Where a Woman's Place Is on the Front Lines

The U.S. military is opening up more positions to female troops. But women already serve in combat in more than a dozen countries. 

BY JOSHUA E. KEATING | FEBRUARY 10, 2012

Israel began including women in combat units after 1995, when a 23-year-old South African immigrant who arrived with a pilot's license from her native country was denied entry into the Air Force and successfully sued for discrimination. Since then, the Israel Defense Forces has gradually integrated more units in compliance with a Supreme Court order.

All told, only 12 percent of military positions in Israel are off-limits to women, including combat positions in the armored corps and infantry. But women can service in light infantry, artillery, and border patrol roles. More and more positions have been opened over time, though there are also reports that the IDF often doesn't accept women for units for which they are eligible and evacuates women during combat situations. Women comprise only 33 percent of the IDF due to a shorter length of service and a more lenient discharge system for religiously observant Jewish women. Recent years have seen the creation of the "Caracal Batallion" a mixed-gender infantry unit that patrols near the southern border with Egypt and the first woman commanding a sniper platoon

Even in countries with no restrictions, women's participation in combat units is relatively rare. For instance, in Canada, which has had no restrictions since 1989, 17 percent of troops are women but women make up only 3.8 percent of combat troops. Although not excluded by law, no women have yet qualified for Canada's elite anti-terrorist unit, which requires an extremely high degree of physical fitness.

The Afghanistan war has been something of a testing ground for women in combat, with coalition members including Canada, Germany, Poland, and Sweden deploying women in frontline units for the first time. No significant problems were reported in the British survey, and some militaries found that women officers were more effective at some tasks, such as gathering intelligence from female civilians.

Among the world's most powerful armies, the United States is actually comparatively progressive. The Chinese military, the world's largest by number of troops, allows women only in support positions, and has been criticized for requiring female recruits to demonstrate a talent such as singing or dancing as part of its selection process (in case you were wondering where those pink-clad, go-go-booted marchers in Beijing's military parades came from). The Indian Army has only a handful of women in support roles and doesn't allow them to hold permanent commissions.

Russia has a long history of fighting women, including the "women's death battalion" during the 1917 revolution and Lyudmila Pavlichenko, one of the most successful snipers of World War II, but today, women are not subject to the country's draft. Women volunteers do comprise about 3 percent of the Russian army, mostly in support and clerical positions, though the annual Miss Russian Army beauty pageant is not exactly a sign of respect for their role.

Unfortunately, no matter what a country's policies on the roles women can play in the military, one constant from Canada to the United States, Australia to Sweden, is the prevalence of sexual harassment and sexual assault at military facilities. While female soldiers around the world increasingly brave the same dangers as their male counterparts, they still face a unique set of risks from their own fellow soldiers.

Uriel Sinai/Getty Images

 SUBJECTS:
 

Joshua E. Keating is an associate editor at Foreign Policy.

HITCHENS_LIVES

11:13 AM ET

February 11, 2012

Harriet Tubman

If Harriet Tubman did it, any woman can do it. If an English prince can join, every American daughter of our last three presidents should fight to fight, and volunteer for a combat arms military occupational specialty.

I leave it to David Bowie to croon the rest.

 

HURRICANEWARNING

3:17 PM ET

February 11, 2012

Here's the deal. If women

Here's the deal. If women want combat (which...I'm not entirely sold on them actually wanting, it seems like something that only an idiot would "want"). But if they want it, then they should be deployed in all female units. At least until we can genetically engineer a woman to be able to carry a 200 plus pound man over her shoulder out of harms way. It's hard enough for a man as it is. Women are certainly just as capable of killing with a rifle as men are, but the question becomes are they as capable physically? The answer to that is a resounding NO. They are not. Not even close. It's a biological fact. Why women seem to like to ignore this fact is beyond me. Women are more capable in many ways, and can be equally intelligent and driven and courageous...but they make men less safe on the battlefield because they are not as physically capable. That is that. Not to mention that if captured by the enemy they would be subjected to such horrifying treatment that it becomes almost unimaginable. Add to that the expensive revamp that would be required in the training of such units, and the inevitable watering down of physical standards because women are the "same" as men...right. If a woman wants to serve her country that is a noble thing, and if she wants combat, good for her, but if it ultimately endangers her fellow soldiers and the quality of the front line of her nations army; then why push it? I think an honest woman, who doesn't just have a chip on her shoulder and is out to prove something, would agree with this.

