Posted on Oct 30, 2015
WALTER WILLIAMS: Putting women in combat puts troops at risk
22.3K
96
88
8
8
0
From NWI.com:
War is nasty, brutal and costly. In our latest wars, many of the casualties suffered by American troops are a direct result of their having to obey rules of engagement created by politicians who have never set foot on — or even seen — a battlefield. Today's battlefield commanders must be alert to the media and do-gooders all too ready to demonize troops involved in a battle that produces noncombatant deaths, so-called collateral damage.
According to a Western Journalism article by Leigh Bravo, "Insanity: The Rules of Engagement," our troops in Afghanistan cannot do night or surprise searches. Also, villagers must be warned prior to searches. Troops may not fire at the enemy unless fired upon. U.S. forces cannot engage the enemy if civilians are present. And only women can search women.
Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney said: "We handcuffed our troops in combat needlessly. This was very harmful to our men and has never been done in U.S combat operations that I know of." Collateral damage and the unintentional killing of civilians are a consequence of war. But are our troops' lives less important than the inevitable collateral damage?
The unnecessary loss of life and casualties that result from politically correct rules of engagement are about to be magnified in future conflicts by mindless efforts to put women in combat units. In 2013, then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta officially lifted the ban on women serving in ground combat roles. On Jan. 1, 2016, all branches of the military must either open all positions to women or request exceptions. That boils down to having women serve in combat roles, because any commander requesting exceptions would risk having his career terminated in the wake of the screeching and accusations of sexism that would surely ensue.
For the first time, two female officers graduated from the exceptionally tough three-phase U.S. Army Ranger course. Their "success" will serve as grist for the mills of those who argue for women in combat. Unlike most of their fellow soldiers, these two women had to recycle because they had failed certain phases of the course.
A recent Marine Corps force integration study concluded combat teams were less effective when they included women. Overall, the report says, all-male teams and crews outperformed mixed-gender ones on 93 out of 134 tasks evaluated. All-male teams were universally faster "in each tactical movement." The report also says female Marines had higher rates of injury throughout the experiment.
You may bet the rent money that the current effort to integrate combat jobs will not end with simply a few extraordinary women. Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus told the Navy Times that once women start attending SEAL training, it would make sense to examine the standards. He said, "First we're going to make sure there are standards" and "they're gender-neutral." Only after that will the Navy make sure the standards "have something to do with the job."
The most disgusting, perhaps traitorous, aspect of all this is the overall timidity of military commanders, most of whom, despite knowing better, will only publicly criticize the idea of putting women in combat after they retire from service.
Read More: http://www.nwitimes.com/news/opinion/columnists/guest-commentary/walter-williams-putting-women-in-combat-puts-troops-at-risk/article_3b0b30ff-6069-51a2-a9cf-bef2903ead52.html
War is nasty, brutal and costly. In our latest wars, many of the casualties suffered by American troops are a direct result of their having to obey rules of engagement created by politicians who have never set foot on — or even seen — a battlefield. Today's battlefield commanders must be alert to the media and do-gooders all too ready to demonize troops involved in a battle that produces noncombatant deaths, so-called collateral damage.
According to a Western Journalism article by Leigh Bravo, "Insanity: The Rules of Engagement," our troops in Afghanistan cannot do night or surprise searches. Also, villagers must be warned prior to searches. Troops may not fire at the enemy unless fired upon. U.S. forces cannot engage the enemy if civilians are present. And only women can search women.
Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney said: "We handcuffed our troops in combat needlessly. This was very harmful to our men and has never been done in U.S combat operations that I know of." Collateral damage and the unintentional killing of civilians are a consequence of war. But are our troops' lives less important than the inevitable collateral damage?
The unnecessary loss of life and casualties that result from politically correct rules of engagement are about to be magnified in future conflicts by mindless efforts to put women in combat units. In 2013, then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta officially lifted the ban on women serving in ground combat roles. On Jan. 1, 2016, all branches of the military must either open all positions to women or request exceptions. That boils down to having women serve in combat roles, because any commander requesting exceptions would risk having his career terminated in the wake of the screeching and accusations of sexism that would surely ensue.
For the first time, two female officers graduated from the exceptionally tough three-phase U.S. Army Ranger course. Their "success" will serve as grist for the mills of those who argue for women in combat. Unlike most of their fellow soldiers, these two women had to recycle because they had failed certain phases of the course.
A recent Marine Corps force integration study concluded combat teams were less effective when they included women. Overall, the report says, all-male teams and crews outperformed mixed-gender ones on 93 out of 134 tasks evaluated. All-male teams were universally faster "in each tactical movement." The report also says female Marines had higher rates of injury throughout the experiment.
