Interesting Article Regarding Women in Direct Combat Roles

#1
By Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady, U.S. Army (ret.)
For many Americans, it is hard to believe that Secretary of Defense Leon Paneta could top his statement in defense of the administration’s tragic bungling of the terrorists’ massacre in Benghazi: “(The) basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on; without having some real-time information about what’s taking place (The Obama Panetta Doctrine).” But he did top it.
In justification of the administration’s policy to put women in foxholes, he claimed that women in (direct) combat strengthen our military. His statement is a contradiction of every war we have fought and the ethos of every warrior who ever fought in those wars. But it does reflect the attitude of the commander in chief, disastrously over his head in the international arena, a “leader” unable to make tough decision who is fearful of risk and does not know the difference between a corps and a corpse. He is more comfortable around homosexuals and feminists than warriors. Panetta’s statement extolling the readiness multiplier of women leading bayonet charges is beyond the pale.
Neither Obama nor Panetta has ever served in combat, nor has most of Congress. But worse, none of the current military leadership has had any serious combat (in the trenches) experience, and it is beginning to show.
World War II was won by combat veterans from World War I. In Korea we had the veterans of World War II, and in Vietnam the combat veterans of both World War II and Korea. The Vietnam veteran won Desert Storm. All those warriors and their leadership are gone, and we see a military with dismal leadership resulting in unprecedented rates of suicide, PTSD and security breaches. We had one high-ranking officer lament that the terrorist’s massacre at Fort Hood would damage his diversity efforts! Leadership relieved the judge in the trial of the Fort Hood terrorist for enforcing military shaving rules on the terrorist – and after over three years, he is not tried! And they are calling that obvious terrorist massacre “workplace violence,” deliberately depriving those killed and their families of deserved benefits.
Unimaginable in our past, we have leaders who consider awarding medals for not shooting, and now a medal for risking carpal tunnel syndrome that outranks the time-honored Bronze Star for valor. This gaggle actually lost graves of our warriors at Arlington Cemetery and are attacking the benefits of America’s nobility – our veterans. I don’t know where the term girlie men came from, but it perfectly describes many in this administration and their military leaders.
After commanding an all-men medical unit in combat, I commanded a medical battalion, including many women, in peacetime. These units are not direct-combat units but do spend a lot of time on the battlefield and are exposed to enemy fire and casualties. But it is nothing like the exposure of the grunts in the mud and grime for days and weeks at a time.
My rule in the battalion was standards, not gender-governed, except where they were already assigned, i.e., medics and mechanics. This was during the ’70s, a tough time for drugs and discipline in the military. Here is what I found. As a result of competition, my driver and our color guard, highly contested duty, were women. The women had less disciplinary problems than the men. In administrative jobs, they were at least equal to men. But most could not carry their load physically – loading litters in choppers, carrying wounded to safety, even lifting tool chests. As a result the men covered for them, often causing us to use two people when one should have done the job – all of which effected readiness. They were not good in the field and became less functional when issues of hygiene, and feminine hygiene, literally knocked them out and we had to jerry-rig showers, wasting valuable time.
And they got pregnant, which took out key jobs at critical times. Other sexual distractions, favoritisms, fraternization and assault are also readiness disruptions and follow women throughout the military, even in our military academies. I had serious problems with wives whose husbands shared standby shacks with women overnight. This would go on for weeks in direct combat units; think tank crews. Male bonding, immeasurable to success in combat, would be damaged. All in all, the women pose an insane burden on readiness.
My conclusion, which I passed to my division commander at his request, was that I would not want females with me working the battlefield let alone in direct combat. I told him I would not want my daughters in a unit of half women going bayonet to bayonet with an enemy unit 100 percent men. Those comments almost cost me my career because my immediate superior disagreed, which may explain some of the obsequiousness and cowering of military leaders today on this issue and a quad-sexual military.
The move to teach our daughters and mothers to kill is defended using the same criteria I used in my battalion: standards, not sex-govern. It does not work. Most men will not treat women as they do other men – thankfully. And there is no intention to do so despite what we hear. Listen to our top military leader, Gen. Martin Dempsey: “If we decide that a particular standard is so high that a woman couldn’t make it, the burden is now on the service to come back and explain to the secretary, why is it that high? Does it really have to be that high?” Those standards have been set over hundreds of years of combat! We should change them to satisfy the crazes of the president’s feminist supporters? Imagine how Gen. George Patton and all the leaders who founded and secured this country would react to those comments.
I have said, and many men agree with me, that Adam’s rib was the greatest investment in human history. Why? Because God then gave man woman, a different creature, who complemented him. God did it on purpose, and we are privileged to live with the differences. Feminists et al., get over it. It is not discrimination to accommodate God’s design; it is acknowledging His will – it is wisdom.
Despite “Kill Bill” and other Hollywood visuals of females pummeling men, women for the most part are not designed to kill. And they will not be good at it. God designed them to produce life and nurture it, not destroy it. They don’t belong in the trenches of the NFL or in the octagon in Ultimate Fighting; combat is the ultimate Ultimate Fighting – and they don’t belong there, either.
It is difficult to teach some men to kill, but they have no choice. Imagine a draft and a nation forcing our women into killing units. Visualize what will happen to women POWs, not to mention homosexuals, captured by our most likely enemies. We have heard of the man who sent his wife downstairs to check on a possible burglar (I actually knew such a man). We are becoming a nation like that man, a girlie nation. There will always be burglars, (international thugs), most of whom are male, and they should be confronted by males.
Why these ridiculous changes? No serious person could believe that women in foxholes will do anything but reduce readiness. Just as devastating is the formation of a quad-sexual military, which introduces sodomy not only to foxholes but military communities – and with it serious health and deployment issues. Pregnant females cannot deploy, and some will get pregnant to avoid it. Homosexuals cannot give blood and may not be deployable. Every warrior is a walking blood bank – who would want his son or daughter to receive a blood transfusion from a homosexual? The NBA stops a basketball game for a drop of blood because of the threat of infection, the Magic Johnson rule; Johnson had AIDS. The battlefield is full of blood. Do we think less of our soldiers than the NBA does of its players? What will be the reaction when a warrior sees his commanding officer dancing and romancing another man – or if he is hit on by a homosexual? Yet we are told these changes will improve readiness.
Sequestration, designed by President Obama, will, if allowed to kick in, emasculate what is left of our military. Aside from the cruel impact these budget cuts will have on military careers and families, they are perfectly suited to Obama’s isolationist goals. He is a rhetorical celebrity dedicated to social issues, i.e. same-sex marriage, gun control and government running just about everything. He is also a man intimidated by crises and the decisions they require. He is a voting-present leader, and we are learning he was not even present to lead during the massacre at Benghazi. He apparently hid out during the entire event and tried to blame it on a video. What would he do during a major 9/11-type crisis? An insignificant military takes us off the world stage and requires only voting present in future crises, which perfectly suits our present leadership. We can only pray there will be no such crises.
[FONT=&quot] [HR][/HR] [/FONT]
Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady, retired from the U.S. Army, is a recipient of the United States military’s highest decoration, the Medal of Honor.
Definitely not the "party" line.
 
