Monday, December 10, 2012

Allowing Woman in the Infantry in the US Military or Not...?

Description and Definition of Infantry

On Monday we discussed differing perspectives on merging male and female sports at all levels to provide equal opportunity to everyone. The discussion topic met with differing views and is a precursor to this posts topic, allowing women into the infantry of the US Army, the US Marine Corps, and special operations.

Four Female Military Officers Supported by the ACLU are suing the Department of Defense over the combat exclusion clause prohibiting women from serving in direct combat arms roles. The military does not currently allow women to serve in ground combat units, such as infantry, artillery, armor or as special operations commandos. Recent wars without clear front lines have frequently pushed women assigned to support roles directly into the fighting. Read the below articles to hear their perspectives :

ACLU Lawsuit by female military officers

Before you form opinions, remember the issue is not whether or not woman face and experience combat in today's non-linear where the enemy operates among the populace. Of course military woman face combat situations and in many cases excel in serving and sacrificing for their country.

The issue is should they serve in armor, artillery, infantry, and special operations assigned to direct combat???

Here is one father's opinion:

Not Time Yet For Women To Serve In The Infantry

Here is an update on what the USMC is doing about this topic:

Marines Test Woman in the Infantry Course for the First Time

Lastly Read the Opinion of One Female Marine Officer Who Has Combat Experience

Get Over It We Are Not All Created Equally

1. Read the post and the attached articles and determine if you are for or against allowing females in some or all of the combat arms specialties.
2. You will be formed into groups to informally debate your team's opinion as a public speaking endeavor. Try to use some specific facts and arguments from the attached readings.
3. Post your personal opinion to this blog as your homework for this week.



  1. I am against women in combat simply because not only will it create unnecessary complications such as intimate relationships among soldiers, soldiers priorities shifting from their mission to being with their 'sweetheart', not to mention the risks involved with desegregating the military.

    Some include: If a female soldier has been captured, she is liable to be raped. An example is Jessica Lynch.

    What extra accommodations would the military have to make if they were to integrate units? Such as men AND women on patrol for 3 months at a time and so on.

    Also, a woman may have the qualifications, such as Angie Sposato who may be able to complete OCS and meet the physical requirements that the military sets for her, but I highly doubt that she can drag a 210 pound male soldier to cover whilst in a high stress environment such as a firefight no matter how smart she is, how much heart she has, or how much leadership training she has. Now 2 soldiers are in danger. And possibly even more if they need to rescue them BOTH.

    Another would be that a Taliban commander would usually never surrender to a woman. He would fight to the death rather than destroy his 'manhood,' unless he is truly a coward by the standards of his culture. If you take away their gun, from what i hear, it is like taking away their manhood.

    I think that women serving in the military is ok, but to try and integrate them, at the wishes of a 'progressive' citizen majority supporting a concept for an organization that they truly know nothing about whose only rationale behind their support is "This is 2012. Not the 50's." Is not only harmful and dangerous to servicemembers, but also to national security, and the pursuit and security of United States interests abroad.

    It may be fine in hollywood movies, which is what the public usually sees, but not in actual war. And the thought of having a seemingly "progressive" military, which in my opinion is not only a step backwards, but a RESTRICTIVE policy in regards to getting the mission at hand done. This is because people who have no knowledge of something, in this case the military, tend to lump all subjects together.

    I.E.:"Well, blacks were restricted from combat since before WW2, gays should be allowed to marry, I saw G.I. Jane so it must be true, etc," until their thinking is, that the majority should make succumb to the 'needs' of the minority because it's what they feel is the right thing to do.

    There is a genuine difference between skin color, and gender. And to lump them in the same category, is pure absurdity and dangerous thinking.

    A lot of good that 'progressive' military is gonna do you when the other 'discriminatory' military has an upper hand in that aspect. Because they probably won't discriminate, which is ACTUALLY PROGRESSIVE in my opinion because to them, EVERYONE IN THAT UNIFORM IS A TARGET.

    And I think if people are really going to get so worked up over this subject, I think that our priorities as a nation and as a people are really messed up. And in my opinion, to have a civilian, (POTUS) backed by civilians (US populous) often times easily swayed to the left by public schooling, in charge of the military, is a huge mistake because they don't know what it's like because not only have they never experienced it, but they don't even have that much knowledge of a system like that anyway. And unless that president has had prior military experience, which SHOULD BE A REQUIREMENT. (Kennedy was a PT-Boat Captain, Teddy Roosevelt was in the First U.S. Volunteer Cavalry Regiment, and so on. So when it comes to making decisions about using military force, they are less apt to not only make a stupid decision regarding the military, but are more likely to have a developed character.

    Short version: No. I am against it.

  2. Also, I had alot of time to kill (no infantry-related pun indended) when i wrote this.

    It didn't look as long as this when i was typing it.


  3. I take it you feel strongly about this issue...?

  4. I take it you feel strongly about this issue...?

  5. Spent 24+ years in the Corps. Read my lips...not no, but HELL NO

  6. Plus, Leon the Liberal Puke Panetta was a fool for even thinking women could physiologically handle 24-7 front line combat ops. They would breakdown, and have to evacuated from the fight. And the unit would be down a body in the fight. We've wasted time and money in this social experiment. And what really pisses me off, is that the military brass didn't tell puke panetta that he was dead wrong