You may bet the rent money that the current effort to integrate combat jobs will not end with simply a few extraordinary women. Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus told the Navy Times that once women start attending SEAL training, it would make sense to examine the standards. He said, "First we're going to make sure there are standards" and "they're gender-neutral." Only after that will the Navy make sure the standards "have something to do with the job."
The most disgusting, perhaps traitorous, aspect of all this is the overall timidity of military commanders, most of whom, despite knowing better, will only publicly criticize the idea of putting women in combat after they retire from service.
Read More: http://www.nwitimes.com/news/opinion/columnists/guest-commentary/walter-williams-putting-women-in-combat-puts-troops-at-risk/article_3b0b30ff-6069-51a2-a9cf-bef2903ead52.html
Posted in these groups: 
Women in the Military
Women in the Military
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 20
10
10
0
I know this is going to be hugely up popular but I do not believe women belong in combat arms. There is so much more to this than women being able to handle the physical demands. A side note: if you have never served you don't have a clue what it's really like so kindly keep your opinions based on very limited knowledge to yourself. Just because your friend, family member or significant other served does not qualify you to speak on controversial matters such as this.
(10)
(0)
(1)
(0)
(2)
(0)
SSgt John Berry
CW2 Lindsey Muller - However that is the problem. I have two sons active duty Army and they will tell you right on down the line the standards are not the same period. PT tests are different, have been for decades and its going to get people killed.
(0)
(0)
6
6
0
Why is it that putting women in combat arms units if they choose any different then having women as Police Officers? Isn't that a dangerous job as well?
(6)
(0)
CSM Charles Hayden
SSG Audwin Scott Women have been serving as LEOs for years. Females are woefully underrepresented on most police forces %wise, I always wonder, why?
(1)
(0)
PFC Kimberly Staiti
My mother retired as the first female Chief Detention Officer in Lampasas county. (I'm all for women serving and working wherever they can.) LEOs are allegedly Peace Officers. They do not have the same mission as people in COMBAT. If more LEOs "kept the peace" rather than acting "scared for their lives" in order to justify senseless shootings by LEOs w egos we'd have a lot less tension on the streets.
Defunding the police sounds great. Cops should not have the same weapons as the military. Their mission is different.
As for women in combat: nope. Terrible idea. And I'm a female veteran.
Defunding the police sounds great. Cops should not have the same weapons as the military. Their mission is different.
As for women in combat: nope. Terrible idea. And I'm a female veteran.
(0)
(0)
PFC Kimberly Staiti
CSM Charles Hayden Because often LEOs are the highest paid employees with great benefits and low qualifications. (Some folks pay their own way thru the Academy!) There is a lot of competition for local law enforcement slots and men get higher scores than women in the physical parts required for graduation.
It's ~hard~ to find a slot at many police academies bc so many people are applicants. Then, guys are (almost universally) bigger, faster, and stronger than women.
Heck, Serena Williams herself said a High School boy would beat her bc men ARE stronger and faster than she is. (And Serena Williams is a damn fine representative for physically fit women)
It's ~hard~ to find a slot at many police academies bc so many people are applicants. Then, guys are (almost universally) bigger, faster, and stronger than women.
Heck, Serena Williams herself said a High School boy would beat her bc men ARE stronger and faster than she is. (And Serena Williams is a damn fine representative for physically fit women)
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
TSgt Hunter Logan when was the last time Walter Williams wore a uniform or was in combat.
(5)
(0)
MCPO Roger Collins
Huh? Most honest people would realize I wasn't speaking historically. So since I must be more specific the question was with respect to the current C-in-C and current Sec.Def. Your question was specifically regarding Williams who did serve in uniform.
(0)
(1)
MCPO Roger Collins
Goes both ways. I am always just as respectful to any posters as they are to me. You want to dialogue with me give me the same consideration!
(0)
(1)
5
5
0
What business does an economic professor have attempting to speak as an authority on anything military related? He was a Private in the 1950s and I can respect his service, however he is no expert on the military and such I cannot accept his statements.
(5)
(0)
SSG Audwin Scott
I disagree, I think it is a great moral booster as well as one that has served with women in Desert Storm as Combat support and OIF the women are served with were just as tough as the men.
(0)
(0)
SGT David T.
SSG Audwin Scott - A few of the women we had in my unit were more hard core than many of the men.
(0)
(0)
CPT Pedro Meza
SGT David T. - In 2005 when I was 50 I was pleasantly surprised to see a squad of young (19-20's) Female MP's returning from a fire fight along with US Marines while in Jalalabad Afghanistan; Wonder Women.
