ground in Iraq; they're on the ground in Afghanistan. This is strictly formalizing and recognizing what their contributions currently are."

Sen. Mazie K. Hirono, a Democratic member of the Armed Services Committee from Hawaii, said the move was a "great step toward equality."

"I know that the women who currently serve in the military think they should be treated the same as any other servicemember," Hirono said in a statement. "Women serving in combat roles will strengthen our national security, and as a member of the Armed Services Committee, I will work closely with military and administration officials to see this change through."

Update at 4:14 p.m. ET. Infantry Troops:

As we alluded to earlier, the implementation of this new policy will be complex. The Wall Street Journal adds an important caveat saying that while this is the "largest expansion yet of women in combat roles," "defense officials said they don't expect the change to result in women being allowed to serve as infantry troops."

The paper also reports that Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, sent his recommendation on the ban to Penetta in a January 9 memo."
--------------------
From NPR, so all your angst over women in infantry units was for nothing!; 1/23/13, 9:35 PM
Revenant said...: No, i'm being honest.

Then you're out of touch with reality. You should get out more and talk to actual people sometime. :); 1/23/13, 9:35 PM
Anonymous said...: Revenant,
,
Edutcher only gets out when "the blond" takes him for a walk.; 1/23/13, 9:39 PM
JohnJ said...: “If someone is going to try to stick women in the infantry, though, that needs to wait on really decent mech suits.”

Yes, what is the left’s talking point here? It can’t be that women are on a par with men as combat soldiers. To believe that, one would have to reject the established science on sex differences in strength, durability and aggression. Unless there is some special accommodation for these obvious physical differences between the sexes, very few women will pass the training regimens and this new policy will become a non-issue.

Perhaps it’s informative to recall that even though women achieved parity in prize money on the tennis tour, they still play best of three sets.; 1/23/13, 9:39 PM
Anonymous said...: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/01/23/170093351/panetta-is-lifting-ban-on-women-in-combat-roles?sc=tw&cc=share

Update at 4:14 p.m. ET. Infantry Troops:

As we alluded to earlier, the implementation of this new policy will be complex. The Wall Street Journal adds an important caveat saying that while this is the "largest expansion yet of women in combat roles," "defense officials said they don't expect the change to result in women being allowed to serve as infantry troops."

---------------------------

Relax.; 1/23/13, 9:43 PM
somefeller said...: edutcher says No, i'm being honest. As I said, it's the American Left that goes all nuancy and squeamish and worries about world opinion.

He's one bad dude, that edutcher. No squeamishness with him. As he stands bravely at his keyboard, waiting to charge, while quoting military history despite having failed to serve in the military, among many other failures.; 1/23/13, 10:02 PM
edutcher said...: And some phony folksy mouth off his inanities as if her were a wit.

At least I'm honest and I was talking about the American people (you know, the ones you can't stand?), not myself.

And he likes to throw the old Lefty wheeze of reading comprehension when he needs to dissemble.

Revenant said...

No, i'm being honest.

Then you're out of touch with reality. You should get out more and talk to actual people sometime. :)

You've obviously never been to Pulaski TN.

Or Bryn Mawr PA

Or Firestone Park OH

Get out of your gated community. you might learn something

Inga said...

Infantry Troops:

As we alluded to earlier, the implementation of this new policy will be complex

Translation:

2 sets of standards, 2 sets of duties.; 1/23/13, 10:09 PM
somefeller said...: edutcher has some badass, nonsqueamish friends. In Pulaski, Tennessee, no less. Get back, bro!; 1/23/13, 10:13 PM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 1/23/13, 10:13 PM
Anonymous said...: Edumber, cant you read?

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/01/23/170093351/panetta-is-lifting-ban-on-women-in-combat-roles?sc=tw&cc=share

Update at 4:14 p.m. ET. Infantry Troops:

"As we alluded to earlier, the implementation of this new policy will be complex. The Wall Street Journal adds an important caveat saying that while this is the "largest expansion yet of women in combat roles," "defense officials said they don't expect the change to result in women being allowed to serve as infantry troops."

---------------------------

Relax.; 1/23/13, 10:14 PM
chickelit said...: McTriumph said...
Inga, I believe the prohibition of women flying in combat ended in the 1990s.

And I believe women began serving aboard long hard vessels full of seamen a couple years ago.; 1/23/13, 10:17 PM
chickelit said...: somefeller said...
edutcher has some badass, nonsqueamish friends. In Pulaski, Tennessee, no less. Get back, bro!

Why don't you go hold hands with harrogate and phx...; 1/23/13, 10:18 PM
edutcher said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 1/23/13, 10:27 PM
edutcher said...: Inga said...

