Wanted: Your Opinion on Inclusion of Women in Combat Arms Units.

Women in should be allowed in combat, as long as they are capable in all aspects. What
has gender have to do with it?

I was in the first gulf war. Many women deployed there where sent home pregnant. Many of the women came home with money in their pockets, and it was not from their military pay. Women were trying to get pregnant to get sent home. It is a danger to have these kind of activities in a combat zone. It will happen, because it has.

As an I'm a Iraqi and Enduring Freedom, Combat Vet and a woman, I reaise a hand and 2nd R. Ireland's sentiments:

"In an all volunteer military this should be a no-brainer; if women can pass the same physical, mental and aptitude tests required of their male counterparts without any fudging on these exams for the sake of a political agenda and as long as all personnel understand that no special treatment will be rendered as a result of their being women, then they should be allowed to serve wherever they are qualified to serve."

No man or woman should be allowed the privlige to fight in their countries service just because he or she is trying to prove some agenda. If a woman is qualified to fight, then let her fight because she can fight.

If she is qualified then let her Serve with Honor and hinder her not.

I don't believe women should be allowed to serve in combat arms. I'm a VN vet, served with A-detachments in Army SF, and the Mike Force. We often had to dig foxholes at dark; go without water for days: cut down trees with a machete for LZ's. carry the wounded or dead for miles to an LZ. use the bathroom right outside your foxhole.I really don't think I would like to have had a female there. It would have been more stressful for everyone in the unit, and we would have had a heavier load.

As an Iraqi and Enduring Freedom, Combat Vet and a woman, I raise a hand and 2nd R. Ireland's sentiments:

"In an all volunteer military this should be a no-brainer; if women can pass the same physical, mental and aptitude tests required of their male counterparts without any fudging on these exams for the sake of a political agenda and as long as all personnel understand that no special treatment will be rendered as a result of their being women, then they should be allowed to serve wherever they are qualified to serve."

No man or woman should be allowed the privlige to fight in their countries service just because he or she is trying to prove some agenda. If a woman is qualified to fight, then let her fight because she can fight.

If she is qualified then let her Serve with Honor and hinder her not.

I served in the AAF in the WWII but not in combat. However I was well aware of the Soviets
use of women in combat units. I don't think trained American female soldiers are any
less capable than those tough Russian women were against the Nazis. Get over it, guys.

I don't think women should be in combat at all. They are just not physically strong enough to defend themselves against men and are probable victims of rape, incest, etc.

Having served with women in austere conditions I will have to day no. biologically them need more care than men. We had to deal with cycles under unsanitary conditions and this was not pleasant. Not only could the enemy smell what we smelled from far away, but it was also unpleasant for the females. We also have to think about POWs. If captured the women will be subject to hypersonic things and their bodies will only be able to withstand so much. Think of the conditions in a POW camp and add rape to the mix. African nations have had women in grunt units and look at the atrocities we see coming out of there. Its biology, nothing more. Men can't have babies, nothing will change that either.

See above.

Gender integration into combat units via the Forward Support Companies (FSCs) presented commanders in combat operations with numerous problems including: disruption of unit cohesion, rampant sex among peers and subordinates, in theater pregnancies, sexual harassment, and early re-deployment of pregnant personnel. While our brave women are essential in our military, placing them in combat units is unfair to them and disruptive to unit cohesion.

I do not think they should serve in ANY infantry unit. Let's just kill of our reproductive system by letting them do so. Let's be honest here folks, men cannot have babies and Jesus made it that way for a reason! Battles have always and will always be fought by men. Woman can most certainly serve in other capacities in our GREAT MILITARY!

ABSOLUTELY NOT! And it should not become a part of our culture.

Women should not be allowed in a combat unit. It would completely disrupt the unit.

S. Rodriguez and R. Ireland I agree with what you say if a woman is capable of meeting the standards established, then by all means I would have welcomed another hand. The majority of my experience was the opposite, for every outstanding soldier (who just happened to be female), I met a handful more that would complain and make every effort to utilize their sex to get out of work. Not politically correct I understand but that was my experience. Enforce a standard for a soldier and not based on sex and I would welcome any able bodied soldier at my side.

Any man that is married will tell you that a woman would be qualified. I was in WW11 and was very proud of the job well done by women in the service. I see no reason that women shouldn't serve in the Military if they pass the tests that are required.

Women make excellent nurses and can make an injured warrior recover at a faster rate than a male nurse. But Women in Combat...should never happen because of obvious reasons...they're sexy to both American fighting men and our enemies...As a lot have said here a man will watch over a woman in combat more-so than he would his fellow worrier/man. If she weren't there fighting along side the men...the men would be more focused on the combat and protecting his brother in arms. Nuff said.

