Women In Combat, fueling the debate in the US

[Sidewinder]

But, yeah, if a woman can do it, I say let her.

I have no problem with this. As long as they ensure an actual standard instead of letting it slide for political expediency. There would be other problems, as noted but those can be solved I think.

These "other problems" include failure to meet recruiting goals.

Stepped-up Army recruiting enlists many with problems

By Bryan Bender
Globe Staff / November 27, 2007

WASHINGTON - Two weeks ago, the Pentagon announced the "good news" that the Army had met its recruiting goal for October, the first month in a five-year plan to add 65,000 new soldiers to the ranks by 2012.

more stories like thisBut Pentagon statistics show the Army met that goal by accepting a higher percentage of enlistees with criminal records, drug or alcohol problems, or health conditions that would have ordinarily disqualified them from service.

In each fiscal year since the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, statisics show, the Army has accepted a growing percentage of recruits who do not meet its own minimum fitness standards. The October statistics show that at least 1 of every 5 recruits required a waiver to join the service, leading military analysts to conclude that the Army is lowering standards more than it has in decades.

"The across-the-board lowering of the standards is buying problems in the future," said John D. Hutson, a retired rear admiral, dean of the Franklin Pierce Law Center, and a former judge advocate general of the Navy. "You are going to have more people getting in trouble, more people washing out" of the service before finishing their tour of duty.

The Army Recruiting Command, based in Fort Knox, Ky., insists that it carefully reviews each applicant. "We look at the recent history, such as employment, schooling, references, and signs of remorse and changed behavior since the incident occurred" on how recruits with criminal records are regarded, the command said in a statement to the Globe.

But Senator Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat and influential chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he is concerned that the the Army is sacrificing quality for quantity.

"While quantity is of course important, quality must remain the highest priority," Levin said at a Nov. 15 congressional hearing. "The Army must continue to uphold high standards - moral, intellectual, and physical - for new recruits, to ensure that these young men and women are capable of handling the great demands that they will face . . . We must find a way to both increase the size of the Army and to maintain its standards."

Monday, October 15, 2007
Editorial: How low is the Army willing to go?
"Be All You Can Be" doesn't carry the same allure it once had, and the military is suffering for it.

The Pentagon last week trumpeted news that the U.S. Army had reached its recruiting goal for the 2006-07 fiscal year, boosting its size by 80,635 new soldiers.

Some of the success was attributed to enlistment bonuses, more effective recruiting campaigns, even a heightened sense of patriotism.

But the fact cannot be ignored that the Army reached its goal at this cost: A significant percentage of these new soldiers have criminal records, have not earned a high school diploma or had low scores on aptitude tests.

War continues to exact a toll on the nation's military. War has brought us an Army that replenishes troop levels with men and women who in peacetime would be turned away.

Waivers were granted to enlistees with misdemeanor arrests or drunken driving convictions, some who failed drug tests or acknowledged they had used drugs, and some who had violated probation.

Pentagon officials call the media attention to lowered standards overblown. They make the point that of the new recruits, only 17 percent -- 13,600 -- were accepted under waivers for medical, moral or criminal problems.

Those criminal problems include "youthful indiscretions" that the Army shouldn't penalize potential recruits for, the military maintains. And there is this upside, they contend: The military can provide regimen, career opportunity and life purpose for wayward young men and women.

That's a valid point. But granting waivers carries a price. After one Army soldier was charged last year in a rape and quadruple murder in Mahmudiyah, Iraq, it was disclosed that he had enlisted with a moral waiver for at least two drug- or alcohol-related offenses.

With the war's end nowhere in sight, when and where will the military finally draw the line on recruiting standards?

The Army faces an uphill battle to replenish ranks during wartime. Recruiters lament that a distaste for the service among "influencers" -- parents and other adults who influence young people's decisions -- continues to erode support, recruiting suffers.

This is a military coping not only with eroding war support but competition with private security companies hired by the Defense Department. Soldiers might be less encouraged to hang tough by a small bonus offer when Blackwater is paying as much as $100,000 a year.

Recruitment standards exist to ensure that potential enlistees possess attributes crucial to the military's purpose: loyalty, honor, integrity, duty.

