Women in Combat: Problem, Solution, Implementation

[goon175]

Hey everyone, I am writing an article that I would like to get your thoughts on. It seems that women in combat occupations WILL BE a reality at some point, sooner or later. I am writing on the practical implementation of this policy. Below is my basic premise, please give me your thoughts, what you would add/change, and your thoughts on implementation:

This is not meant to be a convo on IF women should be in combat, but rather you should assume that women WILL BE in combat MOS's​

Problem: for the first time in U.S. Military history, women will be fully integrated into combat occupations.

Solution: segregated infantry brigades (all male or all female), high physical fitness standards that are applied to both genders and must be met before becoming MOSQ, combat SOF roles would remain closed to women, but support roles (i.e. MI) would be opened.

Implementation: "Buy in" at the DoD level would be necessary. Certain Infantry Brigades would be "tagged" for cross over to all female, there would be a non-deployable transition period allotted to that unit. A combat physical fitness assessment would be established that realistically met the demands of combat, this would be spearheaded not by doctors but by NCO's in combat MOS's with proven combat experience. All non-SOF specific schools would be opened up to females in combat MOS's, but the schools would be segregated for training.

 

[pardus]

Officially there won't be a problem as we already have separate standards, with regards to PT etc...
So anyone saying there is a problem will be labelled a sexist/racist and be removed from their position. Problem solved! (Well until we have a "real" war where we need the real standerds to apply).

As to your original question, it's been done before without problem elsewhere, but I'm sure the US Military and politicians will do their very best to fuck it up with bureaucracy and stupidity.

 

[digrar]

You're not going to get a Brigade worth of Female Infantrymen though, even in a military as big as yours. Canada has a handful of grunts, the Kiwis have the same, we've had in service transfers open to women this year, about 30 have applied, none for Infantry, they're all looking at tanks, cav and engineers. I'd be surprised if you could fill out a full Company.

 

[Short Round]

I agree with digrar. Segregation of gender in units would be a good system if the numbers made it possible. I doubt however, that there are enough females willing and or qualified to make a transitional period from all male to all female a reasonable amount of time. Also I think that separating the genders to distinct units leaves the door open for future Nancy Pelosi wannabes to cry foul if any perceived wrongdoing happens within an all female unit.

 

[pardus]

To think there will ever be a segregation of sexes is ludacris.

 

[goon175]

I used a brigade as an example, feel free to scale to battalion, or company.

 

[digrar]

Male leadership until you can get past the 5, 10 and 15 year marks to get suitable female personnel experienced enough to lead their Squads/Sections, Platoons and Company? Or chuck those with the desired aptitude into the deep end like in WW2?

 

[goon175]

You mean like we do with 2LT's?

 

[digrar]

We give them a SNCO and half a dozen JNCOs to keep them from stepping on their dicks too badly though.

 

[0699]

Officially there won't be a problem as we already have separate standards, with regards to PT etc...
So anyone saying there is a problem will be labelled a sexist/racist and be removed from their position. Problem solved! (Well until we have a "real" war where we need the real standerds to apply).

As to your original question, it's been done before without problem elsewhere, but I'm sure the US Military and politicians will do their very best to fuck it up with bureaucracy and stupidity.

Agreed. The official line is and will be "there is no problem with gender integration".

The unspoken policy, like it always is, will be "Sergeant, make it work". No support, no backing, and if it fails, it'll be the sergeants fault.

 

[goon175]

And just to be clear, I'm writing this to say how it should work. Of course we all know the realities of politics and the military, etc but this is meant to be a "hey, for this to work, this this and this needs to happen".

 

[Marauder06]

Momentum is with increased integration, I think any time of gender-segregated, "separate but equal" operational unit of any size is going to be a non-starter. I also don't think it's practical or necessary.

Most support roles in most SOF units are already open to women.

I think the concentration needs to be on prevention dilution of the present standards in order to integrate women. Freeze the standards that are currently in place, and see how many women 1) want to do it and 2) are physically capable of doing it. Then integrate that remaining small handful into organizations appropriate for their MOS, and let them compete with everyone else.

 

[goon175]

I think a team of senior NCO's and officers that are not MTOE'd to the unit but rather are on kind of MiTT team that is PTDY to the unit that is there to advise would do the trick. Give them a two or three year non-deployable train up period, and that will give the TL's, SL's, etc enough training, and the PSG's and above I think you could find by looking for the right females with the right background to plug into those positions until they grew them organically. Ranger School, as the premier combat leadership institution in the military, would have to be opened up to females, and ensuring that R.S. did not drop their standards for political reasons, could produce some good leaders to go back to the unit. As far as numbers go, coming from three year recruiting stint, if the army wants people in a specific occupation, they will get them. All you will see is commercials and flyers about needing "the right woman" for the Infantry, which will attract that 5% of women who could probably do ok in this occupation, but previously had no interest in the Army. You present it as the opportunity for a woman to break barriers and be the first, and they will come. As an example, after DADT ended, we put in more lesbians than hetero females that FY. True story.