#2
Seriously if your Gay you cant give Blood ? HIV etc, etc isn't gender specific, thought it would be screened anyway ?

There is too much Media in War these days, selling papers to make $, regardless of the harm to those at home
 
#3
Well would you want gay blood? One minute you are a steely eyed bringer of death the next you are knitting.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire S A510e using ARRSE mobile app
 
#4
Sorry JJH but your facts are going to do no good.
We live in a society where feelings and emotions rule over facts and logic.

Women in the military my reduce combat effectiveness and change the way small groups of soldiers (traditionally men) interact with each other and work together, but it is unfair and discrimination so the facts become useless in the argument.

I read an article the other day how the American Mental Health ( or what ever it is), has dropped transgender (people saying they are a man born in a womans body) from being a mental health problem, not from facts and studies but from pressure from the groups who support them.
The way I read it was, we don't care what you experts say, we don't like you saying we have a problem, we don't except that, it makes us feel bad change it.

I'm waiting for the day when health professionals cannot tell someone they are over weight, as that's the way the choose to be and who are they to tell people whats good for them.

Alas this is the world we live in.
Oh and because he mention God in this he will also be a religious nut, a bigot, and automatically hates gays and women.
 
#5
Sorry JJH but your facts are going to do no good.
We live in a society where feelings and emotions rule over facts and logic.

Women in the military my reduce combat effectiveness and change the way small groups of soldiers (traditionally men) interact with each other and work together, but it is unfair and discrimination so the facts become useless in the argument.

I read an article the other day how the American Mental Health ( or what ever it is), has dropped transgender (people saying they are a man born in a womans body) from being a mental health problem, not from facts and studies but from pressure from the groups who support them.
The way I read it was, we don't care what you experts say, we don't like you saying we have a problem, we don't except that, it makes us feel bad change it.

