Women in Combat: What Repealing the Combat Exclusion Means for Our Military | The Stream

This week was the deadline for the leaders of the armed services to issue their recommendation for opening all combat units to women, though these have not yet been made public and the major media have hardly mentioned it. Repealing the combat ban will not only harm women but weaken our effectiveness in combat.You may think women are already serving in these roles; but there’s a world of difference between the combat zone and direct ground combat. Women have served honorably and well on deployments, but none who has been injured or died was in direct ground combat or on a combat mission. Performing well and bravely when engaged by the enemy is not the same as qualifying for the infantry. Returning fire isn’t combat, nor is surviving an IED on convoy. Combat is the ferocious, dirty and bloody destruction of the enemy at close quarters, often face to face and hand to hand.Think about our foreign enemies from al Qaeda to the Taliban to ISIS raping and beheading their way across Iraq. Imagine your daughter there, not in support, but going after these bad guys where they live: hard, fast, with the greatest possible violence.For infantry to achieve their top priority — victory with the fewest casualties — the combat arms require the best of the best, the toughest, strongest and fastest. When speaking of rates of injury or performance, we’re not comparing civilian averages, or military women to civilian men. We’re talking about trained and fit military women compared with not just military men, but the top one percent of military men.

Source: Women in Combat: What Repealing the Combat Exclusion Means for Our Military | The Stream

Concur all.

With a few caveats.

While the combat arms, particularly the infantry are the “top 1%” they’re really more than just one percent.

Secondly, I can take any reasonably healthy high school graduate male, and have a reasonable expectation that he can be trained to be physically fit enough to successfully perform in combat. That’s simply not the case with the vast majority of women. I could probably get 5-10% of women that fit. But as the article notes, I’m still going to be stuck with the issue that they suffer injuries at twice the rate of men. And even if I put that aside, what benefit have I gained? What measurable metric shows that my unit has been improved by adding women? Does it move faster? Does it suddenly increase its load carrying capacity?

Here’s a hint. There’s no upside.

3 thoughts on “Women in Combat: What Repealing the Combat Exclusion Means for Our Military | The Stream”

  1. I found her point that if you manage to get two women through Ranger Qual, how many have you broken to do so?
    These women are injured enough to be medically discharged and have a support trail, such as it is, and another on-going expense to the DoD…

  2. It’s not just performance in combat that is problematic. Garrison and training duties involve considerable manual labor. The M2 .50 cal. weighs about 50 lbs. without the barrel or tripod. Safely mounting that sucker on an M113 is a two MAN job, or one man and a hernia. All that ammo the tanks and artillery expend in those neat videos doesn’t fly from the ammo dumps to the ready racks by itself. Wall lockers are pretty heavy. Who moves them?

    We are probably going to end up with a system where the men do the hard work and the women get the easy jobs. Not so great for morale or unit cohesion.

  3. So far every test and study shows there is no upside. That never stops SJWs who will lie, cheat, steal, and commit murder to get their way. The blood of every trooper that dies because a woman is present instead of a man is on the hands of the SJWs. It may well be that the blood of the entire country will be on their hands. If that happens, it is likely that you will se again what my mother’s side endured in the area of Florence, Alabama when they locals went after homemade Yankees with a vengeance, and it was vengeance.

Comments are closed.