Lowering standards inevitably impacts the quality and capability of the military. In wartime, how low is too low?

If you have any ideas on how to deal with THAT problem, I'm all ears. (So is the Pentagon.)

[Alyrium Denryle]

Did you miss my post on the lowered standards woman have for physical fitness tests, compared to men?

\
No I did not. hence the conditional statement, or did you fail reading comprehension class?

Did you see the "if they can do this"? I will repeat the most important part of the sentence "If"

Spoken like someone who never had to go on a 50mile hike carrying 100lbs worth of crap on the back. No sure, physical fitness means nothing in modern warfare, nothing! It's all about pushbuttons!

You also fail reading comprehension

You forget running and hand-to-hand combat, which, despite the technology we have, still occurs frequently. In fact, the technology is sometimes a DISADVANTAGE because of its weight. (I'm sure you can Google or Yahoo up LOTS of details on this.)

Running is implicit in the walking. Should I have used the catch all "translocate" because I could have.

Now, how often does hand to hand combat actually occur?

You're being too optimistic. Read this article about a male drill sergeant raping female trainees. This article, dealing with the same case, lists a captain and another sergeant among the accused.
_________________

Oh, shit, i forgot about NCOs, that proves your point that I was being overly optimistic how exactly? Women have an increase risk of being raped when they go to college, we dont bar them from that anymore now do we?

[Cecelia5578]

Did you miss my post on the lowered standards woman have for physical fitness tests, compared to men?

\
No I did not. hence the conditional statement, or did you fail reading comprehension class?

Did you see the "if they can do this"? I will repeat the most important part of the sentence "If"

Spoken like someone who never had to go on a 50mile hike carrying 100lbs worth of crap on the back. No sure, physical fitness means nothing in modern warfare, nothing! It's all about pushbuttons!

You also fail reading comprehension

You forget running and hand-to-hand combat, which, despite the technology we have, still occurs frequently. In fact, the technology is sometimes a DISADVANTAGE because of its weight. (I'm sure you can Google or Yahoo up LOTS of details on this.)

Running is implicit in the walking. Should I have used the catch all "translocate" because I could have.

Now, how often does hand to hand combat actually occur?

You're being too optimistic. Read this article about a male drill sergeant raping female trainees. This article, dealing with the same case, lists a captain and another sergeant among the accused.
_________________

Oh, shit, i forgot about NCOs, that proves your point that I was being overly optimistic how exactly? Women have an increase risk of being raped when they go to college, we dont bar them from

that anymore now do we?

Actually, you have a good point about the hand to hand combat. While in the Army, (2003-2007) I hated, absolutely hated having to do combatives.
There was such a concerted effort on the part of the instructors to make us think that, inevitably, we'd be in Iraq, be seperated from out squad mates, disarmed, and have to face an insurgent in hand to hand fighting.

I guess I was a pretty pathetic soldier, cause I couldn't stand physical violence like that. I wasn't very good, and I couldnt' stand the rough and tumble of it. Moreover, I didn't know of any soldier who died in Iraq as a result of loosing his/her weapon, becoming lost from his mates, and getting killed as a result of loosing a hand to hand joust.

Plus, I think UFC style fighting is barbaric.

[Coyote]

If you have any ideas on how to deal with THAT problem, I'm all ears. (So is the Pentagon.)

Easy-- the economy has tanked so badly, there are no more student loans available! Now if kids want to go to college, they have to work for 10 years... or join the military! See, problem solved!!

--this message has been brought to you by the Sarcasm Industry.

[Coyote]

Actually, you have a good point about the hand to hand combat. While in the Army, (2003-2007) I hated, absolutely hated having to do combatives.
There was such a concerted effort on the part of the instructors to make us think that, inevitably, we'd be in Iraq, be seperated from out squad mates, disarmed, and have to face an insurgent in hand to hand fighting.

I guess I was a pretty pathetic soldier, cause I couldn't stand physical violence like that. I wasn't very good, and I couldnt' stand the rough and tumble of it. Moreover, I didn't know of any soldier who died in Iraq as a result of loosing his/her weapon, becoming lost from his mates, and getting killed as a result of loosing a hand to hand joust.