 

EQUINN

10:18 AM ET

February 12, 2012

You're right, but...

You're right, not many women would be capable of the physical challenges of combat. But I feel certain that some ARE - just look at Navy EOD, a special warfare unit that admits women granted they can pass the same physical standards as men. Yes, the percentage is very low but if a woman can meet the standards, why shouldn't she be allowed to participate? Additionally, being captured and tortured is a grisly possibility for anyone; if woman is willing to take that risk, she should be allowed to do so rather than be protected by paternalistic policies.

 

USACPT

11:10 AM ET

February 13, 2012

Paper vs. Execution

I agree that the physical standards should be the same, but EOD is not a good example. I have several friends in the community, and the entrance physical tests, are not the same for males and females...at least in execution.

 

OMARSADIKI

11:17 AM ET

February 13, 2012

Here's the deal: you don't get it

Some women want to serve their country and to be successful at their chosen career. The upper military ranks and some jobs within the military are unattainable without combat experience. Your argument that *all* women are physically inferior to men is obviously wrong. Just as some men are incapable of the physical demands of the military, some women definitely are capable. Denying qualified and capable women access to combat experience that they ask for, and that they need to fully develop their military careers, is unfair and unnecessary.

 

AUS512

1:14 PM ET

February 13, 2012

Career progression is IRRELEVANT

The proponents of women in combat roles use the career angle- their inability to formally hold a “combat position” affects their career trajectories. bottom line is that none of these subjects- career progression, equality, fairness, or emotion- should be the logic behind incorporating women into combat units- unless someone thinks the military exists for something other than securing the nation's interests. This takes out the whole “if they can pass the physical standards, then they should be allowed in” argument. What should matter is: does incorporating women into combat units make the combat unit more effective in the most dangerous type of combat that we can face.

 

DOC_BELLA_USA

2:24 PM ET

February 13, 2012

Here's the deal...

No really, here's the deal. From personal experience, I was deployed to Iraq in 2005 as a medic in a Military Police unit, and was one of I think maybe 3 females who went out on regular patrols. I'm 5'3" 120 pounds and was fully capable of carrying around the same amount of junk as the males. My only purpose was to drag that 200 pound man out of harms way and put him back together. I did it, on a regular basis. So your point is completely invalid. I think women should be allowed in the infantry if they want to be. I would never want to be in the infantry. My point is that whether we allow women into "combat arms" jobs or not we women see combat just the same as men do when deployed. It's actually a proven fact that women react better to stress, our heart rate doesn't increase as much, our blood pressure doesn't go up as much and our respiratory rate stays lower. So the bottom line here is that MEN can't handle women in combat. Why are women being punished for a mans inability to cope?

 

HURRICANEWARNING

5:30 PM ET

February 13, 2012

Doc-Bella USA

You make some great points, and I defer to your personal experience as you are a woman, and you have been in combat. Keep in mind here that I dont have a problem with women being in combat at all, and I think they should be able to be in combat if they want to be. I DO have a problem, however, with women being in COMBAT UNITS. Units whose main reason for existence is to close with and destroy the enemy, person to person: Infantry. I remain absolutely baffled by some women's inability to acknowledge the large physical differences between males and females. There is a reason that the olympics is gender specific. The absolute best female athletes in the WORLD couldn't compete against males unless they had some type of genetic predisposition towards physical excellence. I know that while combat and the military are very different from team sports, they are also very similar. I have seen the best female athletes in the world, watched them compete, and I have thought near every damn time that, when compared to the male teams, I was watching some junior league moving in slow motion. I am just saying...