The Legion is 100 percent the wrong organization to conduct this survey. The organization is sexist. There has not been a woman National Commander, Vice Commander or Constitutional Officer in the leadership. Members see the bias from the top down. The very construct of the survey and questions are lopsided. If you really wanted to know what I thought you would have asked me out right if a agree or disagree with women serving based on their qualifications just like men. This junk about phasing women in is just the Legion's way of seeing how long they can fight women serving in all capacities. If you want to have a real policy debate, hire an outside surveyor.

For those who think women shouldn't be in combat because a man will protect them, you're an idiot because the men protect each other as it should be. I've also seen excuses about that time of the month: as it stand talons these days can hold it for more than a few hrs and as they are biodegradeable they can be treated like every other human waste product in combat: buried. "women are not strong enough" As a marine every PFT test I did was right along with the men, some men did better than the woman and some woman did better than the men. "relationships will form" This reason is just plain ridiculous for the fact gay men can serve in combat billets. "mothers aren't prepared to see their daughters die in combat" (this is one of the excuses congress has given) Wake up America, mothers don't want to see ANY of their children die and I say this as a mother; women are already dying in combat and a man's and a woman's life is equally important. Every reason given for this inequality is complete BS and the world knows it.

I cannot understand why any woman would want to be that close to any man not her boyfriend /husband. Opening a door for untold legal problems ie sex discrimination suits. Puting the men in situations that here to now have not developed, this is one situation that men will be the victims of poor policy. Eliminate m/f baths and gender based training, see what occurs, go from there.

I cannot understand why any woman would want to be that close to any man not her boyfriend /husband. Opening a door for untold legal problems ie sex discrimination suits. Puting the men in situations that here to now have not developed, this is one situation that men will be the victims of poor policy. Eliminate m/f baths and gender based training, see what occurs, go from there.

If they signed up for it and they are mentallystable then yes. I know alot of weman out there that are more gun-ho then men. Some one said earlier about them being a distraction and we would watch out for them more than men, doesn't that mean we might get more of them home alive

I'm probably a little off subject, but I'm not happy about women in alot of military settings. My husband is a former Airforce fire fighter who had a few women on his shift. It was not a good situation. One women firefighter broke up a marriage. Lets just say she got to know a couple of the male firefighters a little too closely overnight. Not too mention, due to her slight physical build, there is no way she was capable of pulling her weight on drills or live calls. It made us wonder who else she must have slept with and manipulated to get where she was in rank. There are plenty other ways to serve our country if that is truly the reason these women enlist in the first place...

Based on my experince, in 3 wars, and 3 years of my life deployed (or in theater missions), I believe that the military is no place for women, period! It's about sex and psychology, not misogyny. At least 80% of the women in our units presented real morale issues that couldn't be addressed because of the current political correctness and feminist environment. I have nothing against women as free agents to do as they wish with thier lives, but that doesn't make military service in combat, or even combat support, units practical or appropriate. Soldiers have been complaining for years that the women in thier units, aside from being a distraction, have drastically reduced the physical fitness standards and reduced unit combat effectiveness, with the men understanding that when things really get tough, they'll have pick up the slack for the women. There are other equally important things that women can do with thier lives. Fighting our nation's wars just isn't one of them! I say this as a retired veteran, husband and father.

As a former Marine officer, I have seem my share of combat. And I ask the question, why does a woman want to go into combat? Perhaps it is something new, exciting, sexy, nothing can be further from the truth. Not only the physical toll, but the mental, and emotional toll as well. Other countries, exploit and use women and children, like we have never seen. Especially children, who they will use to befriend you, and then......................you know the rest. It is not a pretty picture. I have seen women have a "breakdown", as a result, far greater number then men. War is hell, combat is even worse. I know wonen cannot handle the rigors of combat. I have seen it first hand. Be careful what you wish for, it might come true.....and then some. Combat is not a game, it is survival, and it deals with physical, and mental and emotional factors.

They are there now... and if they desired to be and trained to be.. I would believe in their judgement rather than that of a male soldier.... world peace is my hope .. and the male genes .. fight first and then ask questions falls behind a women's demeanor ... where they think before they shoot their wad.

The argument of having women in combat roles in the military services of today is truly a paradoxical issue. Historically, women have served in many roles bringing true honor and distinction to those individuals. That said, not all women served with distinction in the past, nor will that be the case in the future...JUST LIKE THE MALES!!!