Plus, I think UFC style fighting is barbaric.

Dude, fighting is barbaric.

I didn't like the Army's combatives course because it was too set-piece, but then we never got too far into the lessons. I kept comparing it to my Kenpo class, which taught me a lot more a lot quicker, and I only made it to orange belt there (that's the third belt from the bottom).

But hand-to-hand does happen, I understand it's more in Afghanistan where th epotential for close-in ambushes from cover are more likely than in Iraq, but it happens in Iraq, too. Not very damned often, but it happens.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I've studied this issue extensively, and let's consider the specific points in women's favour:

1. Northern Indians in Canada always appreciated the presence of women on travels through the extreme north. The greatest of the Canadian arctic explorers for the Hudson Bay Company, Alexander Mackenzie, was advised by the Indians that for long journeys he should be sure to take several women along (Indian women used to this, of course), who could "survive off the drippings of the food they lick while cooking", and who would "carry great burdens without complaining." He was the first to be successful, and the advice proved very useful.

2. Native women in general faced doing incredible things--before the Spanish arrived, there were no horses, and the eastern tribes never had a chance to gain them. It was well documented that when Indian bands were on the move in the east, the pregnant women were expected to keep up with the usual course of march, and when in labour would drop off to the side of the trail, have their baby squatting while their partner waited about, and then be on the quick-step within an hour or ninety minutes of having stopped, having given birth and now having to walk hard to catch up with the rest of the group, and they were certainly capable of doing that regularly.

3. Women are more resistant to low-grade cuts and scrapes over the body, and their feet are better adapted to long distance walking. As long as you give us proper shoes accommodated to our feet, or boots, the shape of the female foot is much preferred for extremely long distance walking; and, as noted, the ability of the body to withstand without fatigue a very large number of cuts and scrapes and etc is considerable.

4. Women do have plenty of muscles to match a man's--they're just organized for childbirthing. These muscles are not ones you'd normally think of as effective in hand to hand combat (and nobody to my knowledge teaches their use), but you can be trained to use some of them to throw parts of your body extremely violently when laying down or otherwise providing yourself with leverage. So a woman has some specific advantages in throwing someone off "from the mat" if properly trained or having picked it up through the sundry oddities of life.

5. Women can survive in general on a lower caloric intake. This may seem superfluous in a modern mechanized army, but really, it does lower your ration requirements. And it's very true that women are considerably better in starvation situations. Those don't happen often now but can, for instance some forward units during the advance on Baghdad in 2003 were reduced to eating the sugar packets for a desperate few extra calories.

6. Women bond better in social situations, and are likely to have superiour unit cohesion due to a more stable psychological profile. This could be enormously useful--for example it's long been determined that an all-female crew on a submarine would be much better than an all-male one, but in addition to prejudice there's also the fact that we have nobody to train the women, which kinda puts a crimp in developing such a force. It would certainly also apply elsewhere.

7. Yeah, yeah, for the Air Force--the g-force thing.

[Cecelia5578]

Actually, you have a good point about the hand to hand combat. While in the Army, (2003-2007) I hated, absolutely hated having to do combatives.
There was such a concerted effort on the part of the instructors to make us think that, inevitably, we'd be in Iraq, be seperated from out squad mates, disarmed, and have to face an insurgent in hand to hand fighting.

I guess I was a pretty pathetic soldier, cause I couldn't stand physical violence like that. I wasn't very good, and I couldnt' stand the rough and tumble of it. Moreover, I didn't know of any soldier who died in Iraq as a result of loosing his/her weapon, becoming lost from his mates, and getting killed as a result of loosing a hand to hand joust.

Plus, I think UFC style fighting is barbaric.

Dude, fighting is barbaric.

I didn't like the Army's combatives course because it was too set-piece, but then we never got too far into the lessons. I kept comparing it to my Kenpo class, which taught me a lot more a lot quicker, and I only made it to orange belt there (that's the third belt from the bottom).

But hand-to-hand does happen, I understand it's more in Afghanistan where th epotential for close-in ambushes from cover are more likely than in Iraq, but it happens in Iraq, too. Not very damned often, but it happens.