This is such a stupid topic IMO. Lets just remove the system within the US military that only rewards those with Combat experience (though, to be honest, those are the only people I would ever want commanding COMBAT forces). Then lets keep the standards what they are, and if women can pass the EXACT SAME standards as a man, then they should be admitted into the combat unit of their choice. Although I foresee problems with integration, sexual harassment, "separate but equal" nonsense, and overall bitching on the part of both sexes (admittedly, mostly males) I think eventually it could work out. The only question I have is: Does it make our military MORE capable of killing the enemy or LESS capable? That should be the ONLY question asked in regards to this topic. Not whether or not it's "fair", or if women "can" or "can't" do something, simply; will making women into infantry-men create a more combat effective US military? If so, then great, I welcome the change. I am just saying that I am skeptical...very skeptical.

Women keep saying that they are just as good etc. etc. And in most ways they are right. But physically, which seems to matter a lot in infantry combat, I have never seen an average woman that could compete with an average man. In house to house, close in, physical combat like Ramadi, where many soldiers faced hand-to-hand situations; I will guarantee you that if those soldiers were women, we would have lost many more KIA to the enemy than we did. We can talk about technology and a more equal military all we want; but at the end of the day, infantry combat boils down to one person meeting another and trying to kill that person by any means necessary. It can happen from far away, or it can happen up-close. But you must be equally adept at both. I just think that until I see females consistently displaying a high level of aggression, and beating males in physical matches of strength, speed, endurance, and ability to handle physical punishment, I simply would not want them serving alongside males in a combat unit. It makes no sense.

 

ERIC_STRATTONIII

5:30 PM ET

February 18, 2012

@Doc Bella

Sorry, "here is the deal", one, you are full of it, you were not hauling around 200lbs guys by yourself. Two, if you are a 68W, I assume you are, then you were not alone and you most likely had 3 others with you to haul that 200lb guy around.
Here is some good reading for you and I am just tired of answering this topic almost but it drives me nuts to hear folks like yourself and others on here think that there is no difference or that women can do everything that a man can do, it is just not the way it is and the few who could meet the average, about 1.5% would still be at a disadvantage in overall strength, VO2max, more prone to ankle-knee and hip/back injuries and this is all due to just the way we are born.

This author and so many others are so mistaken about this is makes me cringe. The Israelis have not used women in the combat arms until recently and that was due to an Israeli Supreme Court decision. Did you do any research for this article or like most journalists you are to lazy to research anything honestly that does not fir your views?

In the end, women do not belong in ground combat, they are more of a liability than an asset, this is always ignored when it is discussed in the Media, in Congress or on here. Below is some good info for you that I have cut and pasted from my previous answers on the same topic.
From the report of the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces dated November 15, 1992, it states in part:

The average female Army recruit is 4.8 inches shorter, 31.7 pounds lighter, has 37.4 fewer pounds of muscle, and 5.7 more pounds of fat than the average male recruit.

She has only 55 percent of the upper-body strength and 72 percent of the lower-body strength.

An Army study done in 1988 found that women are more than twice as likely to suffer leg injuries and nearly five times as likely to suffer fractures as men.

Further, the Commission heard an abundance of expert testimony including:- women’s aerobic capacity is significantly lower, meaning they cannot carry as much as far as fast as men, and they are more susceptible to fatigue.

- in terms of physical capability, the upper five percent of women are at the level of the male median. The average 20-to-30 year-old woman has the same aerobic capacity as a 50 year-old man.

After a study was conducted at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, one expert testified that:

- using the standard Army Physical Fitness Test, the upper quintile (top 20%) of women at West point achieved scores on the test equivalent to the bottom quintile (bottom 20%) of men.

- only 21 women out of the initial 623 (3.4%) achieved a score equal to the male mean score of 260.

- on the push-up test, only 7% of women can meet a score of 60, while 78% of men exceed it.

