Women in combat.
And the issue is? Equality? Rights? Survival in close quarters combat? What is solved and what is gained in the use of women in the infantry, artillery, cavalry armor and otherwise in close quarter's combat.
We are to find out as of 2016 at the latest.
Now, is the use of women fighting in combat unheard of and totally unusual, no, definitely no. As to women constituted as the tip of the spear in an organized military unit of a major army, no, definitely no, up to now.
For those that have been in the military, an organized military, that have fought in combat, how do they feel about having a woman that got your six, much less attack the enemy with force and intimidation, surviving in difficult physical environment for long periods of time while on mission much less marching with necessary equipment, ammunition and necessities over difficult terrain, in all conditions.
Chances are, no, those won't be the conditions for those that will be on the line in otherwise male combat units. Conditions will be defined as to when, where and how women will be used in combat.
The reason for this is a matter of equality, equality of opportunity in a military organization what values and promotes those that have combat experience which women have not had the same access and promotion because of the prior prohibitions.
What we are dealing with ultimately, is a change in a social condition that means that in combat males will continue to perform to attack the enemy and not see a need to protect their fellow female unit members in order to prevent harm, deprivation, danger or otherwise see a additional need to assist and defend a failing member of the unit.
Of course, fighting today is different than trench warfare of WWI or the force movements of WWII. In places like Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan it was the use and movements of small units that were the point of battle to find, fetter out and kill the enemy using advanced technology. However it still is the rifle, mortar, shell or bomb that have to be used to hurt and kill the enemy, and it has to be done, be it a male or be it a female doing it.
The roles of male verses female are reversing.
Water boarding is an issue?
Wait until you see what the women do while they are in combat.
History will clearly show that. Don't forget PMS.
Limbaugh is a hate monger who perpetuates ofensive sterotypes. Join This Group of over 7,000 on Facebook to actively help get him off the air.
Done deal DD! Flush Rush!!
COOL BEANS BUBBA
I heer yuo Danny.
I hear too DannyO. I have carried some guilt over the soldier thing for many years. I graduated in 1969 which meant that that the time the joining the army was either volunteering, or be drafted under the lottery system. There was no way I was going to volunteer, (to this day I cannot imagine taking another life) and my lottery # was something like 230 or 240. If memory serves me right, the only drafted up into something like 50 or 60. Still, It bothered me then, and does still to a small degree today, that I didn't "step up". Am I less of a man, or patriot, for not volunteering?
Males and females can bond too, ya know.
For one thing: The Russians used female snipers that were lethal in the war on Stalingrad. The Germans were scared of them.
Because of the nature of warfare now going on women are ending up in combat, with the attendant casualties, amputations, problems, etc. and they bear up as well as men. The current proposal just recognizes that fact and means they will have access to the same promotions and advancement that men get by putting the word "combat" on their resume. Right now it is only with heavy recruiting and a slowly recovering economy that we get enough "volunteers" to serve. Without being able to draw on women who make up 50% or our population we would not be able to maintain the military of the future.
We also need leaders that will support our armed forces.