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
2
2
0
Walter Williams, PHD, is an extremely intelligent articulate individual that is expressing his opinion based on the sources he has used in the article. If one has to have been in combat to make such decisions (the Private long ago comment), then those making this decision should have the same limits made upon them. I have been a proponent of letting the best candidate for the job get it, male or female, with reservations. It would do many well to read more of Dr. Williams articles, he is one of our best and brightest. Shoot the message, if you will, not the messenger.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
3
2
1
(1)
(0)
LCDR (Join to see)
Most women definitely do not want to have to train to the male PT standard. I might have known a half dozen in the past decade who would actually accept and benefit from that challenge.
(0)
(0)
SSgt Judy L
LCDR (Join to see) - and you base this number on what? Your experience.
I know a hundred times more women military than that that would and expected to train at male PT standards.
No one asks to train any differently. That is the DODs doing.
Complaining about it to women does no good it's not our choice. Complain to the DOD
I know a hundred times more women military than that that would and expected to train at male PT standards.
No one asks to train any differently. That is the DODs doing.
Complaining about it to women does no good it's not our choice. Complain to the DOD
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University, is now writing war strategy and yet he complaints about politicians writing war strategy, but fails to mention that he has no qualifications to do so nor the facts that we have been fighting two and now four guerrilla wars in which civilians locals are caught in the middle. He has issues with women in combat because he fails to see that women fighters are effective if used correctly and not as beast of burdens as my own herniated spinal disk now tell me I was. Perhaps it time that man stop bitching and complaining (acting like meows) and look at how the Kurdish Women Fighters are integrated into the ranks and tacitly used correctly, after all they are fighting ISIS and doing a dam good job while the men here in the USA bitch and complain that Women can’t fight; Facts vs Ideology. Of course we can just draft this opinioned old dude and send him and all like him to fight ISIS to prove that they are betters fighter then properly trained and equipped Women Fighter. Yes it is a fact that beast of burdens are damaged, I am proof, but let also face facts our enemy moves fast and is more agile because he travels light. So fight to win!
(2)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
I agree training plays its part. But civil affairs is also one of the smallest sections of the Military. How many women would actually be willing to do the training. Again I'm not saying women should not be in combat. I was simply stating that your example was based on women who deal with extreme conditions as a way of life. American women can be a bit more pampered.
(0)
(0)
CPT Pedro Meza
SGT (Join to see) - Andrew looks like you are speaking for the women, I prefer to let them do that. Yes Civil Affairs is not that well known, but women do join us. Do you care to do the same?
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
It would seem I am speaking for them. I was looking at civil affairs actually but found out that I'm a bit more broken then I believed. Currently I am destined to be the best medic I can be. To much nerve damage to do much else. But I appreciate the suggestion.
(0)
(0)
CPT Pedro Meza
SGT (Join to see) - I was medically retired Jan 2015, after it was decided I was indeed broken. But I do have the greatest respect for all the women I have served with 1974-2015; and my respect to the WAC's.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Took the words right out of my mouth. Thank you. It's an insane agenda to order this level of integration when the emotional, physical, and mental results will be so clearly disastrous. The Marine Corps study should be heralded for what it is: a serious warning. But let's take this "inclusive" concept to its purest conclusion: all women squads, platoons, batallions, et al. What would that Marine Corps study show? I shudder to think. Nor would I would not want to be in the same AOR by a thousand miles. Why does NO ONE bring up the issue of all women combat units? I know why. Because it would be an abysmal failure. Just stick the token few in and amongst the all men units. Well, that didn't turn out good at all, as the USMC study proves. If won want to be in combat, they should be able to "be in combat" all by their lonesomes, as the men have been for centuries.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Actually, war is becoming more antiseptic and automated. Killing and destruction can be accomplished with greater accuracy and less risk at a distance. We're fortunate to have educated and capable women who can serve in this environment. I see no reason why we should take advantage of all of our assets to accomplish the mission of keeping our nation safe and secure.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
The argument of women assigned to combat units notwithstanding, LTG McInerney needs to look at the Rules of Engagement (ROE) and Escalation of Force (EOF) rules for the Marine detachment in Beirut in 1983 when their barracks was destroyed by the truck bomb in October 1983. THOSE were the most restrictive requirements ever envoked on American military forces in an imminent danger zone. And this was just within months of the American Embassy being destroyed in much the same manner in April of that same year.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
I suppose we should ignore all the times women have contributed positively. I bet none of the men who were saved because of the actions of women would complain.
(0)
(0)
CPT Quentin von Éfáns-Taráfdar
CPT (Join to see) - Sgt Judy Leonard] - Many years ago a friend of mine who had been a captain in the Israeli army back in the very early days of Israel's founding said that they had to take females out of combat units except for last ditch defenses of Kubutz's (SP) because the women wanted to prove that they were just as brave as the men and thus took risks that caused their casualty rate to soar. The men in turn would expose themselves more frequently to enemy fire to rescue a wounded female comrade than they would a male comrade causing their casualty rate also to soar! I do not know what the current Israeli policy is on women in combat.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Judy Leonard
Well they're on the front lines. And it's not that the women want to prove them selves its that the men want them to prove themselves. I wish men would just calm down and let us be.
(0)
(0)
SSgt John Berry
Sgt Judy Leonard - You say this is debate has become, your right it has. When someone refuses to acknowledge a medical fact like that the overwhelming majority of women have on average 35% less upper body strength than most men which is still essential in a combat environment for numerous reasons, the debate has become asinine. Thump your chest all you want and scream at the high heaven, you can't change biological fact.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Putting troops in combat, puts them at risk. There are a multitude of factors more important than gender when it comes to going into combat with someone. it's a mistake to get wrapped around the axle on gender when their are more important issues, such as training to consider.
(0)
(0)
CPT Quentin von Éfáns-Taráfdar
SSG (Join to see) - This is the real fear: the standard will not be met but instead lowered for PC reasons.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
CPT Quentin von Éfáns-Taráfdar - I would acknowledge that there is a risk of standards being lowered, however I disagree that adding women automatically means the standard is lowered. Not all men are cut out to combat arms, not all women are cut out to be combat arms. Having a larger pool (one that includes both genders) of potential combat arms soldiers does mean we can be more selective.
(0)
(0)
CPT Quentin von Éfáns-Taráfdar
The problem is this: the Marines tested teams having both genders against male only teams and the mixed gender teams under performed in 68% of the tasks. It costs a lot of money to TRY to train people only to find that they don't qualify. That is why there are height and weight restrictions. For example one in ten over-weight people might be able to qualify but you have had to try to train 9 others who didn't. It is a waste of the taxpayer's money. That is why there are qualifying boards, exams and standards for things like OCS. My other argument still stands; the women whom I have seen in combat made great fanatics but poor warriors.
(0)
(0)
CPT Quentin von Éfáns-Taráfdar
TSgt Hunter Logan - Though there is a great deal of truth in what you say I am not debating that particular point. In these times PC is beening deemed more important than performance. The military is not organization whose mission is social experimentation but one whose mission is to fight battles and win wars. Combat, as I am sure that you are aware, is not a polo match wherein one team gets a handicap because the other team is weaker. In combat the only thing that happens is that the weaker "team" gets beaten. Napoleon may have said it best "Le Dieu est toujours avec le battalion le plus fort." - (God is always on the side of the strongest battalion.)
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
This is happening. Regardless of what anyone wants or says it will move forward. There will be issues at first that is almost certain (as with any new thing the military does). The great thing about all of this is that despite all of the issues that may arise. We as a Military will do what we do best! We will overcome, adapt, and make the best out of it.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google