- adopting a male standard of fitness at West Point would mean 70% of the women he studied would be separated as failures at the end of their junior year, only 3% would be eligible for the Recondo badge, and not one would receive the Army Physical Fitness badge.

Also, recent studies indicate women are more at risk to getting PTSD, as documented from Iraq and Afghanistan, women who were never in direct combat but whose camps were shelled were more likely to develop PTSD than there male counter-parts and it is looking like it is a genetic pre-dispostion. You can also look up the US Navy SPARTAN study, (The study is available in the series “How to Make War” series via “Dirty Little Secrets of the Vietnam War”) women were asked to complete a lot of the Damage Control Tasks that are mandatory on a ship. They performed in a rather terrible manner at the start. The women were then put on a 6 month weight training program and asked to do the test again. A lot of the test are obsolete since the P-250 pump is no longer in use but the one that will never go out is the two man litter carry up and down the ladder on a ship. None of the women passed getting the wounded man up the ladder and <2% passed going down ( a lot easier I might add). What did the Navy do in regard to this result? They changed the standard to a four man litter carry. Ever been on a ship? Good luck with 4 people fitting on that ladder! But hey, don't let facts or reality stop you, it's their right!

The Military Academies currently put a great deal of weight on your PT scores and these scores are rolled into your overall score and class ranking. Females meet a much lower standard on PT and get higher scores and hence a higher placement than what they should get if the scores were held to the same standard. The Academies also hold slots for jobs afterwards that female get first shot at, it is in effect a quota. Does this author or any author actually do any research on the topic of just parrot back the talking points that embrace the opinions of so many of our "objective" journalists? On the enlisted side the current "goal" is to get 15% of new recruits to be females, it is not a hard quota but it is a "goal" they continue to push for, in simple terms, they are taking up spots men could be doing and would be if they could (There are waiting periods to get into the USMC and have been for some time). Then you have the inevitable problems of young females and males serving in austere environments and on ships and frat becomes rampant. The pregnancy problem in the Navy is so severe that it often causes ships to be undermanned and females to take up the overwhelming portions of what are called "Shore Billets", these are intended to give folks a break from being away all the time. It is convenient that so many get pregnant and then do not have to deploy and can remain stateside.

The myth that they are currently egaged in combat drives me up a wall a bit, riding in a MRAP or MATV after the target is cleared is not going head to head. Getting hit be an IED does not mean you are capable of engaging in ground combat and humping for 5-10k in full kit, then engaging the enemy and possibly making entry into their buildings. Don't ignore the truth because it does not fit your premise, I have no doubt that women can be just as brave as a man but it does me no good when she cannot get me back to my helo, hummer or a fighting position because she is to weak. It does me no good when she cannot hump the same weight I can for as long as I can because she is physically unable to do so. It does me no good when she is injured more easily than a man, it does me no good when she fails in hand to hand combat and that still happens all the time, It does me no good…..etc..etc…DO NOT LOOK AT THIS AS A RIGHT, LOOK AT THIS AS A NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE, do you really want the weakest person doing that job? Do not fall for the myth that if we have the same standards for all that it will be ok then, the standards will be dropped so low that someone in a wheel chair could pass them due to politics, look at the SPARTAN Study for an example of moral courage by the Senior Officer Corps. They would rather risk peoples lives than hold a standard and stick there necks out and risk there careers (They being the Officer Corps and Journalists apparently now Law Students who are pushing lawsuits over this topic as well). If you are honest in your assessment, you would say that while women may be ok to be pilots, they have no place in areas of ground combat and/or even on ships in many instances due to physical differences, a different hard wiring (being more and more proven every year) and common sense. Women and Men are not social constructs to interchange and war is not meant for a social science lab.