Women have always served in combat roles

They have?

Golly, I forgot all about the 2nd Montana Petticoats at Little Big Horn or the 6th Mississippi Bustles at Antietam.

And how the 1st Massachusetts Bustiers saved the day at Molino Del Rey.

And of course, there were the Pet Wussies who went up San Juan Hill with the Rough Riders.

Or who were ridden roughly in San Juan, I forget which.; 1/23/13, 10:31 PM
edutcher said...: Some phony folksy ignores the point that most Americans get angry when attacked and want to do something about it.

Some phony folksy ought to get out of Mom's basement (isn't tonight a "work" night? don't we have to get up early to go to the "office"? or is Mom letting him sleep in?) and actually understand most of the country aren't Lefties.

Inga said...

Edumber, cant you read?

"As we alluded to earlier, the implementation of this new policy will be complex. The Wall Street Journal adds an important caveat saying that while this is the "largest expansion yet of women in combat roles," "defense officials said they don't expect the change to result in women being allowed to serve as infantry troops."

I've been reading government-ese all my life.

"I can assure you again and again and again, I will nevah send American boys to fight in a European wah"

Franklin Roosevelt 10/31/40

"Ah will not shend Murrican baws tuh faht in Veetnam"

Lyndon Johnson Atlantic City 1964

The only way they won't do it is if the people scream bloody murder.

And even then Barry has "flexibility".; 1/23/13, 10:33 PM
Alex said...: The only women who will sign up for combat are the ugly ones who don't think they can land a man and make babies.; 1/23/13, 11:37 PM
Alex said...: It's going to be our best young women who try, and then it's their careers who will be cut short by stress and pelvic fractures, simply because the female body is not designed for this shit.

Jason - bullshit. where do you come up with this stuff? Who are these "best young women"?; 1/23/13, 11:37 PM
Anonymous said...: Alex said...
Jason - bullshit. where do you come up with this stuff? Who are these "best young women"?

the change overwhelmingly is based on the assumption, that in order to rise to the higher General officer grades, you must have a CIB. The one who see themselves as gaining are female USMA grads. Hard Chargers, the best young women officers cohort...

very few enlisted women see a 20 year future as 11B SGTs. its a tough though life that physically breaks its share of men.

this is female officer ticket punching pretending to be a civil rights fight...; 1/23/13, 11:45 PM
Alex said...: Jason - what I want to know is why so few women become software engineers?; 1/23/13, 11:47 PM
Alex said...: Software engineering is much harder then soldiering because the brain is involved. sorry to you military folks, but it's true.; 1/23/13, 11:48 PM
Known Unknown said...: Jason - what I want to know is why so few women become software engineers?

Self-selection bias. Women don't like being software engineers. It's really that simple.; 1/23/13, 11:49 PM
Known Unknown said...: Software engineering is much harder then soldiering because the brain is involved. sorry to you military folks, but it's true.

You're trying too hard, really.; 1/23/13, 11:49 PM
Alex said...: Of course soldiering is tougher on the body.; 1/23/13, 11:51 PM
furious_a said...: Do you realize that the last time a credible military attack was launched on the actual United States, it was launched by the Confederate States of America*?

I didn't realize that inside the 12-mile limit off our East and Gulf Coasts didn't constitute "the actual United States" nor that millions of shipping tons lost to German U-boats weren't "a credible military attack".

Either that or by your reckoning WWs I and II occurred before the Civil War.; 1/23/13, 11:51 PM
Alex said...: Self-selection bias. Women don't like being software engineers. It's really that simple.

Why is that? programming involves learning about basic things like logic, memory layout, file i/O and so on. It's not that difficult. It sure pays well for those who can do it well. There are software engineers are Google making $160K a year.; 1/23/13, 11:53 PM
Jason said...: Alex,

You don't think soldiering involves your brain?

Thanks for establishing yourself to be bone-ignorant right away, moron.; 1/24/13, 12:42 AM
Alex said...: Jason - I didn't say that. I just said that soldering doesn't require the same level of daily problem solving skills that software engineering does. It does require more physical abilities and willingness to put up with bullying.; 1/24/13, 12:52 AM
SomeoneHasToSayIt said...: This is, of course, a farce - provable by this simple example.

Squad of 7, pinned down by enemy fire. Six men in squad (including the squad leader), and one woman.

Decision made: Only way ANY make it out, if one is sacrificed, staying behind and providing cover while the other 6 get away. The squad leader must pick one of the 6 to stay.

In an equal, perfect military, each soldier should have 1/6 chance of being selected. However, no fucking man alive, who could ever after call himself a man, would ever select the one female to stay behind. Never. Ever.; 1/24/13, 12:59 AM
Alex said...: In an equal, perfect military, each soldier should have 1/6 chance of being selected. However, no fucking man alive, who could ever after call himself a man, would ever select the one female to stay behind. Never. Ever.

