The true test will come in the Fiery Crucible of war against a major power
The issue of women serving in combat arms came about because some women complained that being excluded from these positions reduced their opportunities to become generals. It was never about making the military better at winning wars. The first attempt to sell the American public the idea of a fierce female warrior came with the Jessica Lynch fiasco in Iraq. [URL]https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/may/15/iraq.usa2[/URL].
A yearlong Marine Corps study trying to understand how gender integration would affect combat readiness has found that all-male units were faster, more lethal and able to evacuate casualties in less time.
Overall, according to a summary of the study, all-male squads performed better than mixed groups in 69 percent of the tasks evaluated.
"The Marines created a battalion of 100 female and 300 male volunteers. During the past year, they trained in North Carolina and California, taking part in realistic combat exercises.
"All-male squads, the study found, performed better than mixed gender units across the board. The males were more accurate hitting targets, faster at climbing over obstacles, better at avoiding injuries.
"The Marine study says its main focus is maximum combat effectiveness, because it means fewer casualties."
[URL]http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/09/10/439190586/marine-corps-study-finds-all-male-combat-units-faster-than-mixed-units[/URL]
Daniel L. Davis wrote:
Women have long been an integral part of the USA Military, having performed admirably in some cases, heroically in Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom. Over the past month and a half a succession of some of the nation's most powerful civilian and military leaders have lauded the recent decision to remove all restrictions on what jobs women can fill in the USA Armed Forces. Lifting the ban, they say, will make the military stronger. They are wrong.
The very best outcome we can hope for is that the Armed Forces' abilities will remain static. The most likely outcome, however, is that there will be some degradation in the units that are charged with some of the most critical roles: closing with and destroying enemy forces. Lifting the restrictions was, no doubt, designed to elevate the stature of women and give them an opportunity in the military equal with men. The result of the move, unfortunately, is likely to be that we'll place women at a disadvantage and put them in a danger greater than that faced by men in combat.
If the only enemy the United States ever faced was an insurgent group with no tanks, no artillery battalions, no attack helicopters, no jets and no formal logistics systems, then the USA Military will never face an existential fight and will thus never risk being driven from the field. In such an environment, you can do almost anything to a combat unit and it'll successfully accomplish its mission. Let the enemy be Russia, China or a few other armed forces and the situation changes dramatically.
[URL]http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-skeptics/the-truth-about-women-ground-combat-roles-14904[/URL]
Komo. Take off your blinders
Komo,
You may know some Thai girls but obviously you have no experience with other Asian cultures. Filipinos, for example, have no shame asking for money, even to complete strangers. Their boldness astounds me. Most all think we Westerners have unlimited funds to give away. How do you tell if a Filipina is lying? Their lips are moving. Still, they are sweet, sexy, speak English and fuck like minks with those tiny little twats. Not all pinays are this way but most are IMO and experience. I lived in PI in the 80's (military) and have been there 14 X in the last 6 years (Manila, Angeles City, Subic, Cebu and Dumaguete mostly). Eventually I want to find a sexy, big tits (well even a C Cup is big on a small frame), smart one (nurse, doctor, preferably) when I move there in 5 but until then my scorecard is wide open.
As for war, agreed, too much war but there will always be war as long as some group of idiots led by more empowered idiots devalue everyone who doesn't subscribe to their brand of idiocy. Meanwhile we are way off the thread topic of bashing American Women. I like to contribute to this thread because it is somewhat of a catharsis for me. If I expressed my disdain for AWs publicly I would 1) not have any American friends at all and 2) likely be fired from my job post haste. So this is the only place I can let it out.
Asia bound sooner than later
[QUOTE=DCups;2045465]Hey Montana,
Please update us on your situation. Have you dipped your stick abroad yet?[/QUOTE]Hey Cups!
No update to report yet, as I'm still ND through through the summer padding my savings acct. For my maiden trip. It's amazing how time flies bye when your entangled with an American wench in the arctic.
The Never Ending Changing Positions
First the argument was that women were not willing to face danger, then they were shirking their responsibilities as citizens and the biggest whopper of all the make-up of the country's military being 80 percent combat arms. When presented with evidence that those claims were false, the discussion marches on to the 'predictable social change is bad for the military. ' The idea that women serving in the military will lead to a degradation of the military was also made when the military wanted to integrate blacks and whites and more recently when they wanted gays to serve openly. The usual suspects armed with little or no evidence objected in both situations and cited decrease moral and a decrease in effectiveness / degradation argument. In both cases they were wrong and to date have been proven so as there have been no significant issue in those situation that warrant a reversal of those two changes.
The point that women only want to go to combat because they want the opportunity to be Generals, wow, lets accept that as being true, so what? Why would they not want to be Generals, men want to so why not them? How is that a negative or something that should be used against them, Its like saying women only want to work tough jobs in the corporate world so they can be CEOs, like men don't.
Anyone can have contrarians opinions on anything, it doesn't make them right. History will show over time if this change was good or bad but any major change will produce naysayer who want to March in place and love the status quo. This line of thinking was present when integration in the military and allowing gays to serve openly topics were introduced and some experts vehemently opposed those changes too.
This country did poorly in previous wars when only men served. Saying women shouldn't serve in combat because they will weaken the military is just looney supported by no facts. A Marine Corp study conducted by anyone would have to show the study was independent and un-bias, the MC was opposed to the idea of women in combat from the start. Even if you accept the study, its still a study and not enough to eliminate people from serving in Combat If women were crying that they did not want to serve in combat because they are weak and they are women, the derision they would get would be maddening but because they want to serve, there are some people questioning the motives, weird!
The world changes and move on even if some people don't. Time will tell if women in combat was a good or bad move but let their actions on the battlefield tell us that, not antiquated or resistance to change opinionated people. Given that the battlefield is no longer what it was 30 years ago and the front line of combat could be right at America's front door, the military's tactics and strategy has to change and well as the views of the country.