Women in Combat

[Guest Cerebus]

This idiotic commentary is pretty much unconnected with reality. This letter pretty much puts it better than I ever could:

 

Women In Combat

 

After reading Elaine Donnelly's tirades against female soldiers in combat ("Stealth plan for women in combat," Commentary, yesterday), I must say one would think she would have something more to offer than an inexperienced opinion.

 

Being a war veteran twice over, I never cease to be amazed when armchair critics get more editorial space than people who know what they're talking about. Throughout my 29 years of combined service, I have endured the same hardships, dangers and demands as my male counterparts. I have lived and worked in austere conditions, lifted and carried heavy equipment and never hesitated to assist in the effort to help the enemy die for their country.

 

SCUD launches, mortar attacks, bunker sweeps, minefields and bullets were shared by everyone, regardless of gender.

 

Mrs. Donnelly's one-woman mission against female soldiers is puerile and baseless. Women have been in war since time immemorial, and anyone who requires proof need only do a little research to find copious historical facts about female warriors, both individual and organized.

 

Contrary to Mrs. Donnelly's comments, all soldiers are prepared for land combat through training, from boot camp through permanent duty assignments. That's what the Army does.

 

Dismissing our service with inane pejorative terms such as "politically correct" and "feminist dreams" doesn't give much credit to the women who have given the ultimate sacrifice in this and every war fought by the United States.

 

Mrs. Donnelly's commentaries are rife with contradictions. On the one hand, she says, "Improved training on how to evade or survive ambushes makes sense." Then she does a 180-degree turn in the same breath and opines about "interchangeable men and women in or near land combat."

 

In her convoluted logic, a bullet fired in defense is not the same as a bullet fired offensively. What nonsense.

 

Whether you're ambushed, mortared at your base camp or on patrol, that, ladies and gentlemen, is combat.

 

Mrs. Donnelly's philosophy reflects ignorance of history, no cognizance of the bravery of women in the war on terrorism, and a conspicuous lack of respect for those of us who do what Ms. Donnelly has never done — walk a few miles in combat boots.

 

Sgt. 1st Class Cheryl McElroy, U.S. Army, Alexandria

[SuperJerk 0]

My favorite line:

 

Women are smart and courageous, but Army would never send female football players to beat Navy on the gridiron. The same officials seem to believe a few weeks of "warrior" training are enough to transform black-bereted female "Soldiers" into the functional equivalents of men.

 

 

Aside from the abuse of quotation marks, I find it very belittling that she'd refer to the rigorous combat training American soldiers (the best in the world, mind you) as "a few weeks of 'warrior' training".

 

The football metaphors was particularly idiotic, since there are major differences between armed combat and the sport of football. For one thing, soldiers for the most part, are not physically ramming their bodies into their enemies in an attempt to stall their forward movement. Maybe someone who is described as the president of the "Center for Military Readiness" might have heard of this little invention called GUNS. Perhaps the writer is not aware that troops no longer rush at each other with swords and shields?

 

I'm not denying that armed combat is a physically grueling activity, but modern weapons and long distances negate most of the physical advantages being a male gives you in this environment.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Most, yes, but assault rifles, ammunition, and explosives and things are heavy, given equal training and conditioning, even similar size, a man is going to have an easier time hauling things around and utilizing them quickly than a woman, simply due to more upper body muscle mass.

 

Women however are plenty crazy and tough enough to shoot the shit out of someone, so I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to be right up in the proverbial trenches.

[SuperJerk 0]

Yes, its easier for the vast majority men to get into good enough physical condition to do the job, but that doesn't mean that all women can't do it.

[Justice 0]

My favorite line:

 

Women are smart and courageous, but Army would never send female football players to beat Navy on the gridiron. The same officials seem to believe a few weeks of "warrior" training are enough to transform black-bereted female "Soldiers" into the functional equivalents of men.

I loved that as well. Apparently that is pertinent to the argument because we settle world disputes Rollerball-style nowadays. o.0

 

And arguably the physical differences don't amount to too much: So they won't be caring the SAW. They can still boast a M-16 fairly easily, and there is no accuracy difference between sexes.

[Guest Vitamin X]

Actually, it's been said that women are better sharpshooters and pilots than men.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Okay, sure the men carry the largest load of supplies to the base, but when it comes to actually going out there and putting your life on the line to get the job done, I don't see why women should be exempt as long as they logistically have a chance of succeeding.

 

It's not so much about feminism as it is about "The hell if I'm going to tell someone willing to make that sacrifice that they can't."

[MrRant 0]

We'd like to win.

[AboveAverage484 0]

I always thought women were kept off the front lines because a son's death could be more easily coped with than a daughter's.

[SuperJerk 0]

I think the fear of rape plays a part, too.

[Perfxion 0]

It's because America goes 3 steps forward and 2 steps back. They first think women can't take the load of the labor. Same with firefighters not having women do the same test as men. The second part is that they feel women arent mentally fit to combat and work better behind the combat.

 

"heroic" acts by females expressed in history is of Betty Davis giving water to the union army in the civil war.

 

Others is showing women doing "mens" jobs in the late teens and the early 40s. They pretty much helped win the wars because if it wasnt for them, there would be NO supplies.

 

These days, if anyone person, regardless of gender, wants to fight, let them. I am not going to stop anyone. Hell, the more that willingly fight, the less of a need for any kind of draft.