I actually got hurt in basic doing combatives. Enough to rock out of OCS cause of an injury. I healed just in time to graduate from 92Y school, but it's always pissed me off that I missed out on being an officer cause of fucking combatives.

[Adrian Laguna]

If I recall correctly, there's a nasty double standard against women in terms of weight requirements in the armed forces. Apparently some female personnel are forced to be on near starvation diets to avoid qualifying as "overweight", which would tend to suggest the weight standard is unreasonable. Perhaps more reasonable standards in that department would lead to better performance in terms of meeting physical requirements.

[RogueIce]

If I recall correctly, there's a nasty double standard against women in terms of weight requirements in the armed forces. Apparently some female personnel are forced to be on near starvation diets to avoid qualifying as "overweight", which would tend to suggest the weight standard is unreasonable. Perhaps more reasonable standards in that department would lead to better performance in terms of meeting physical requirements.

A lot of guys are "overweight" too. The height/weight standard is retarded. People who can get a 300 on their APFT (the highest score) bust out on height/weight.

There is the body fat thing, which I have no idea whether it is within the realm of reasonableness or not. I don't really know offhand what the standard is for women, other than that it involves more than just measuring the stomach and neck like for the men.

[Adrian Laguna]

A lot of guys are "overweight" too. The height/weight standard is retarded. People who can get a 300 on their APFT (the highest score) bust out on height/weight.

It really should be performance based. If the person involved can run as far as everyone else, as fast as everyone else, lift as much shit as everyone else, and shoot as straight as everyone else, what does their weight matter?

[RogueIce]

A lot of guys are "overweight" too. The height/weight standard is retarded. People who can get a 300 on their APFT (the highest score) bust out on height/weight.

It really should be performance based. If the person involved can run as far as everyone else, as fast as everyone else, lift as much shit as everyone else, and shoot as straight as everyone else, what does their weight matter?

You're preaching to the choir. I promise if I am ever put in charge of revising the Army's physical fitness standards that will be one of the first changes I make.

However, since I'm not, nor will I likely ever be, I'm afraid we're stuck with it.

[Mr Bean]

[
There is the body fat thing, which I have no idea whether it is within the realm of reasonableness or not. I don't really know offhand what the standard is for women, other than that it involves more than just measuring the stomach and neck like for the men.

Body fat is an accurate off-hand measurement designed in the seventies as a quick way for Coachs to get a idea on how much fat their players had. It can be anywhere from 2% to 9% off the mark. It is most accurate for people between 5"7 and 6"2. Outside of those ranges you get a minimum of 3% off to very small people (5"2 or below) showing as much as 7% off.

And when I say "off" I mean as in off the actual Body-Fat percentile you would get from `99.5% accurate Weight Pool measurement .

Weight pools are expensive and but accurate, BMI is very cheap but mostly inaccurate. As a result some people BMI's(Weightlifters -ex) are horribly off balance. You can get someone with a large waist and a tiny neck who's solid muscle but will register as 17%-25% on the BMI scale.

It should be pure tests, if you can do X and do Y, who cares how much you have on you?

[Lonestar]

You also fail reading comprehension

No, I didn't. You casually said that:

Because last I checked the only really physical thing our troops do now is carry shit, and walk long distances. If a female can do that, there is no reason not to have her in combat.

The problem being that the vast majority of women cannot meet the physical requirements for frontline infantry stuff, or even hauling shells for a protracted period. And so, it does not make sense for the military to integrate some jobs for the tiny percentage of women that can make the cut.

I don't think anyone here is saying that women should be excluded from all combat jobs, but there are jobs where it just doesn't make sense to accommodate the tiny percentage(relative to the # of dudes) who can make the cut.

[Terralthra]

A lot of guys are "overweight" too. The height/weight standard is retarded. People who can get a 300 on their APFT (the highest score) bust out on height/weight.

It really should be performance based. If the person involved can run as far as everyone else, as fast as everyone else, lift as much shit as everyone else, and shoot as straight as everyone else, what does their weight matter?

Whether or not they have a heart attack at the end of the running and lifting.

[Graeme Dice]

Whether or not they have a heart attack at the end of the running and lifting.