 

[goon175]

I think any time of gender-segregated, "separate but equal" operational unit of any size is going to be a non-starter. I also don't think it's practical or necessary.

I think the "Birds and the Bee's" are the largest obstacle to having an effectively integrated unit. I honestly think that that is the biggest problem with women in combat MOS's, period. You look at the problems that they have in integrated support units, and you just don't want that in combat arms.

Most support roles in most SOF units are already open to women.

I believe the only one that does not is the 75th, which I think could open up those positions (without diluting the standards).

 

[amlove21]

I think the "Birds and the Bee's" are the largest obstacle to having an effectively integrated unit. I honestly think that that is the biggest problem with women in combat MOS's, period. You look at the problems that they have in integrated support units, and you just don't want that in combat arms.

LOL. Sorry! That issue was completely made void by the allowance of homosexuals serving in non-segregated, integrated units. Your "largest obstacle" no longer exists. Problems or not, it's happening right now.

That's what the administration has allowed- the possibility of two Soldiers/Sailors/Airmen serving in the same unit and carrying on a sexual relationship.

For the record, I am 100% for the integration of homosexuals to military units, and that they are allowed to formally declare themselves as such with no repercussion.

 

[goon175]

That is a valid point, but I would counter with the fact that nothing will be a perfect solution, and:

1) If we have joe on joe going on, we can't get anyone pregnant thus taking them out of the fight
2) I don't think we have enough homosexuals in our countries population, let alone in the military, let alone in combat arms - for it to be a serious problem. The majority of Infantry platoons will not have a single homosexual, and the for the ones that do, they will have one homosexual in a platoon of men, and chances are there isn't another homosexual there, and if there is they aren't guaranteed to be into each other. Whereas if you put one woman in a platoon of men, 75% of the men at some point are going to try and get up in that - especially on a long deployment, whether they are "into" her or not.

 

[amlove21]

That is a valid point, but I would counter with the fact that nothing will be a perfect solution, and:

1) If we have joe on joe going on, we can't get anyone pregnant thus taking them out of the fight
2) I don't think we have enough homosexuals in our countries population, let alone in the military, let alone in combat arms - for it to be a serious problem. The majority of Infantry platoons will not have a single homosexual, and the for the ones that do, they will have one homosexual in a platoon of men, and chances are there isn't another homosexual there, and if there is they aren't guaranteed to be into each other. Whereas if you put one woman in a platoon of men, 75% of the men at some point are going to try and get up in that - especially on a long deployment, whether they are "into" her or not.

I dig it, and I am just playing contrarian here.

1- You still have the base problem with couples of any xx/xy coupling- two unit members that are distracted by a personal relationship in the same chain of command. You may not be able to get someone pregnant- but you can have a bad fight, a break up, or a problem with issuing orders to your partner and having personal relations mask the mission. More than pregnancy, that issue was primary in the non-inclusion of women, second only to the equal "they can't do it physically" and "it's psychologically different for men" arguments. The base problem remains, yet was completely ignored in the integration of homosexuals into the military. More accurately- the allowance of the declaration of homosexuality. There were still homosexuals in the military, they just weren't allowed to come out and say it.

2- It was never about likelihood. The question was never "Alright, with the right training, and the right prep, how likely would it be for a female to engage in a sexual relationship with a member of the unit?" It was "Nope. Dudes are dudes and they wanna bang chicks." Well, if it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander. In this case, the gander is a dude. That wants to bang other ganders. Gandees? Is that a gander too? I'm confused.

I think you would be surprised at the "majority of infantry units" that actually have a homosexual in them. I would love to see an honest, in-a-vacuum study (which will never, ever happen).



BUT to keep it on track- I don't think there will ever be a time that women will have the numbers for a segregated unit. I think integrated units is the most logical. The dudes in said units are just going to have to behave as professionals, with stiff penalties for misconduct until the "new troop smell" wears off the process.

 

[goon175]

And ya know, your counter points are exactly why this SHOULDN'T happen. Because no matter the solution, there are still going to be issues. I don't support women in combat arms in any way, shape, or form, but I'm trying to think of it from the perspective of "Goon, you are in charge of integrating women into combat arms. This WILL happen, make it happen." How do I best make it happen?

 

[Kunoichii]

Also, as amlove stated, there won't be enough women to have a segregated unit... so what happens when the (insert service) decides that is how this needs to be done, and starts pulling women from other MOS/AFSCs that dont want to do it, just to fill numbers. Heard a whole radio segment from a lady that works in the DOD and she was positive that is how this will go.

 

[goon175]

You mean like the Army already does with shortage MOS's?