By Some of you in the US military should find this of interest:
When asked by Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, whether the Army should rethink its policies toward women, Casey said yes. The Army prohibits women from serving on the front lines, although those lines have been blurred in Iraq and Afghanistan.
“I believe it’s time that we take a look at what women are actually doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. And then we take a look at our policies,” he said. While no organized effort is under way, “I think it’s time,” he added. [Army Times]
I’m not sure what General Casey is advocating, but what I am inferring from this comment is to look at dropping the policies that prevent women from serving in some combat arms branches like Infantry and Armor.
I think that is fine and dandy as long as standards are not dropped in the name of diversity. If a woman can meet the same standards that a male has to than why can’t she serve in the infantry? However, I have only met two females I think would make good infantrymen in my entire career and neither one of them when I asked them said they would ever want to serve in the Infantry.
It is the sad reality. No mistake...
11:38 pm on March 2nd, 2010 1
Agree completely with GI Korea and Lollabrats on this one…
While, I'm honestly not comfortable with the idea of a mother on the front lines, I respect any woman's desire to serve in whatever capacity she feels obligated. It's their country too…One thing tho, I would extend that to conscripted service obligation in time of war, as well…After all, it's their country too…
12:20 am on March 3rd, 2010 2
Well, the issue in Iraq and Afghanistan is a peculiar one. We send out women on missions not to fight but because we use them to deal with the local womenfolk. But if a firefight breaks out or if they find themselves in an ambush, they have no choice but to fight.
5:39 am on March 3rd, 2010 3
It’s very clear what he means.
What he says: “I believe it’s time that we take a look at what women are actually doing in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
What he wants to add: “…because they are causing more damn problems than they are solving.”
What he says: “And then we take a look at our policies,”
What he wants to add: “…’cause this shyt ain’t exactly workin’.”
What he says: “I think it’s time”
What he wants to add: “…for women to get back in the offices and hospitals and quit being a distraction for the men out fighting the war.”
6:32 am on March 3rd, 2010 4
“I think that is fine and dandy as long as standards are not dropped in the name of diversity.”
This sentiment voices what is obviously best for the military, however…
What he says: “I believe it’s time that we take a look at what women are actually doing in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
What he need not add because Congress already knows about it:…”because women have already been involved in skirmishes and combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. And a few have even distinguished themselves.”
Regardless of their lesser physical attributes, we need to either properly prepare our girls for hostile action and at least train them to better coordinate with our infantry and marines while on the battlefield or observe regulations and keep them off it because letting some of these girls train to fight “on the job” and on the fly just doesn’t seem like it’s in our best interest.
6:40 am on March 3rd, 2010 5
Reminds me of the machine-gunner chick in Aliens.
12:31 pm on March 3rd, 2010 6
"Its their country too", but its your butt on the line when it comes to taking a bunker after a five click hump with 70 pounds on your back, after a week in the field, pooping just outside your NDP.
2:00 pm on March 3rd, 2010 7
Based on the relative physical and emotional fortitude i've experienced for both men and women in my military time I'd put my butt on that line.