If they allow them to go into SOF Selection of any kind the training will be so watered down it will be a joke and then, like the regular Army, Navy and Air Force, the training will become a joke as it already is with the Cultural Support Teams. The training they go through is not rigorous, have seen the product from this and especially the FETs, the pass rate for CST is above 50%, whoa! That must be tough then if I have better than 50/50 odds. But hey, none of you folks who write these articles, who go to Law School and use this as a pet project, will ever be in the field with us so why would they care, right? Have them hump 100lbs for 8 hours? Great, over what terrain? Then ask them to get over a small wall with their body armor on, nope, not gonna happen. Ok, ask them to get over some of the walls on the obstacle course on their own with no kit on, nope, not gonna happen. I mean, heck, you would NEVER have to hop over a wall in a city, a short hedgerow, etc…no chance of you having to heave yourself up with full kit, nope, not a chance. How about make them pick up a 190lb man off the ground and carry him? Nope, not gonna happen. The GOs are not very morally courageous and our politicians only care about their "special interest groups" not peoples lives or the mission.

The amount of contradicting comments that come from the GOs verse actual studies, the amount of PC doublespeak that is most often involved with this topic is mind boggling. The GOs lack any and all moral courage to be honest about this topic as do most journalists.

I highly suggest reading Kingsley Browne's book "Co-Ed: Combat The New Evidence That Women Shouldn't Fight the Nations Wars", it is well documented, reasoned but a bit dry. Read it then ask any grunt or SOF guy offline what they think and they will give the truth on these "amazing" FET and CST's and women in the military in general.

http://www.wndu.com/mmm/headli…
http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/…
http://articles.latimes.com/20…
http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/03/…
http://www.militarytimes.com/n…
http://www.cna.org/sites/defau…
http://www.military.com/NewsCo…
http://www.npr.org/templates/s…
http://phc.amedd.army.mil/PHC%…
http://www.thedailybeast.com/n…

Taken from the Kingsley Brown Book on the subject

Myth:

Sex Differences in Physical Performance can be overcome through training-

A common explanation for sex differences in physical performance is that the boys engage in more vigorous athletic activities than girls. Therefore the argument often goes that performance can be equalized through training. Although it is true that boys tend to be more physically active than girls, training will not eliminate the difference; indeed, it may actually increase it.Both sexes benefit from strength training, of course, and sometimes women gain more from training than men. A study of Army strength before and after Army basic training for example found that women's upper body strength as a percentage of men's increased from 57% to 60%, leading the researchers to conclude that "basic training brought the strength of the females to that of males" Although it is true that the average difference between the strength the sexes decreased slightly with training the overlap between the sexes also decreased. Training not only increases the strength of both groups, it also decreases the variability within the groups. Thus, despite the increase in female strength, that likelihood that a randomly selected man from this group would be stronger than a randomly selected woman went up to 98.5%So, there might be a 1.5% of the female population that may make the male norms after training since the men all increased substantially as well with the training, i.e; the average male standard. This does not take into account that it will take more physical training for the female to maintain that male "average". Again, I will throw out the challenge, give me a practical reason for doing this, give me an example where they have made females meet the same standard in the past or at least give me an HONEST example of something that leads you to believe we will do it in the future. For instance, the new Army PFT they are looking at has no real upper body strength and they are talking of making it gender neutral, if there is no upper body strength in the test how is that really an overall evaluation? The Navy is also looking at something similar. Also, the PFTs just show a level of fitness, they are not practical test, the SPARTAN Test was actually a practical test and a good measure in many ways, the PFT is not. What do you think the numbers would be if they added pull ups at a dead hang with weight to simulate kit being on? A man carry of someone of average male weight (190lbs), picking them up from the ground and throwing them over their shoulder?

 

BVFKLFIS9A

7:47 PM ET

February 11, 2012

very good web: ===

very good web: === http://www.plzzshop.com

The website wholesale for many kinds of fashion shoes, like the nike, jordan, prada, also including the jeans, shirts, bags, hat and the decorations.

All the products are free shipping, and the the price is competitive, and also can accept the paypal payment., After the payment, can ship within short time.

We will give you a discount

WE ACCEPT PYAPAL PAYMENT

YOU MUST NOT MISS IT!!!