I'm waiting for the day when health professionals cannot tell someone they are over weight, as that's the way the choose to be and who are they to tell people whats good for them.

Alas this is the world we live in.
Oh and because he mention God in this he will also be a religious nut, a bigot, and automatically hates gays and women.
They are not mine-- I am merely passing on the remarks of a retired senior officer and MOH recipient that counts for a great deal of credibility in my book. I don't agree on every point but merely posted it for general edification.


Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
 
#7
Who would want his son or daughter to recieve blood from a homosexual?

Personally if I need blood that bad I couldn't care less where it's from as long as it's the right type and free from disease.

Sent in a harsh font, using finger paints
 
#9
[video=youtube;FcG7z_uAA0E]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcG7z_uAA0E[/video]

Wouldn't fancy tussling with them if I'm honest...
 
B

Biscuits_AB

Guest
#10
They are not mine-- I am merely passing on the remarks of a retired senior officer and MOH recipient that counts for a great deal of credibility in my book. I don't agree on every point but merely posted it for general edification.


Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
I think you're missing the point JJH. He's not criticising the message nor indeed the messenger. It's the opposition to that message and how it's been allowed to develop itself in the face of factual evidence and how facts (as stated in the General's message) are being ignored in order to pandy to political and personal whims based on nothing more than the personal desires of weak individuals who feel that they are best placed to make the rules. The very same people have carved nice careers (and invented some) for themselves and will never have to take up arms. In the UK we call them *******. We have many *******. Looks like you've got some too! One day we'll all pay for their decisions. I've seen the sort of 'politics' you highlight, being played out by Warrant Officers, which to my mind is an indication of things to come. People are now afraid to speak out and I'm not talking about the loud mouthed anti everything bigots that we all suffer from, I'm talking about reasonable people.
 
#12
I'm not sure that 'Gays have AIDS!' will help him get his argument across.
 
Z

Zarathustra

Guest
#13
Wow, I'd like to hear him after he's had a couple of shandies if that's him sober!


Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
I'm not sure that 'Gays have AIDS!' will help him get his argument across.
He does come across as quite hysterical, doesn't he?



To expand on my earlier post, the majority of women are neither physically or temperamentally suited to direct combat roles.

I've seen many examples of women unable to keep up with the guys on PT, despite the fact that they were carrying less weight and I've seen a female clerk cry because she had to do a baseplate patrol on an exercise on Salisbury Plain. When I was posted to an RLC Sqn I saw the problems caused by people shagging around, this also happened in my parent unit, however as we only have a few women attached to us the problem isn't quite as severe.

These problems aren't only confined to women of course, I've seen plenty of blokes who were so unfit or incapable of doing their job that they shouldn't have been in the Army, but that is a subject that has been done to death on numerous other threads.

On the flip side I'm sure we've all seen (or those of us in the UK at least) examples of women earning various awards for their actions in Iraq, Afghanistan and other places that the British Armed Forces serve. Obviously there's medics, ATO, EOD, search teams, signalers, artillery and probably many more that I've missed but they are the minority when you consider how many women are serving.


One thing that's always struck me as strange is the total belief that some Americans have that allowing homosexuals into their Armed Forces will some how bring about the destruction of the United States. Homosexuality has been allowed in the British Armed Forces since 2000 and I've yet to see or hear of any reports where a gay man or woman has reduced the combat effectiveness of their unit because they're attracted to someone of the same sex.
 
#14
Err, if "combat effectiveness" was the priority the Pentagon would never have had the F-35 or F-22 built at vast expense to the US tax payer. A lot of what that strange institution is only tangentially related to real war fighting needs.

Who goes into the US millitary and in what role has been a mainly political thing since the US military led the way on desegregation. And the issue of mixing with black folks and them having a combat role rather than digging out latrines was a far bigger issue than this.

Homosexuals are an odd case as not very well closeted chaps are over represented amongst highly decorated soldiers. If you look back at history, many a man's man was just that. The moral issue is fading away, younger Americans simply don't get het up about these foibles the way their grandparents generation did while being just as omnivorous sexually.

American women have been getting killed and maimed in the actually very dangerous support roles for some time and there no reason they can't excel here. Women serving as combat infantry is more dubious. Brave they may be but unlike a well set up black fella or a buff bufty lack of strength is a handicap with all the heavy kit a soldier is burdened with these days. Like unfit or puny guys in some situations they may be a liability.

