View more polls
January 24, 2013 - 3:12pmPermalink
Send congress into combat. Leave the women home.
January 24, 2013 - 3:19pmPermalink
The concern I have is the parties of political correctness start with allowing them in active combat rolls, and then mitigate the training (lower standards) of some career areas in an effort to boost female representation. This puts everyone at a greater risk, a risk where there is often no second chance.
January 24, 2013 - 3:35pmPermalink
let us not apply old standards to todays problems!
women are all ready on combat ships and working on the flight deck of a cva is not combat then what is? when a DD or a cruser fires a thomahawak that's combat
January 24, 2013 - 3:41pmPermalink
There are jobs not made for women and ground combat is one of them. Woman are physically weaker in the upper body and loose muscle mass as they mature. Their bodies undergo a change every month requiring attention. Their body functions are different than men and require more attention, and usually some privacy and they must partially undress to handle their physical situation, even going to the head. When women are assigned with men it has been my experiance that men will be more attentive and protective of women than of other men. When you send a woman on an assignment men feel compelled to accompany her for her security. Thereby using more manpower on an assignment when women are involved. Supervision will ultimately assign the woman to less stressful jobs than the men which on one hand helps the unit to perform better on a more equil footing amoung the men, but on the other hand it prevents men from getting the less stressful jobs because women are filling the slot. When men have to hump the hill they will spend more time assisting the girls than should be necessary if there were no girls (a 60 pound pack on a 120 pound girl is a disaster in the making. Now we address the sex in foxhole problem. Put a couple together in a fox hole, get them friendly, get them warm, and they both will get ideas. Now put a girl in a platoon and have the Sgt start to favor her because they are having a relationship, and you have a recipe for disaster. Check out the pregnancy rate on aircraft carriers to verify my point!
January 24, 2013 - 3:51pmPermalink
Our military is not the place for social experiment. There are plenty of positions woman can serve in but there don't need to be in combat. Now that the decision is made, are woman going to have to register for the Selective Service and be available for a draft if need be? I doubt it, and besides, the physical strength requirements would have to be relaxed to make it "fair" and that does not help our forces at all. Hats off to woman who serve, but not in combat.
January 24, 2013 - 3:55pmPermalink
Certainly women should be assigned to combat units, but I would NOT put them in front line ground units. There are too many problems that can arise when a unit is pinned down for several days or hand-to-hand combat is required, etc.
January 24, 2013 - 4:02pmPermalink
Mr. Hentz makes some very good points. In a combat situation with women combatants in place it could get very hazardous for all combatants involved
January 24, 2013 - 4:12pmPermalink
Women can be just as capable as men. That said, think of a remote outpost somewhere with twenty young men and three young women assigned for many months (that's about the percentage of men vs women in the military). Anyone who believes that there will NOT be sexual tension can't remember when they were 19 years old. Realistically, will this further the mission of being the best warriors on the planet? I think not. Reality isn't always fair.....
January 24, 2013 - 4:52pmPermalink
4vh9yWomen do not have the same body strenght to carry a wounded comrade to safety and it opens the door for more sexual harassment conditions. Is nothing sacred for men anywhere and women have to think they are big bad ass women. Seaual harassment is two sided and women can stire up a lot of it. Look what the Navy and Air force are going through. Put a women in a jungle condition for a few weeks and you will smell the differance and men will act like animals. Our leaders are afraid to stand by the true tradition probably because of their wives. Come down to it are there any true women in the world, all of them want to be men.
January 24, 2013 - 4:56pmPermalink
I trained with the ladies,back in the 80's,some could out shoot most of the men.lol I think it's ok, if they want to play the game let's play. The russians did it in WWII,the viking's did it earlier. Study history,its got all the info. Just my opinion.
January 24, 2013 - 5:01pmPermalink
I personally don't think women should be in combat. one reason is while being held captive there is a real good chance of being raped. The Geneva Convention doesn't mean anything to many of these combatants nowadays. A woman's life can be destroyed in a very quick way with some of these foreign soldiers. If they are Al Queda then they don't have to abide by the rules because they aren't soldiers. There are many ways to rape a woman that are very damaging. If women are to go into actual battle they should be well versed into what is a very good possibility of rape. I just think it isn't right to put them into those circumstances just to win a conflict or war. There is also those reasons by all the other people commenting. Thanks for letting me vent.
January 24, 2013 - 5:20pmPermalink
No WAY... Unless it is in my foxhole.
January 24, 2013 - 6:10pmPermalink
This decision is going to get some soldiers killed!
January 24, 2013 - 6:42pmPermalink
If they are going to do this they should also require women register with Selective Service at age 18.
January 24, 2013 - 7:26pmPermalink
Most of my thoughts have been mentioned...however, if a woman gets captured, she might as well commit suicide. The comments about a woman requiring privacy even to go use the 'facilities', among other things is a valid concern. What about carrying a wounded 200# man out of harm's way?