We have become a nation of unequal, inequitable EQUALITY. Until true equality is established based on viable standards applicable to all, with NO waivers allowed, we will continue to have shortcomings in ALL units of the services, but in particular the combat units where an individual not up to par can have a significant impact on the units' morale, readiness and combat effectiveness in the field.
I have served with a few women that I would go to war with and have complete confidence in their ability to not only cover their SIX but also cover their comrades. Note that I am not always confident in the males covering their SIX or their comrades however, most males can be relied upon in a given combat role whereas most women would likely fall short. Everything should be based on the PERFORMANCE of the individual...gender should not be a factor. Either perform to the standard or be gone demon...stop making excuses and start making warriors. In the field, the enemy does not care what your excuse is nor will it save you from their onsluaght. Only your capabilities will do that for you, your unit...your NATION! Any other position is simply politics...don't we have enough of that already?

What society in it right mind sends women in place of abled bodied men? What a joke!

I agree with most of the comments I read. Men are men, and women are going to get pregnant. Especially the young testosterone-laden men in combat arms units. Relationships happen that can cause discord at squad level, and you DO NOT want your team member NOT watching your back. And no rules or regulations are going to change those facts.

To me it comes down to straight up ability, if the majority of women could load a TOW into a missile launcher or break track on a Bradley I'd welcome them with open arms. For what the Army would spend to accomodate these literal handful of women that could actually perform the same tasks as men would be just a total waste laid at the altar of PC. If the Army thought women were physically on par with men why do they have markedly lower standards on PT tests (btw why don't they have to get their heads shaved). It's the same BS in the NYPD when I went through the academy we had to box, but the women didn't have to box with the men, so when they're out on the foot post and a guy squares up on them they're gonna say sorry I can only fight other females. Truth be told I've met a few female cops I wouldn't want to tussle with, but the difference being we don't live together in the same barracks, we're not out in the field for weeks or month's at a time together so it is possible for the job to accomodate them.

I agree with dj3Idaho. I know that everybody seems to want equal rights and equal access in the military, but there is a distinct reason why women are not built like men, women do not think like men, and women typically will not react in battle like men. Let's keep it real y'all. You know that it would be mentally much more difficult for a man to see a women shot in battle, therefore, adding jeopardy to the mission. Also, women who are captured are 100% more likely to be raped than a man. WE ARE NOT THE SAME. It does not mean that women are not CAPABLE of performing any type of job that a man can do, because we most certainly can.

Basic human anatomy and physiology. The male body is more adapt to physical demands. Almost every sporting event in the olympics is split by sexes. Even in Golf (roll eyes) men have an advantage. Sure some females can do a better job than some males. But across the board the facts remain males and females are different. Hormones, bones, muscle, aggression, durability, et al

Then mix in sexual tension.... Along with the extra logistical needs. Leave the battlefield as is. Untill all sports are equal then try the battelfield.

If women meet all the same requirements as men, by all means yes. BUT, they should be in female only units..not mixed male/female.

It is a sad day when we resort to putting our ladies in the line of fire, directly. First, open Sodomy and now women under and in combat. Disgusting. God help us.

NO! There are plenty of jobs in the military for women, and combat is not one of them. Why risk the lives of our male combat soldiers. Our instinct is to protect women - and that will conflict with the job at hand in combat. Regardless of their test scores and patriotism, combat is not for ladies. All of the reasons are completely obvious.

Some of the respondents need to grow up, be responsible and be professional. Women serving in combat should be allowed, provided that they have the skills. To disallow it because of machismo and/or chivalry is purely sexist or misogynistic, if not arrogance. To disallow it because a woman may hook-up with someone is a demonstration of a lack of professionalism, and each party should be removed.

I agree with Ireland IF a women Qualifies AND HAS the DESIRE to FIGHT let it be!

May come a time when you have to. I was in combat seven times, never saw gals in combat zone, except Grenada, and two were just walking around after the fight. I also commanded a 600"man" operational combat response and guardforce squadron in the CONUS that was 22% female. We got the highest operational ratings possible, 2 years in a row. They performed well, and our units spent extended periods in the field,and yes there was some "he'n and she'n", but it was a very minor issue. You must make some adjustments. Oddly enough, when I deployed to a combat zone with a squadron, the government pulled the ladies off the roster. As a commander I would rather have deployed with the same people I trained with, regardless of gender. I led an elite antiterrorism team in Europe for 2 years that contained three or four females, and they were outstanding. I never had to make a single operational adjustment when my force contained women. It'll work if you decide to do it; and I readily accepted female soldiers, but most of the other commanders were against it and resisted strongly.

Start with bootcamp. Mix them all together men, women, gays. Same room. Same shower. Same standards.

-
I've reviewed an DoD study of basic Army training and women suffered far greater physical injuiries and downtime in simple boot camp. It's facts.
My view after 8yrs is females are cushioned. They are given the easy jobs, easy shifts, and nearly 90% of the females I worked with recieved early medical discharges. Let the facts be published. What is the % of females medically discharged?