=== http://www.plzzshop.com

thank you!!!

Believe you will love it.

We have good reputation, fashion products,

come here quickly== http://www.plzzshop.com

Opportunity knocks but once

 

ERIC_STRATTONIII

8:19 PM ET

February 11, 2012

Oye, this topic should be on "Best Defense" not here

This topic has been debated by far more knowledgeable people than the author on this topic at the other blog on FP called "Best Defense". Go there for actual debate, facts, little things like that. Just one of your examples that is way off is Israel, they forbid women from being combat units until a recent Supreme Court ruling opened them up but guess what, it is not happening that way nor will it. Same thing goes for Australia and New Zealand. It is the difference between reading a few news papers, a book here or there and the reality of doing the job, working with the people in question AND reading the books and what not. Nice opinion piece though.

 

CUTEGIRL36

2:56 AM ET

February 12, 2012

Brave woman

The brave woman. I love them and love peace.
fire games

 

KINGFISHER

3:14 AM ET

February 12, 2012

Where a Woman's Place Is on the Front Lines

Having opened the windows to women to be in the front line withghfAacvbnm,;'
0-=512 heir 741741counter parts men folk in war fields has made an impact internationally to the fact that US being the leader of the world many countries will now follow suit. It may be true some countries opened the door to the fact earlier but the difference is Us being the leader make all the more difference.

Then this opening will also have impact on economical and social side of the family’s better sustainability and females would not be considered as only the reproduction machine. This will have impact on loyalty and allegiance towards the country and would counter the duplicity people having duel allegiance to betray the country with its secret treacherous activities which these days have entered the nooks and corner of the country.

This will make the country more safe from all sides. This will make a young generation of disciplined citizens to grow up. A world leader once said give good mother and I will give you good nation.

So hopefully, disciplined mothers would contribute to give a disciplined nation to the country. Induction of women folk in front line would release a lot of pressure from men folk also would make it easier in war fields to fight effectively.

 

BUDAHH

5:31 AM ET

February 12, 2012

Women are just not as strong as men so infantry is off limits,

GI jane was a cool movie maybe but far off from reality, they can serve in artillary units , or in low expectation combat but when it comes to fighting a war , you need to be strong enough to carry heavy gear and run fast with it and women are just phisically built different than men they are not as strong ,mentally they are definitely strong enough sometimes more than men sometimes less, when it comes to being in the airforce all options are equal, women can be just as good pilots or navigators . But when you are in a war you need strength that men posses and most women don't.

 

THIETKEWEB

5:44 AM ET

February 13, 2012

Hi all

I have seen women who take up arms to fight, it's war in Vietnam. Many young women who died while fighting. It really is a pity, if not at war, we were able to prevent millions of deaths.

Vietnam Airlines
Vietnam Visa

 

EGMORIN

8:43 AM ET

February 13, 2012

Let merit decide

My husband is an Infantry Officer in the Marine Corps and initially was against incorporating women into combat roles. However, his fondness for Crossfit has been exposing him to women who, thanks to proper training and the advances of sports nutrition, are now capable of doing things even he has struggled to keep up with. One young female Marine has scored a perfect 300 on the MALE test, a score even he has not achieved although he comes very close. Why block her from a role she clearly wants and is capable of doing? While in Officer training, we had a female Olympic runner who beat every person in the school on the physical fitness test. Not one of us came close to her nearly 4 minute mile. Will the number of women remain low in combat units? Absolutely, but you know what? The perecentage of our population in the military makes us truly the "1%" so you're already looking at a very small, unusual segment of our population who are willing and capable of doing this work. If our military cannot even support a meritocracy, what exactly are we fighting for?

 

HURRICANEWARNING

2:06 PM ET

February 13, 2012

EGMORIN

Hmmm. I agree on principle that if a woman can pass all the same standards that her male peers pass, then she should be in. However, I just think that a buch of 18-21 year old sex deprived males mixed with around 1-10 women is a dangerous recipe. If you want to have an all femlae combat unit, then so be it. That's great. Good for them. I just don't think it is wise to mix the sexes in units whose primary mission is combat and direct action.

