Women in Combat

Well, whether you are for it or against it, Women are going to be integrated into combat units including elite units of our Military. Years ago I read Harry Coyle's book Trial by Fire. The scenario was that Women were integrated into combat units during peace time, then went to war in a fight with Mexico that started because of escalating cross border violence in the drug wars there. It was an interesting read, and I got to attend a lecture by Maj. Coyle on the subject at OCS.

It sparked quite a bit of debate among our class. Both sides had strong opinions, there was no middle ground. I sat just listening until the instructor asked me directly what I thought. I was usually right in the thick of arguments, and most often first up with an answer in class.

My answer was simple. I stated that physical ability was first and foremost. There were men who were unfit to be in combat units because they would not be able to perform the physical challenges and would thus be a danger to themselves and to their team who were counting on them.

End of discussion.

There are a lot of cons to women in combat. It used to be that protecting the women was of highest importance for the survival of a tribe or nation. If a group lost 80% of its men in battle, the remaining men could still repopulate the group in only a generation. If even a third of the women were lost, the group would suffer for several generations as people aged and needed the numbers of the tribe to continue providing food shelter etc. or the group would perish.

That was back when people groups numbered in the hundreds or thousands, and much manual labor went into survival. Today with mechanization, it would take an enormous number of casualties to whither a population to the brink of extinction.

Combat now has changed as well. Back when protecting future population was an important factor, most combat was face to face with swords, clubs, or occasionally archery. Now its at medium to long distance with rifles. I'm not going to include bombing, artillery, or ICBMs because there the point of gender is entirely moot.

Combat today does not involve the brute strength it did before the invention of the musket. That's not to say strength is not a factor though. Our troops going into combat wear body armor. Hell, the stuff is heavy for me, and I'm a big guy. consider though if a battle buddy gets shot and you have to protect him. That involves either lifting and carrying him to safety, think of the movie scenes where one guy has another in a fireman's carry running toward a helo, or dragging him out. A one hundred pound woman would have a bit of a challenge carrying or dragging a two hundred pound man when both are weighted down with full battle rattle. That means adding two weapons, two sets of armor, two combat packs, and full web. Now we are talking about additional weight in excess of 340 lbs this 100 pound woman must drag. Strip him out of the gear? He was just hit! you are in the field of fire. Its adrenaline fueled dashes in this zone.

There are women who can do it, there are men who cannot. All I ask of the leaders in the Pentagon is that they not dumb down the standards for women. It will do the ladies no service if they are not able to perform the tasks in the real world of combat. That gets people killed. I agree with Patton, No son of a bitch ever gained a damned thing by dying for his country. Rather you make the other son of a bitch die for his.

Keep that in mind if you are thinking about becoming an infantry woman. The service has lower standards of physical fitness for women in non combat positions, and they serve well there. I have no doubt a woman in the right physical shape can be a grunt or even a SEAL, and jobs like tan kdriver or fighter pilot are easily within their grasp. Women can fight. Any man who has come home drunk after blowing his paycheck in a bar knows all about that. Good luck ladies. Next up, should they register for the draft?