January 24, 2013 - 7:44pmPermalink
they can register for the draft when they turn 18
January 24, 2013 - 7:54pmPermalink
Women will do fine in combat situations...........Just get ready for more sexual harassment claims, and unfairness lawsuits, jealousy conflicts and rape charges.....but that's OK the Government will pay compensation.........PTSD is a given in todays military
January 24, 2013 - 8:10pmPermalink
Women have participated in combat all over the world since combat was invented. The big question is why hasn't the US let our women do their part up to now?
February 13, 2013 - 5:05pmPermalink
Until now, the US didn't think it was a woman's part to have to fight in combat. There is a reason we have selective service and that's to call up forces in time of need. There shouldn't be a woman in combat until all MEN on the draft line were called to duty.
January 24, 2013 - 9:14pmPermalink
IN REAL COMBAT, SUCH AS WAS IN VIETNAM, WOMEN, IN MY MIND ARE NOT ABLE TO PERFORM TO THE STANDARDS THAT MEN HAVE TO MEET. AFTER BEING IN HORRIFIC ORDEALS, ON A DAILY BASIS, THEY WILL BREAK DOWN AND BECOME A PROBLEM TO HAVE TO PUT UP WITH. THIS MAY NOT BE TRUE OF ALL WOMEN,BUT MOST OF THEM. VIETNAM VET---MCB-58
January 24, 2013 - 9:25pmPermalink
We have more than enough men to cover our combat positions. We, as a nation, do not need to allow our daughters, nor our grandaughters to be in combat positions. In years past, our women have proven to be the best doctors, nurses, support personnel on call throughout the military. We have never complained before, why now? Let Congress fight in combat positions first, then maybe I will consent to allowing my daughter fighting in a combat unit. I am shocked at how ignorant America is becoming.....
January 24, 2013 - 11:09pmPermalink
Let's not get our panties in a wad, people. Realistically, the infantry will not be chosen by large numbers of female Soldiers or Marines, but this is America, don't dump on somebody's dream out of hand. My experience of women in the military is not the victims in need of protecting many are describing. The only two female Soldiers I ever saw cry had just been told they they were not deploying. In Afghanistan, in our unit we had females humping it in the mountains just like the boys. I had a lot of respect for those who volunteered, and trained relentlessly so no one could infer they didn't pull their weight. (Invariably, it semed to be males who fell out and went back to the states).
Some suspect standards will be inevitably modified to "enable" females to qualify. Standards of training are adjusted appropriately over time. When my Dad attended Airborne School in 1943, "ground week" was FOUR weeks, and the course was shortened to achieve the same outcome more efficiently, before women were even eligible. The PT standards expected of females today are substantially greater than the WAC era, when male Soldiers would be called in to rearrange the furniture in the WAC day room.
If only a few females could handle infantry, remember only an estimated 20% of the American population are even qualified, physically, morally or emotionally to be in the service. That's not to say nobody is qualified. A few years ago, it was predicted the American people couldn't handle females being killed in combat. That was more than 100 KIAs ago, just sayin'.
January 24, 2013 - 11:15pmPermalink
Only the ugly ones.
January 24, 2013 - 11:59pmPermalink
As a veteran with 30 years in service to my country, a husband, father and grandfather. I am opposed to sending our young women in harm's way whether it is toting a weapon or a bandage for our wounded. Call me old fashioned or out of step with today's society, but I would gladly go in place of sending my bride, daughter(s) or granddaughters into combat.
Women have made great strides in recent history and I applaud their successes but we do not have to send them into combat to prove they are our equals. Give women the training to defend themselves and our nation if the situation demands it, but as long as we have men able to fight, that job should be ours. It is not a question of whether women can be effective on the fields of battle, we know they can and are. And, many other nations have women in combat roles. But, do we really need them there?
I guess the bottom line is that I do not want my wife, daughter or granddaughter to come home in a body bag for me to bury. Yes, during Desert Shield/Desert Storm my daughter was in the desert while I was in the Red Sea and I worried about her constantly. I was proud as punch to have her there, but a father's fears are mighty strong and how could I explain it to her mother if we lost her?
Just call me an old foggie!