Also, Crossfit is great, and more than a few women are capable of smoking men their age in physical tests. But again...we are just talking about a few here. They are the genetically gifted ones. Also, about your friend with the 4 min/mile run time: The fastest time EVER run by a woman was over 4 minutes...just saying.

 

KEYBASHER

10:57 AM ET

February 13, 2012

Yes, it's just an editor's trick but ...

... why flip that photograph?

 

EGYPT STEVE

7:35 AM ET

February 14, 2012

To all you teaparty patriots out there:

"Molly Pitcher" (Mary Hays) at the At the Battle of Monmouth in June 1778 (Wikipedia):

Mary Hays attended to the Revolutionary soldiers by giving them water. Just before the battle started, she found a spring to serve as her water supply. Two places on the battlefield are currently marked as the "Molly Pitcher Spring." Mary Hays spent much of the early day carrying water to soldiers and artillerymen, often under heavy fire from British troops.

The weather was hot, over 100 degrees Fahrenheit. Sometime during the battle, William Hays collapsed next to his cannon. He was either wounded or collapsed from heat exhaustion. It has often been reported that Hays was killed in the battle, but it is known that he survived.

As her husband was carried off the battlefield, Mary Hays took his place at the cannon. For the rest of the day, in the heat of battle, Mary continued to "swab and load" the cannon using her husband's rammer. At one point, a British musket ball or cannon ball flew between her legs and tore off the bottom of her skirt. Mary supposedly said, "Well, that could have been worse," and went back to loading the cannon.

Later in the evening, the fighting was stopped due to gathering darkness. Although George Washington and his commanders expected the battle to continue the following day, the British forces retreated during the night and continued on to Sandy Hook. The battle was seen as a major victory for the Continental Army.

After the battle, General Washington asked about the woman whom he had seen loading a cannon on the battlefield. In commemoration of her courage, he issued Mary Hays a warrant as a non commissioned officer. Afterwards, she was known as "Sergeant Molly," a nickname that she used for the rest of her life.

 

INTELGAL

1:10 PM ET

February 20, 2012

Other Qualities Important to Effectiveness

Reading over many of the comments posted to this article, I see that the bulk of the discussion focuses on the sole point of physical strength. This point is important, but in my opinion is hardly the sole indicator of how effective a person or unit will be in combat. Although Eric Stratton III offers a pretty in-depth catalogue on studies on physical aptitude, interestingly none of the studies he references explain why an insurgency comprised of men who, living in one of the most food insecure areas on the planet and who are smaller on average than their US opponents, have been able, with the assistance of women, teenagers and children, to send US personnel home in body bags on a fairly regular basis for more than a decade now. Likewise, the Vietcong, many of who were women, and many of who were smaller on average than US soldiers, proved rather effective against US forces in the end.

I’m of the personal opinion that when looking at combat effectiveness, a variety of qualities need to be considered, not just the physical. Judgment, intelligence, tactical proficiency, and commitment to your cause – these are just some of the other factors that play in combat effectiveness. After all, if a mere one-on-one comparison between your fighting forces and enemy was all that was needed to win (I’m 200lbs, your only 140, hence I win), there’d be no need for CAS would there? Judgment is also key. Arguably, the soldiers found pissing on dead corpses and collecting Afghan ear necklaces all presumably passed the physical fitness standards, but their contribution to effective combat is highly questionable.

Finally, there is just the simple quality of bravery and willingness to take on risk. While deployed to Afghanistan, I saw first-hand how many of my male counterparts were overly risk-averse and obsessed with force protection to the point of inhibiting effectiveness in my opinion. Would any of them have the same courage under fire as Silver Star recipients Sergeant Leigh Ann Hester or Specialist Monica Lin Brown? Both of these ladies are smaller than most men, but unless men have the same presence of mind and bravery under fire as these ladies exhibited, you just might find that for all the emphasis on a man’s physical superiority, their strength winds up being nothing more than mere silver in the mine.

