| Author |
Message |
borgslayer
Rear Admiral
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Posts: 2646
Location: Las Vegas
|
 Fri May 20, 2005 4:41 pm Barring Women From Combat Support Would Shortchange Military |
|
| Quote: | Friday, May 20, 2005
By Martin Frost
The religious right is pushing a change in military policy regarding the role of women in combat that has the potential to cripple our current military efforts in Iraq.
The change, which was written into the 2006 Defense Authorization Bill (search) by the full House Armed Services Committee on May 18, will be voted on by the full House in the very near future.
The change will prohibit female soldiers from being assigned to units involved in close combat support. This could prohibit women from driving trucks in convoys, serving as vehicle mechanics or working as MPs in the field. Estimates are that as many as 22,000 women would have to be reassigned if this became law.
This change in current policy is opposed by senior Army leadership and makes absolutely no sense for a variety of reasons.
First, the Army is already stretched thin in Iraq and Afghanistan and has fallen short on its recruiting goals in recent months. Thus, at a time when the Army doesn't have enough soldiers, thousands of men would have to be reassigned to replace women currently serving in combat support roles. Where are these additional men going to come from? Is this the first stage of reinstating the draft to make sure that the Army has enough men in its ranks?
Secondly, women have served with great distinction and bravery in Iraq in a variety of key combat support roles. Women have always been banned from serving in the infantry, armor and special forces and no one is suggesting that be altered.
Third, Iraq is an asymmetrical battlefield, which means that any soldier could be in danger at any time no matter what his or her assignment may be. It is likely that future military operations by the United States elsewhere around the globe will be in similar situations.
Women have made great strides in the Army since the separate Woman's Army Corps (search) was eliminated in the mid-1970s and incorporated into the regular army. Woman have handled any job assigned to them and have risen through the ranks during the past 30 years, competing equally with men for promotions.
Barring women from combat in the support roles they have occupied in a variety of theaters of operations in recent years would be an enormous step backwards. It would make it much more difficult for women to hold senior positions when competing with men in their particular branches who had served in combat support roles. If Congress doesn't want women to become general officers, why doesn't it just say so? Why put impossible obstacles in their path?
This action by the House Armed Services Committee sends a terrible message to the young women in our country. Young women are every bit as patriotic as their male counterparts and have just as great a stake in protecting democracy and our way of life as young men do.
Our military has often led the way in tearing down the barriers in our society that prevent equality among its citizens. Integration of the Army preceded the Supreme Court's school desegregation decision in 1954; women have enjoyed equal pay and equal opportunity for job promotion in our military at a time when women in the civilian sector have not always been as successful.
Now the House of Representatives is considering rolling back the clock in a way that insults our nation's women and would shortchange our military at a time when our armed forces are under enormous stress.
The vote in the House Armed Services Committee was reported in the press as falling along party lines, with the Republican majority pushing through this ill-advised change in military policy. Let's hope the full House of Representatives decides to reject this proposal on a bipartisan basis. It's time Congress started looking at the national interest rather than the narrow, reactionary vision of the religious right.
Martin Frost served in Congress from 1979 to 2005, representing a diverse district in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area. He served two terms as Chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, the third-ranking leadership position for House Democrats, and two terms as Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Frost serves as a regular contributor to Fox News Channel. He holds a Bachelor of Journalism degree from the University of Missouri and a law degree from the Georgetown Law Center.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,157095,00.html |
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Fri May 20, 2005 4:55 pm |
|
What do the proponents of the bill have to say about it, eh?
|
|
|
zero
Rear Admiral
Joined: 03 Apr 2005
Posts: 4566
Location: Texas
|
| Fri May 20, 2005 4:59 pm |
|
I'm all for girls fighting in war. The only thing I worry about is them getting captured and raped/tortured, they wont rape guys... unless they are gay.
But I think it should be equal because women and men know the dangers they face before they sign thier life away to the government! 
(which I will probably do)
|
|
|
madlilnerd
Duchess of Dancemat
Joined: 03 Aug 2004
Posts: 5885
Location: Slough, England
|
| Fri May 20, 2005 5:00 pm |
|
I don't see what stopping women from working will achieve. Here in England, we (women) are not allowed to be Marines, but that's because of the weight that marines are required to carry. Women can drive and repair trucks perfectly well.
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Fri May 20, 2005 5:16 pm |
|
| zero wrote: | | I'm all for girls fighting in war. The only thing I worry about is them getting captured and raped/tortured, they wont rape guys... unless they are gay. |
That assumes the enemy's force is comprised entirely of men. 
|
|
|
zero
Rear Admiral
Joined: 03 Apr 2005
Posts: 4566
Location: Texas
|
| Fri May 20, 2005 5:20 pm |
|
well... considering we are going to war with the middle eastern continents... Yes, I believe thier army or groups are male.
(is that what you were askin, or pointing out?)
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri May 20, 2005 5:24 pm |
|
| zero wrote: | well... considering we are going to war with the middle eastern continents... Yes, I believe thier army or groups are male.
(is that what you were askin, or pointing out?) |
There are some female members And I think he was pointing out.
And I really don't think I agree with this barring.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
CJ Cregg
Commodore
Joined: 05 Oct 2002
Posts: 1254
|
| Fri May 20, 2005 5:33 pm |
|
Hmm what about so called "equal rights"? Funny how women arnt allowed to be in the front line but the men are. Not very equal and fair to me. Women and men should both have the chance to serve on the frontlines.
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Fri May 20, 2005 5:39 pm |
|
I don't approve of women being involved in combat, but if they want to, is not really my place to stooooop them  .
|
|
|
Jeremy
J's Guy
Joined: 03 Oct 2002
Posts: 7823
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
|
| Sun May 22, 2005 12:27 pm |
|
I don't see how there has too be equal rights for everything. Men and women are different, designed differently. I know there will be some that could do far more things than men can do in some situations. But there are some things women can do that almost no men can. It's hard because I do believe there should be the same oppurtunities but I don't agree with the pushing of roles that aren't suited to a number of a certain sex.
As Tach said, I'd really like to see an unbiased news report on it. The one shown is very obviously biased, and is more a certain view's commentary than unbiased news.
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Sun May 22, 2005 8:40 pm |
|
| zero wrote: | I'm all for girls fighting in war. The only thing I worry about is them getting captured and raped/tortured, they wont rape guys... unless they are gay.
|
That is inaccurate. Rape in a situation like that has nothing to do with sex, it's all about control and intimidation. Male servicemembers are raped a lot more than you'd think.
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
webtaz99
Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: The Other Side
|
| Mon May 23, 2005 7:21 am |
|
| zero wrote: | well... considering we are going to war with the middle eastern continents... Yes, I believe thier army or groups are male.
(is that what you were askin, or pointing out?) |
Many "Middle Eastern" cultures consider male-to-male sex OK under certain circumstances. In some places they say, "Women are for babies, boys are for sex." {I'm not condoning it, just pointing it out.}
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