January 25, 2013 - 7:16amPermalink
No, I don't believe women should be in combat units. And not because of all the Polictically correct "they'll mess things up, and we can't get along". Women are in mnay units, and due to the nature of war (as it has always been) the fight isn't always in the expected place and time, sometimes it happens where you least expect it, so yes, sometimes women are thrown into the mix of actual combat by design, or by accident. Do they survive? Yes...but So does anyone thrown into the mix in a moments notice, you do what you must. BUT to be in a combat unit with the high physical demands all the time, and being "in the mix" by design every time it is required No, women do not hold up as well as men. Women and men are not equal they are not meant to be, men cannot give birth, women can, that doesn't make one weaker than the other that just means that nature has designed each of us to perform certain roles. Modern society has blurred these roles because technology has advanced to the point that most anyone can perform most jobs. There are very few jobs left where physical strength, and endurance, are demanded by the job but Combat is one of those. The movies depicting women fighting 7-10 men and killing men with one punch/kick etc... only serve to help foster belief that women can do this. Most men don't kill other men with one punch, and a 120 man or woman will not jump on a 250 man and squeeze the life out of him. It is common sense, and it seems to be less common these days. Yes, I know there are always a few women that can do these things.... but if you pick 100 men and 100 women the number of women capable of this will be much less in actual numbers, and/or by percentage (or any other measurement that you want to use)than their male counterparts. That doesn't make them weaker that just makes them women with a different natural physique, mind set, abilities. Are we so desperate to be politically correct and PROVE that we are all equal in every way that we need to throw our mothers, and daughters into the fight to have 50 killed just so 4 or 5 can say see we can do it?
January 25, 2013 - 8:32amPermalink
Will women be treated the same? What about the long hair; will their periods affect their abilities and what happens if they become pregnant? Will there be quotas dictating so many have to be promoted even if a male is senior and better qualified? There are a lot of issues that need to be addressed fairly for both males and females.
January 25, 2013 - 11:27amPermalink
Women have their strengths. Some even have greater endurance than some men. That being said, how many have the strength to carry the heavy equipment loads, endure sustained combat, and have within them the viciousness that close combat sometimes requires to win a fight for your life. Men bond in combat. The bonding between men and women in ground pounder and direct infantry support will be difficult to achieve. But the good news is American families will now be able to see their daughters, mothers, sisters, and such come home in greater numbers maimed and in body bags. Apparently some people think combat is a men's club tea party that has been denied to the ladies? Welcome aboard ladies. And just in case you haven't noticed, your enemies in close quarter combat will be men. The physical requirements are there for a reason and that reason is not to keep women out. It's to keep people alive.
January 25, 2013 - 12:02pmPermalink
Wall Street Journal January 24 edition. Article by Ryan Smith. He is a Marine infantry squad leader in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. I would say that that would qualify knowing about Combat. The sanitary conditions for coed operations would be beyond belief!
I am a WWII veteran and served in the US Navy. Women can serve their country in many ways other than combat.
January 26, 2013 - 11:12amPermalink
Men and women work side by side everywher, Law enforcement, Fire dept., and day in and day out women interact with men (professionally). This statement; "It’s a bad call because it will cause too many difficulties with men and women serving in the same combat units.", is outdated and unsubstantiated. History has shown us that women, part of the Human Animal development, can and have adapted over the centuries. Basic Training weeds out those that can not make the cut, Men or Woman, so why not give them a try! Remember that old saying, "How do you know unless you try!" Some women out there might surprise you.
January 27, 2013 - 12:04amPermalink
Russian women served quite successfully in many combat roles in WW2. Are they tougher and more capable than American women? If you believe that, you haven't seen some of the women I have. If they want to serve and are qualified, that's fine with me. Your just as dead killed by a woman as you are by a man.
February 13, 2013 - 5:00pmPermalink
During WWII, Russia needed every warm body they could to prevent invasion. That is not the case in the US. There is no logical reason for a woman to subject themself to the horror of war.
January 27, 2013 - 10:16pmPermalink
Only women who actually want to go into combat who are strong enough and pass the same training should do so. Women, in general, should not be subjected to the violence of combat. Woman was made to be man's help mate, to serve the role of providing love and comfort for the male, and to be protected by the man. Seving in combat should not be the norm for women, but those who are fit and strongly desire to do so should be allowed to serve. It should not be required.
January 28, 2013 - 2:39pmPermalink
Women who pass the same standards as the men should be able to serve in official combat areas. Women already end up in combat because of the nature of war, so I am hoping they recieve the pay and recognition of that. If they are to be 'in combat', then it should be with the supply support or mechanic repair, or medic. Unit cohesion is very important, and the fact that male and female serve in such a highly charged atmosphere will make it even more difficult. Also, the way it is now, it's hard enough for the military to take rape charges seriously, as this pandora's box gets opened further, how will all of that be handled-because 'things' will happen.
January 28, 2013 - 4:32pmPermalink
There may be some woman who can cut the hard workout, and physical stresses, just as there are some men who cannot. But making a general policy, as we see in the civilian sector with, ex. Firefighters, law enforcement, etc. Invariably they change the requirements so that woman can get in. Especially once you open the door, and next we will see mandatory minimum # of woman in certain units.
