Tag Archives: women in combat

Hegseth: wrong for Pentagon

One down, an untold number more to go as Donald Trump continues to spring new announcements on his Cabinet choices while preparing to become the next president of the United States.

Matt Gaetz lasted just a few days as Trump’s pick to become attorney general. Then he backed out and Trump then turned to former Florida AG Pam Bondi to lead the Justice Department.

I want to turn my attention briefly to Pete Hegseth, another of Trump’s eyebrow-raising selections for his Cabinet. Hegseth is Trump’s pick to become defense secretary. He is a Fox Propaganda Channel weekend blowhard on “Fox and Friends.”

His nomination might be headed for the Dumpster, too.  A woman has accused him of raping her.; and he paid her money to keep quiet about an incident he says didn’t happen as she describes it. Moreover, he has said some inflammatory things about women, such as they don’t belong in combat.

Sheesh! What a clown!

I have been unable to stop thinking of a woman I know quite well who has served in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. She is my first cousin; my mother and her father were siblings. She is retired these days and lives on the East Coast with her sons. I called her this morning to ask her; What do you think of Pete Hegseth’s comments about women in combat?

She didn’t hold back. He is unfit, she said. He has no experience, she added. Hegseth has no business being considered for a job for which he is wholly unqualified, she said.

My cousin knows a thing or three about combat. She deployed with U.S. Army Special Forces to Afghanistan before retiring from the Army as a master sergeant.

So, when my family member believes that Pete Hegseth has no business leading the world’s most lethal fighting force, well … I’ll stand with her any day of any week.

Do women belong in combat?

U.S. Army Soldiers conduct combatives training during the Ranger Course on Fort Benning, Ga., April 20, 2015. Soldiers attend Ranger school to learn additional leadership and small unit technical and tactical skills in a physically and mentally demanding, combat simulated environment. (U.S. Army photo by Spc. Dacotah Lane/Released Pending Review)

At the risk of being labeled an unreconstructed male chauvinist — and you can add “pig” to it if you wish — I want to offer a view or two about a story that’s been giving me heartburn when I first heard about it.

Two women, both West Point graduates, have completed the U.S. Army’s highly intense Ranger training. Capt. Kristen Griest and 1st Lt. Shaye Haver went through precisely the same training regimen as their male colleagues.

They deserve high praise and congratulations for completing the course and for earning the admiration of their fellow soldiers, some of whom said the two women rendered critical assistance on the training field.

One of the women is a military police officer; the other flies Apache helicopters. They know the risks associated with the hazardous military duty.

But I keep wondering about this question: Is the percentage of dropout rates among women greater or fewer than it is for men because they cannot meet the strenuous physical requirements of becoming a Ranger?

I am thrilled that these two fine soldiers completed the Ranger training successfully. They now are certified as being among the Army’s elite fighters. But they aren’t going to be assigned front-line combat duty — at least not until the Pentagon decides to deploy women to serve in infantry, armor or artillery units.

There’s been plenty of praise for these two women, who demonstrated that they are as physically capable as their male colleagues to serve as Rangers. I join in praising Capt. Griest and Lt. Haver.

Do they represent the norm among all female soldiers who might want to become Rangers, or Green Berets, or Navy SEALs, Marine commandos, or Air Force special forces?

I keep thinking they’re the exception rather than the rule.

That is what makes me hesitate to endorse the idea of sending women into ground combat.

Heck, women already have engaged in combat operations — flying high-performance aircraft or serving in civil affairs units in hostile territory.

Am I out of step? Maybe. I’ll live with it.

 

 

Women are ready for combat, more or less

This blog post is going to get me in trouble with some of my female friends.

Here goes anyway: I have trouble accepting that women are capable of performing as infantry personnel in combat.

There I said it. Now I’ll explain why.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2014/07/10/marine-corps-dilemma-with-women-prompts-change-at-infantry-school/

The Washington Post reports on an experiment under way in the Marine Corps, where women will be taking the same Physical Fitness Test as men. As the Post reports: “The PFT requirement is the likely sticking point for many female Marines: To score a first-class PFT, men must do at least five pull-ups, assuming they rack up maximum points by running three miles in 18 minutes or less and complete 100 sit-ups. Under current rules for female Marines, women are not required to complete pull-ups.”

I’ll stipulate that I am well aware that women are performing well in some dangerous and deadly assignments in all branches of the military. They’re flying high-performance combat aircraft, as well as helicopters in close-air support roles on the battlefield.

Indeed, a young cousin of mine is now an Army master sergeant who has served multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. Her earliest assignments in Iraq were with a civil affairs unit, which meant she would venture into villages to set up infrastructure for Iraqis — not knowing if the village was occupied by enemy combatants. In Vietnam we called the effort “pacification.”

I do not doubt that women can perform in two of the three combat arms: artillery and armor; the third one being infantry. They can drive tanks or armored personnel carriers and they can fire big artillery pieces.

I long ago disabused myself of the concern about women being emotionally capable of performing combat duty. I hold up my cousin as the prime example of a female soldier’s emotional stamina.

But does a typical 120-pound woman have the same upper-body strength as a typical 200-pound man, enabling her to lug around an 80- or 100-pound rucksack while slogging across some rough terrain?

I tend to think not.

Therein lies what I consider to be the problem with allowing women to serve as infantry personnel.

I fear this experiment is not going to work for either the Army or the Marine Corps.

Female Marines fail physical. Now what?

I was afraid this could happen.

The Marine Corps joined the other military branches in requiring women to compete with men in physical fitness tests to determine their ability to perform the sometimes-arduous tasks the military requires of them.

Then half of the women Marines failed the exam.

http://news.msn.com/us/marines-delay-female-fitness-plan-after-half-fail

The failure rate has prompted the Marine Corps to delay its fitness plan to determine what its next step should be.

What we have here is a serious conundrum for the Marine Corps, not to mention all the services that include women in their ranks.

Count me as someone who has been skeptical of the decision to allow women into the combat arms, which is what is happening. The combat arms are the infantry, artillery and armor branches of the military, primarily in the Army and the Marine Corps.

I have no doubt that some women can perform as well as their male colleagues. I’ve known many women over the years with whom I would not want to encounter in a fistfight.

But … the issue here is whether all the females who serve in the combat arms are able to carry their share of the load in combat situations. I mean “carry their share” quite literally.

The Marine Corps has said it wouldn’t reduce its physical requirements for women who have enlisted for duty. They would be required to do all the tasks required of men. However, half of them have been unable to make the grade.

What now?

Am I wrong to have these doubts?