A person who has the cardiovascular fitness to score the highest possible mark on a fitness test isn't at any particularly increased risk of suffering a heart attack.

[Terralthra]

Whether or not they have a heart attack at the end of the running and lifting.

A person who has the cardiovascular fitness to score the highest possible mark on a fitness test isn't at any particularly increased risk of suffering a heart attack.

Yeah, but that's not actually what we're talking about. An overweight person, in general, does not have the cardiovascular fitness to score the highest possible mark on a fitness test anyway, but we're talking about running a specific distance or carrying a heavy weight. An overweight person who exerts his or herself to run the same strenuous distance with the same significant load as a non-overweight person is, in general at a higher risk for heart attack. Are you actually disputing this, or did you just feel like burning a strawman?

[Medic]

I don't think anyone here is saying that women should be excluded from all combat jobs, but there are jobs where it just doesn't make sense to accommodate the tiny percentage(relative to the # of dudes) who can make the cut.

It's all a non-starter, in our hypothetically integrated combat arms military, in garrison the women will be stuck in the staff shops -- personnel, intel, operations and supply -- and deployed they'll probably get stuck at above-average rates on guard towers, radio operations, and fob-bound tasks.

I can't remember the precise source but there's a saying about some eastern society (wanna say China) that characterizes people as like nails or tacks -- any that aren't like all the other get hammered and that's a good analogy to how the Army operates with respect to Commander's and NCO's assigning their personnel to specific duties. If a particular Soldier is an infantrymen it doesn't mean shit if he's particularly physically handicapped (excessively overweight, prone to heat or cold injuries), has a history of mental illness or an observed track record of not being "quite there" -- the classic "I'd hate to deploy with that guy when he gets a rifle and ammo all the time" servicemember -- or simply sucks at day to day duties, they're a shitbag or have below average job proficiency. These people get "hammered" -- either by "mere" peer ostracizing (I say "mere" cause being a whipping boy is going to exacerbate everything already wrong with a Soldier 9 times out of 10; as it's been pointed out though if anything, females might be the benefactor's of favoritism) or by being assigned to support roles in garrison and fob-bound duties when deployed, hell, if not outright reassigned to duties entirely unrelated to their MOS. (like Morale, Welfare and Recreation representative for the post, working in a museum, recreation facility, swimming pool's, mailroom -- there's a LOT of ways to shuffle around unwanted and frankly unNEEDED personnel)

To state the obvious conclusion, even if females met the same standards, they'll still be perceived as different and be treated differently, "hammered."

It really should be performance based. If the person involved can run as far as everyone else, as fast as everyone else, lift as much shit as everyone else, and shoot as straight as everyone else, what does their weight matter?

And in reality that's more or less what happens but you will definitely be measured by-the-regs in the eyes of your average 1st Sergeant who served in the Army that kicked out overweight soldiers. FYI though if you're overweight it exempts you from promotion, awards and professional-growth schooling and other things.

This is because there are weight standards for a reason. If the biggest fat fuck ever to wear a US Army nametag goes down to enemy fire, it isn't reasonable to expect any random person to just go on over there and drag the guy to safety. We can be talking a 350 PT score, EIB-wearing, been deployed 5 times STUD of a Soldier but what if HE can't throw the biggest guy in a given unit over his shoulders and move 100 to 500 meters? (or whatever's deemed a tactically significant distance) In addition to this, weight standards exist for basic health reasons -- a Soldier that misses duty, becomes injured or even killed because of weight related issues is a Soldier that could've been kept if the standard's were enforced. Strictly speaking you CAN be chaptered for being overweight but that was the Big-Army, Cold War years. It's all different now, we need bodies to make up the personnel we kicked out under Bush 1 and Clinton.

[Adrian Laguna]

This is because there are weight standards for a reason. If the biggest fat fuck ever to wear a US Army nametag goes down to enemy fire, it isn't reasonable to expect any random person to just go on over there and drag the guy to safety.

That's an argument for a maximum weight limit, not weight standards.