In 2013, males have been programmed to think of females as co-equals.; 1/24/13, 1:02 AM
Kirk Parker said...: rhh,

"I don't see why women can't have their own units with lighter guns."

As long as they're the right color...; 1/24/13, 1:42 AM
Alex said...: Yeah the image of female soldiers blown off heads and whatnot is so fantastic for American morale. Thanks Inga, the She Wolf of the SS>; 1/24/13, 4:33 AM
SomeoneHasToSayIt said...: Alex said...

In 2013, males have been programmed to think of females as co-equals.

They can try, but it's baked in the genes.; 1/24/13, 8:39 AM
Michael Haz said...: Bless you, Allen S. And thank you for your service. You to, Drill and Tosa.; 1/24/13, 9:34 AM
Jason said...: Alex,

You don't know shit, fool. Go sit at the kiddie table with Inga.; 1/24/13, 9:41 AM
test said...: Alex said...
Software engineering is much harder then soldiering because the brain is involved. sorry to you military folks, but it's true.

This is bullshit. Soldiering requires brainpower because someone is trying to stop you. Not only are you trying to reach one of a myriad of goals, you have to account for the myriad events your enemy can deploy against you.; 1/24/13, 10:08 AM
Aridog said...: In summary, since I missed most of this discussion: you cannot know what infantry and combat is like if you have not served in infantry and combat. Those here who have so served have said all that need be said on the posted topic.

I was in US Army Ordnance, and later Engineer Branch, and I cannot say enough in praise of both the straight legs and airborne troops. I strongly doubt I could have matched up to average infantryman day to day. I saw combat, but it found me, I didn't have to go looking for it...that IS what Infantry does. I saw the effects.

It is myth that the military habitually places the less intelligent in Infantry...anyone who enlisted in 1968, as I did, can tell you the best and brightest almost all were sent to Fort Polk for AIT and thence to Vietnam as infantry...and in short order.

Far beyond the physical demands...actual Infantry combat leadership is possibly the highest pressure hour to hour day to day crucible any leader can find themselves in, anywhere, ever...and in action that leadership grade level can drop down fast, due to casualties, to to where a PFC is the remaining leader in a given action.

I understand what one commenter said about software engineering being more arduous and brain demanding than infantry. It appears more technical, right? That is a myth. Such an opinion can only be held by someone who has never been in the Infantry, or supported it, alongside it, in uniform, and seen the action up close and personal. Infantry today just may be the most technical occupation there is short of research hard science at a university.

That's my opinion. YMMV.; 1/24/13, 11:51 AM
Known Unknown said...: Why is that?

They don't like it, or find it rewarding?; 1/24/13, 12:13 PM
Anonymous said...: Far beyond the physical demands...actual Infantry combat leadership is possibly the highest pressure hour to hour day to day crucible any leader can find themselves in, anywhere, ever...and in action that leadership grade level can drop down fast, due to casualties, to to where a PFC is the remaining leader in a given action.

three QUOTES FROM "wE WERE SOLDIERS COME TO MIND..."

Lt. Colonel Hal Moore: To follow your instincts and to inspire your men, by your example, you have to be with 'em. Where the metal meets the meat.

Lt. Colonel Hal Moore: I think you oughta get yourself an M-16.
Sergeant Major Basil Plumley: Sir, if the time comes I need one, there'll be plenty lying on the ground.

Sergeant Major Basil Plumley: You can't take any pictures from down there, sonny.
[Galloway gets up and is handed a rifle]
Joseph Galloway: I'm a non-combatant.
Sergeant Major Basil Plumley: Ain't no such thing today.

Sergeant Major Basil Plumley: [about to face an onslaught of attacking NVA soldiers] Gentlemen, prepare to defend yourselves!

The last quote is just from memory, something like:

LT Moore; Men, you learn the job of the guy above you and teach your job to the guy below you. We're going into combat, men will die...; 1/24/13, 1:03 PM
Methadras said...: Inga said...

Meth, how stupid of you to think that you have my more right to post a comment on this thread than I do. This concerns women, its just as stupid as Republican hearings on birth control issues with no women present, so go fuck yourself.

Hey retard, nowhere did I ever claim that I had 'more right' to comment in a thread than you did. Keep your delusions to yourself, you clumsy cow.; 1/24/13, 2:55 PM
JAL said...: The Army has required tampons to be part of the kit for a while now. You know -- in case they get out in the field, one of the guys can have one to hand to his fellow soldier in the desert if she needs one.; 1/24/13, 9:26 PM