Though consider one underweight serial recruitment reject, a diddy little chap of 5'5", his CO was so upset by the sight of him he tried to convert him into a cook. Audie Murphy went on to became the most decorated combat infantryman of WWII.

This comes down to being seen to be equal and Septics generally have gone for female equality in a far bigger way than they have on the issue of race. So I think this is sort of inevitable.
 
#15
mysogenistic homophobe
My aren't we current on the PC jargon.

It is hugely and amusingly ironic that in dismissing the substance of the post for a minor grammatical faux pas, you misspell the term misogynistic, which even if spelled correctly is clearly not apt, since the general goes to great lengths to express his appreciation for women that directly contradicts the meaning of misogyny (most reputable and non ideological definitions make the sine qua non of the word the hatred of ALL women).

Of course if your grammatical standard was applied more broadly (as opposed to only where you disagree with the substance of the post), most ARRSE posters would fall far short of the high bar you set and of which you also fall short. Just sayin'......
 
C

count_duckula

Guest
#16
My aren't we current on the PC jargon.

It is hugely and amusingly ironic that in dismissing the substance of the post for a minor grammatical faux pas, you misspell the term misogynistic, which even if spelled correctly is clearly not apt, since the general goes to great lengths to express his appreciation for women that directly contradicts the meaning of misogyny (most reputable and non ideological definitions make the sine qua non of the word the hatred of ALL women).

Of course if your grammatical standard was applied more broadly (as opposed to only where you disagree with the substance of the post), most ARRSE posters would fall far short of the high bar you set and of which you also fall short. Just sayin'......
Misogynist isn't jargon, it's Greek and has existed for centuries. Homophobe is shit dog-Greek that is a modern term literally meaning "fear of the same" but is still accepted in its current meaning.

The General has a couple of good points but he sounds like a Yank version of someone like Patrick Mercer.
 
#17
I think you're missing the point JJH. He's not criticising the message nor indeed the messenger. It's the opposition to that message and how it's been allowed to develop itself in the face of factual evidence and how facts (as stated in the General's message) are being ignored in order to pandy to political and personal whims based on nothing more than the personal desires of weak individuals who feel that they are best placed to make the rules. The very same people have carved nice careers (and invented some) for themselves and will never have to take up arms. In the UK we call them *******. We have many *******. Looks like you've got some too! One day we'll all pay for their decisions. I've seen the sort of 'politics' you highlight, being played out by Warrant Officers, which to my mind is an indication of things to come. People are now afraid to speak out and I'm not talking about the loud mouthed anti everything bigots that we all suffer from, I'm talking about reasonable people.
I think I correctly perceived the point of your post and stand by my response. The points you raise in this post are some of the ones to which I alluded in stating my disagreement with the good general (who as an aside I would note does not deserve the personal insults resorted to by some posters in place of substantive discussion--as the recipient of the MOH (just as one who would have received the VC) I think such epithets are inappropriate for one who has obviously performed in the crucible far better than 99.9% of those posting on here) such that we stand in substantial agreement.
 
#18
I agree with the entire article right up to the point that he started on about God and homosexuals.


But the bigoted religious nut-job does have a point - no matter what feminists might have us believe, women ARE different from men, and these differences can make them less suitable for certain roles.
 
#19
My aren't we current on the PC jargon. Of course if your grammatical standard was applied more broadly (as opposed to only where you disagree with the substance of the post), most ARRSE posters would fall far short of the high bar you set.
Firstly, you really should have put a comma after the initial 'my', and finished that sentence with a question mark, as it is an interrogative statement (albeit rhetorical).

Secondly, neither of those words really qualify as jargon, and are not 'politically correct' terms either, just normal English.

Thirdly, most posters on ARRSE aren't Major Generals releasing public statements, so a different standard applies. I would expect the average ARRSEr to have other priorities than to ensure every post they make is proof-read prior to publication, and I also would not expect the level of intelligence of many ARRSErs to be overly high, so as long as I can actually understand what they mean, I never pick faults with the spelling or grammar of other posters on here, unless they have already gone down that particular route. Major Generals, on the other hand, I would expect to be of a reasonably high level of intelligence, and also to have the time, ability, and forethought to have any statements reviewed prior to publication, and evidence that this has not been satisfactorily completed detracts from the message.
 
#20
I will not divert the thread into a grammatical discourse although I would merely note that many etymologists would vehemently disagree with your characterization of the pejorative terms you resorted to, especially that of "homophobe."
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top