Also, I spent 15yrs as a 18D, serving in Infantry, Ranger and S.F., there is no closer living quarters than the fox hole... will the military brass bring in Port-a-poties? What about the unintended physical contacts?
Nothing but headaches and distractions...
And what will the American public think, when the Taliban suddenly have more woman to go after, and they rape them and behead them on T.V.?
January 29, 2013 - 2:50amPermalink
This question should not be considered in the context of Man versus Woman. This country was established and guided by the Christian Judeo concept. Therein guidance is given to us by the Scriptures. A woman is not to wear the the clothing of a man. But what is that King James version relating to. It is relating to the wearing of combat clothing. Thank Joan of arc as a warrior instead of a woman. Our nature as a woman female or a man male is that of a nurturer, her and a hunter gatherer him. Our Scripture tells us to care for the widow and the orphan. Our Scriptures tell us that the newly married man and woman, where the man will not be absent from his new family for one year thereafter for war is not in the interest of a family.
This position is not in conflict with the secular acknowledgment of a woman's right to choose secular over scriptural guidance. This secular adherence will support a secular right to equal opportunity. That is an of the world recognition but not an in the world recognition for those following scriptural commandments.
Should women be allowed in combat, and being scriptural, no, secular and according to secular conclusions yes. The choice is theirs. In my opinion women choosing combat are denying scriptural guidance. Recall Joan of arc
February 1, 2013 - 7:37amPermalink
I am a Marine veteran, I have no problem with women in combat as long as the standards required to do the job is not lowered just so they can be let in. It seems like everytime this happens someone either complains because the training is to hard or someone gets hurt while training and the program is changed to make it easier for women to make it in.
February 2, 2013 - 12:03pmPermalink
I served with many highly qualified and dedicated women airmen over more than 20 years and was proud to know and work with them. My daughter is a Navy nurse on active duty and ready to perform her duty in peacetime or war. The real issue, however, is not about the ability of women to fight, but what it says about the future direction of American and (by extension) Western Civilization.
"War is ugly," said Aslan to Susan Pevensie, "when women fight." “Women in combat” strikes at the very roots of our culture. The issue also says a great deal about the current regime's dismantling of the American ethos (not to mention the coming dismantling of our military). The Department of Defense made this decision to meet the ideological needs of the progressive government, not to meet pragmatic needs for national defense.
If this is the future course of our military, then so be it. However, the decision also obviates the foundational reason for the Supreme Court deciding Rosker v. Goldberg (1981) in favor of the Director of the Selective Service System. Now that women will serve interchangeably in front-line combat positions with men, there is no acceptable reason why young women should not be required to register for the draft at 18. Congress should act immediately to amend the selective service act, effective to 1 January 2013, to require it.
The Supreme Court established combat service as the sine qua non for draft registration: “If a service member may fight in combat, then registration for the draft at 18 is required by law.” It was a policy that constitutionally discriminated against men. Until now, women have not been required to register: “If a woman service member may not fight in combat, she is exempt from mandatory registration.”
This is no longer the case. Congress must act immediately to amend the selective service act or defend its denial of equal protection under the law established under the 14th Amendment. In short, either all citizens at 18 must register for the draft, or none, because all citizens may fight in combat. It is now unconstitutional that only men should register.
Young women should demand equal protection under the law and the right to participate in a rite of passage that makes them full citizens—draft registration. To remain true to their professed feminism, women leaders in Congress, as well as those women's groups that purport to promote the rights of women, should be the first to support mandatory registration or prove themselves to be hypocrites in what they have loudly professed for over four decades. Surely they must understand that receiving the privileges of citizenship requires one to fulfill the responsibilities of citizenship--even dying for one's country!
February 6, 2013 - 6:48pmPermalink
The second choice is ambiguous. Would the women have to meet the current men's standards or would the standards be lower for both to accommodate both? It wouldn't change my vote but it might change the votes of those who made that choice.
February 13, 2013 - 4:55pmPermalink
It's all well and good that women are now allowed to fight in combat, but why would they want to? Promotion is not an issue--if it were, then every man that fought in battle would be a General.
Additionally, there is no need for women to fight in battle. Our military is the finest in the land and there is no shortage of men willing to go toe-to-toe, mano-y-mano with those who dare cross us. Not to be a pig, but men should take care of women--from opening doors to going to battle.
Lastly, there is no volunteering when it comes down to fighting battles. As a man, when you're told to go, you go, any man with the right skill set, from administration to engineering. Such is not the case with women. Now, personell specialists need to pick and choose which woman is willing to go fight in close combat. Women worked well and succeeded in all our wars back-filling in for duties traditionally held by men, but away from direct combat.
What are we saying to our mothers, daughters and sisters? The prejudice withstood by Blacks, Indians, and Asians can not be compared to tears and lawsuits women use to be accepted.
More information about text formats