[ArmorPierce]

3. Women are more resistant to low-grade cuts and scrapes over the body, and their feet are better adapted to long distance walking. As long as you give us proper shoes accommodated to our feet, or boots, the shape of the female foot is much preferred for extremely long distance walking; and, as noted, the ability of the body to withstand without fatigue a very large number of cuts and scrapes and etc is considerable.

Where did you get this information, particularly the part that women feet are adapted to long distance walking.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

3. Women are more resistant to low-grade cuts and scrapes over the body, and their feet are better adapted to long distance walking. As long as you give us proper shoes accommodated to our feet, or boots, the shape of the female foot is much preferred for extremely long distance walking; and, as noted, the ability of the body to withstand without fatigue a very large number of cuts and scrapes and etc is considerable.

Where did you get this information, particularly the part that women feet are adapted to long distance walking.

The most relevant source for this thread--a female Royal Thai Army Colonel (who reached the rank of Major General, a friend of Stuart's) and her own commentary on the advantages and disadvantages of women in the military based on her own experiences as a commander who has to know and consider such things. She was very specific though that you needed good, well-fitted boots, but that's pretty universal in the military.

[Superman]

The most relevant source for this thread--a female Royal Thai Army Colonel (who reached the rank of Major General, a friend of Stuart's) and her own commentary on the advantages and disadvantages of women in the military based on her own experiences as a commander who has to know and consider such things. She was very specific though that you needed good, well-fitted boots, but that's pretty universal in the military.

Not that I don't believe you, but in one of sports kinesiology classes we talked about this very subject. When it comes to physical activity, women are actually far more susceptible to injury, and you only have to look at all female sports to see it. There's a ligament in the knee called the anterior cruciate, for example, that is extremely prone to injury in female athletes. Men suffer damage to this particular ligament at rates of less than half of what is seen in women. The medical data that I've seen is pretty clear.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Not that I don't believe you, but in one of sports kinesiology classes we talked about this very subject. When it comes to physical activity, women are actually far more susceptible to injury, and you only have to look at all female sports to see it. There's a ligament in the knee called the anterior cruciate, for example, that is extremely prone to injury in female athletes. Men suffer damage to this particular ligament at rates of less than half of what is seen in women. The medical data that I've seen is pretty clear.

And you're correct, Supes; that's also nothing about what I was referring to, which was minor injuries which have a cumulative degrading effect on performance, like cuts and scrapes and bruises and so on and the general soreness of sustained movement. That's where women are more resilience than men. We're certainly more vulnerable to major exercise-related injuries, but I specifically meant minor ones.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

And you're correct, Supes; that's also nothing about what I was referring to, which was minor injuries which have a cumulative degrading effect on performance, like cuts and scrapes and bruises and so on and the general soreness of sustained movement. That's where women are more resilience than men. We're certainly more vulnerable to major exercise-related injuries, but I specifically meant minor ones.

Well, an infantryman is more likely to run around with a rifle on hand, jump around up and around and put wear and tear on joints. Exercise related injuries will bound to happen. People do get injured running obstacle courses and that's part of training.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

And you're correct, Supes; that's also nothing about what I was referring to, which was minor injuries which have a cumulative degrading effect on performance, like cuts and scrapes and bruises and so on and the general soreness of sustained movement. That's where women are more resilience than men. We're certainly more vulnerable to major exercise-related injuries, but I specifically meant minor ones.

Well, an infantryman is more likely to run around with a rifle on hand, jump around up and around and put wear and tear on joints. Exercise related injuries will bound to happen. People do get injured running obstacle courses and that's part of training.

The real test of soldiers is marching, and soldiers in the US Army simply are not trained to do the kind of forced marches that they could in WW2, whereas to much emphasis is placed on other forms of physical training, IMO. I'll try to drag this one article on the subject by some former army specialists up if possible for the thread.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

The real test of soldiers is marching, and soldiers in the US Army simply are not trained to do the kind of forced marches that they could in WW2, whereas to much emphasis is placed on other forms of physical training, IMO. I'll try to drag this one article on the subject by some former army specialists up if possible for the thread.

Ok, that's new to me. I was under the impression that route marches were a standard issue, unless that has changed.

Or, it's because the infantry in my country have to be trained for probable jungle warfare.