(1)
(0)
SSgt John Berry
SSG Audwin Scott - We are cherry picking which points are relevant to support each argument. The military has done a great job at blowing sunshine up the publics behind. Most women shown in recruiting ads are driving vehicles like Humvees etc or standing on the bridge of a navy vessel or doing some other job that doesn't require brute physical strength. I know many can't or won't accept the fact that the average woman has 37% less upper body strength. Both my sons commented on hand to hand combat fighting that most females technique was spot on but they would loose too often because their male opponent was just overpower them. When women fight a war somewhere in a jungle setting where their hacking there way through a jungle or climbing a mountain like the 10th mountain division then come and talk to me about how men and women are equal. Lets put aside arguments like courage and leadership and intelligence which I agree are undeniable and realize their just not strong enough to do some jobs.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
Wow what rock did you just crawl out from under. You are ignorant on this matter with no credible evidence to support your comments about women not being physically or mentally fit for combat. I have a few female soilders, marines, and sailors that would be glad to inform you on the actual facts. Not every male is cut out for combat either. Thus if a female or male meet the same standards for a combat NEC or officer billet than so be it. USN Female Vet Kim
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
Walter Williams was drafted and served 2 years as a PV2. So what qualifies his opinion to be any more of an expert than Sister Beth over at church? NONE. I have severed with women in combat, I could not tell the difference.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
TSgt Hunter Logan I call bullshit women have acquired themselves in combat.
(3)
(0)
Sgt Judy Leonard
Yes most definitely and I think better than men. Women are very serious about the job, train harder then men and are held to a higher standard to price they can do it.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Judy Leonard
Don't need as much in an all female platoon. You talk like men are the only ones that can do the job and men are needed to pick up the slack.
We really don't need men they are to bulky and heavy they need more to survive and are not as strong when it comes to pain. Let the woman get the job done once and for all!
We really don't need men they are to bulky and heavy they need more to survive and are not as strong when it comes to pain. Let the woman get the job done once and for all!
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
They are using an If Then statement. If two women pass ranger school, then open up combat for women. We can use a rational approach like not throwing the women to the wolves and enforcing physical standards. With that being said, lets go for total immersion. This will give our society a different perspective on war.
(3)
(0)
CPO Andy Carrillo, MS
Yes, let's share the hurt and spread it all around. It's the only way we eventually learn...
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
The success of a unit that is strictly measured by the physical attributes of the team does not accurately define how well it will perform in combat. The intricately complex operating environment of our current combat areas makes having females on the team an asset. During our deployment outside of Kandahar in 2012, our Female Engagement Teams gathered intelligence that not only led to the capture/killing of several HVTs, but saved the lives of their fellow Soldiers. A diverse unit is a unit that attacks problems on the battlefield from many different perspectives.
I do, however, agree that there are a few ROE that hamstring units. In most cases, though, they have more to do with representing a country with honor than it does the lack of tactical knowledge of our politicians. When those with honor fight those who have no honor, we will always be at a disadvantage.
I do, however, agree that there are a few ROE that hamstring units. In most cases, though, they have more to do with representing a country with honor than it does the lack of tactical knowledge of our politicians. When those with honor fight those who have no honor, we will always be at a disadvantage.
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
I believe that women have been a actively involved in combat for a while (Medics/Logistics/Helo Pilots) even though officially they haven't. I don't have a problem with women serving in combat roles with all things remaining equal. What I mean is that we do not need to change the standards. The SEALS/Green Berets/Rangers/Pararescue/Combat Control/Marine Force Recon etc have developed training/acceptance curriculum that has been proven by fire in combat (NOT JUST CURRENT WARFIGHTING BUT PREVIOUS WARS) to be successful...and they update real time based on world threats to ensure mission success with safety and security of the teams. As long as we keep it gender neutral based on mission success, pass or fail for everyone with no gray area or second chances for the success of our combat warriors and the difficult missions we call on them to take on, then I am good.
To the Marine study, studies are what they are. The facts are probably correct...now. However, men have been trained to perform these roles for years. When you put an experienced team against a team that has just been trained or integrated it will show that. Once integrated into the roles and the females have the opportunity after a period of time of integration into the programs to find the right ways and methods for success, my guess is that the numbers will not have any or very little skewing of data on tactical movement tasks. My guess is that ten years form now, we will be wondering what took us so long to integrate these warriors.
To the Marine study, studies are what they are. The facts are probably correct...now. However, men have been trained to perform these roles for years. When you put an experienced team against a team that has just been trained or integrated it will show that. Once integrated into the roles and the females have the opportunity after a period of time of integration into the programs to find the right ways and methods for success, my guess is that the numbers will not have any or very little skewing of data on tactical movement tasks. My guess is that ten years form now, we will be wondering what took us so long to integrate these warriors.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google