Ban on women in combat to be lifted

[Devildog]

also keep in mind the merkava tank; galil, tavor, and uzi; iron dome; krav maga......

Yep.

Not impressed with any of those. Seriously.

[falafel]

Just reading and linking. Not, offering an opinion.

Debunking the Israeli 'women in combat' myth

http://www.wnd.com/2001/08/10269/

Sort of seems like an opinion, but whatever.

[Devildog]

The only reason? I would have thought lots of training, some pretty good technology of their own, a fanatical zeal about defending their homeland, and the requirement that they be in a constant state of readiness, among other reasons, would have contributed to the appearance that they're competent.

The Israelis do have good units. However, it is my opinion that their military prowess is significantly overrated. They have a very high opinion of themselves that is not shared by everyone. Take a realistic look at their enemies in major combat, Syria, Egypt, Jordan? Lebanon? Hamas?

Their military technological innovations are capable, but nothing that establishes clear superiority on any stage.

If anything, I am impressed by their political will in certain situations... someone needs to be dead, they get him dead. Someone blows up the bus on your route ten minutes after you got off... the next morning... there you are on the freakin' bus.

Yeah, no kidding. DD loses some more credibility.

Sorry you're unimpressed. I'm sure your experience with combat, weaponry, tactics, and warfare is unimpeachable.

[Moliere]

Are you guys prepared to have your daughters included in selective service registration?

What if a draft were to become necessary? Should it include women for mandatory combat operations just like men?

Absolutely....but I'm not a fan of war so I hope there is never another draft. The fact that men have to register and women don't is incredibly unfair to both sexes.

The idea that women have to be protected by men mostly comes, IMO, from the agrarian society that our forefathers grew up in. We stereotype women into roles before they are even born. I'm not predicting an incredible influx of women into front line combat roles, but there are several thousands that would handle it just fine, if not better than men. The issue here isn't finding a 50/50 balance of men and women on the front lines, it's providing equal opportunity to women that want to, and can physically, serve in that capacity.

I'm also guessing that this change is necessary because in modern warfare there is not a well delineated "front line" as there was back in WWI. Wars are fought less with manpower and more with technology than in the past, and on that front women are more than capable.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Sort of seems like an opinion, but whatever.

Looks like the author was an undergrad political science major at the time.

[Katy Lied]

I too worried about women in combat not being able to carry their weight. But then I read about Bradley Manning, the soldier who wikileaked thousands of confidential cables and other military documents. His whole career, he sat in a silo and ran computer data backups and transfers. Wasn't that considered combat? Women could do that.

Infantry is another matter, women should have to meet physical qualifications for that.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Sorry you're unimpressed. I'm sure your experience with combat, weaponry, tactics, and warfare is unimpeachable.

It seems awfully fitting that you would turn this into a dick-wagging contest.

[Goatnapper'96]

I don't think it will be good for military readiness, but very good for social change. My guess is which you value more will drive your opinion/perspective of this change.

It is laughable for anyone to think this will not result in lowered standards of brute physical strength and fitness. Imagine Senator Fienstein or Babs Boxer asking some General 4 years from now why no woman has graduated from Ranger School...LOL! Our society is eagletarian. Equality of opportunity is only reached when we have an equality of results. Any other perspective would obviously be sexist.

Brute strength is still needed even with technology no matter how many levels of whatever war game somebody reaches. We like to think technology will always give us the comfort of killing our enemy from 50,000 feet or perhaps with a joystick while sitting in an AC building in Qunatico. We will always need a group of knuckle-dragging warriors ready to impale the enemy on the end of a bayonette if neccesary. To those "guys," I don't think this is a great idea, but I value military readiness over social change. Even if a woman can be strong enough to be one the guys I still have many misgivings.

GI Janeme, bitches!

[Goatnapper'96]

Those are valid reasons. A "weakening" is subjective. I hope that the standard is not lowered, but even if it is lowered for physical requirements, women may bring an increase in intelligence, strategy, decision making, etc that could increase the overall strength of the military. Time will tell.

Good gawd.

I support civilian control of the military but good gawd it has some real risks.

[PaloAltoCougar]

DD, where would you rank the Israelis among the world's fighting forces? [I'm just curious, as my knowledge of things military is pretty much limited to books by Tom Clancy and post-round victuals with Goatnapper]

[Flystripper]

I too worried about women in combat not being able to carry their weight. But then I read about Bradley Manning, the soldier who wikileaked thousands of confidential cables and other military documents. His whole career, he sat in a silo and ran computer data backups and transfers. Wasn't that considered combat? Women could do that.

Infantry is another matter, women should have to meet physical qualifications for that.

I have not heard anyone argue that the physical, mental and emotional standards should be different for women in combat regiments. If women meet the standards, then I see no reason to prevent them from serving in combat roles. People are worried that there will be a double standard, or that the current standards will be lowered in order to accommodate women, but I don't know how we could know for sure that this would happen. It will likely be up to military leadership to enforce common standards and shame on them if they do not.

[Devildog]

DD, where would you rank the Israelis among the world's fighting forces? [I'm just curious, as my knowledge of things military is pretty much limited to books by Tom Clancy and post-round victuals with Goatnapper]

PAC, IMO they do just fine in self preservation... and they have their hands full with that.

[Goatnapper'96]

I too worried about women in combat not being able to carry their weight. But then I read about Bradley Manning, the soldier who wikileaked thousands of confidential cables and other military documents. His whole career, he sat in a silo and ran computer data backups and transfers. Wasn't that considered combat? Women could do that.

Infantry is another matter, women should have to meet physical qualifications for that.

Women have had those roles for years. I think this will allow women to now serve in combat units and in combat Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) such as 11B Infantry Rifleman and of course the Prince of Battle 19D Cavalry Scout!

[Goatnapper'96]

I have not heard anyone argue that the physical, mental and emotional standards should be different for women in combat regiments. If women meet the standards, then I see no reason to prevent them from serving in combat roles. People are worried that there will be a double standard, or that the current standards will be lowered in order to accommodate women, but I don't know how we could know for sure that this would happen. It will likely be up to military leadership to enforce common standards and shame on them if they do not.

Because it has already happened. Because our society has made the decision multiple times to value social change and a goal of a socially engineered eagletarian endstate over meritocracy. Lets not play stupid here, you I and everyone alive knows that if the standards are maintained women will disproprtionately fail because they do not have the same muscle mass. If that happens there will be hearings, blue ribbon commissions and articles on Huffington Post about the sexist nature of the military. Commanders will have to explain why women fail disproportionately and the pressure will lead to women not failing disproportionately, the brass will get the intent of their civilian masters. If we want this for social change reasons then call it what it is and accept that it will have a negative effect on combat readiness and state that is a risk we think is worth it.

[Goatnapper'96]

PAC, IMO they do just fine in self preservation... and they have their hands full with that.

I have a great deal of respect for the Israeli DF, but your point is really valid that they have been fighting some of the most inept fighting units in history. To many Arab states have yet to come out of their dark ages and it shows. Schwarzkopf brought the 3rd largest Army in the history of the world to its knees in less than 100 hours - and the Iraquis had homefield advantage. I don't think history has another example of a worse rout.