 

ERIC_STRATTONIII

9:59 PM ET

February 20, 2012

@Intelgal

Over ten years we have had less 2k deaths in Afghanistan, yeah, they are killing us wholesale ;) I have three tours there, doing the ground combat duty, the guys know the area, have been at it for a while and the physical differences are not by weight or size, something you seem unable to grasp. The strength, VO2 max, etc...all are greater in men but I see you ignore those facts too. The women are not doing the fighting
in Afghanistan, not sure what your point on that has to do with allowing women into the Infantry or SOF and there being able to hump up a mountain with kit matters, you may not like that fact but it does. The Afghans live there, travel light and do not have far to go, so while you have a point that there are factors involved that is at the Strategic Level, i.e; the War itself not at the Tactical Level as much where it is Troop vs Troop. Also, I suggest you go read the differences between fighting a guerilla campaign vs a conventional conflict, we have to do both. Oh, hand to hand still happens all the time by the way, despite what so many in the media seem to think. If you think it does not or someone else does not then they have not cleared a compound there yet.

Unfortunately you ignore the entire post about how the differences between men and women are that great, your poor attempt with the "200lb man vs the 140lb person" are pretty weak, a 140lb man would still be at a better advantage than a 140lb woman, something you seem unable to grasp.

Go back and read the whole post, come back when you have a valid argument, until then you are another "gal" making attempts at sounding intellectual and are talking about something you seem not to know much about- ground combat. At least read some of the new things that are available that talk about small unit actions and then talk with at least some book knowledge.

Lastly, the Silver Stars? Great, again, go read my posts, they can be just as brave but again their physical ability did prevent the medic from dragging any of her wounded teammates back but she kept going out and giving aid under fire, a well deserved medal. The convoy attack and the awards that followed is a classic example of award inflation, however, she did still perform bravely after being attacked in a vehicle. If you want I will be happy to cite award inflation that is pretty gender neutral and more branch specific but I never said a women cannot be as brave but what did I say that it does me when she can't.....? Go on, I know you can read, you are in intel right?

 

ERIC_STRATTONIII

8:15 AM ET

February 21, 2012

One more point Intelgal

In your vast personal experience, how many guys did you see collect ears? Piss on dead bodies? So, are you saying women would be more polite since most likely they would not pee or cut ears off? What does that have to do with being an effective grunt? I suggest you read history as well, in comparison to past wars, the number of men who have served vs women and in these conflicts the amount of incidents like those that you mention are rare and your use of them as a straw man is amazing, it is like the idiots who say that since women are getting sexually assaulted then we need to open up combat arms to them and that will make things better? Huh? What logic do people like you use when you use these things to justify what is essentially a political view? I also notice how no one, to include yourself, ever takes me up on giving me answers to the three questions I always ask about combat effectiveness, cost or that you as women will EVER be made to meet the same standards.

 

JESCE

8:27 PM ET

February 27, 2012

Equality should mean equality

I am saddened and disappointed by this story. The comment by Rick Santorum is particularly disheartening. To say that women will compromise combat because men cannot handle seeing a woman hurt is a ridiculous statement. Women should have the right to serve their country equally to that of men. Women are equally intelligent, physical, and capable of serving their country. People are so focused on women being too delicate and too emotional to be on the frontlines. Just like men, women go through training to be in the military so women should have all options open to them as well.
I think maybe a better focus may be getting all troops off the frontline instead of focusing on making women inferior. Women are a great resource that is being overlooked.

 

ERIC_STRATTONIII

7:58 AM ET

March 6, 2012

JESCE

Read something outside what agrees with your premise, open your mind and understand that this is not about the things you mention and that women are different both physically and mentally from men. These things matter and this is not Wall Street, not a Hospital, not a Race Track, this is combat and not a normal "opportunity".