Wednesday, January 30, 2013
the queen of battle
well, i wanted to put something up sooner and got side tracked, now it appears that i am jumping on the band wagon. so be it.
i do not want to see women serve in the combat arms branches of the armed forces. sorry, call me old fashioned, but i just do not believe that women are capable of taking the day to day grind of sustained field operations that occur in the in direct action units which comprise combat arms.
in looking at an old APFT card i refreshed my memory to the fact that women in the 17 to 21 year age range could do 24 fewer push ups than men of the same age, and receive a score of 100 in that category.
guys who completed the same amount would only receive 76 points. in the timed 2 mile run, women would get 100 points for a time of 14 minutes and 54 seconds, second class citizens (men) would get a 70 for the same time in the same event. assuming our male and female test subject did the same 90 sit ups, our male would get a 244 on his APFT, good for 21 promotional points, the female soldier a perfect 300 score, good for a whopping 50 promotion points. what does that mean? simple, she does half the work and reaps more than twice the benefits of her male peer.
that won't cut it in combat children. the average weight of and M240 machine gun is 25 pounds, average weight of a shell for a 120mm gun on an ABRAMS tank is 49 pounds and the weight of a 155mm shell for a PALADIN howitzer is 96 pounds. how many girls you know can shuck that shit for hours on end?
now i think a legitimate reason to put women into these units would be if we could not fill the spots determined by the budget with men. this is not and has never been the case. have you heard of, or can you recall any stories of the army or marines being incapable of filling their infantry slots? no, you can not. and one the reason for this is while you may come into the army to be in the intelligence branch, all it takes to send you to the grunts is failing some test, or being a fuck up or the loss of your security clearance. it called the needs of the army. the primary reason this also is not a problem is because young guys WANT to do these things. it's cool and macho. how cool are you if they let girls do it?
over at IT DON'T MAKE SENSE, they posted a letter by a female marine officer. while it may not be indicative all all women in combat experiences, it certainly offers insight. good buddy SKI, over at GLOBAL DOMINATION, seems to think that the time has arrived to allow women into the field units.
SKI makes a STRONG case for this and while i disagree, i respect his view, as we served together. he has forgot the things that kept female soldiers limping along on field problem all those years ago. the new "men" got to carry the 60, a 26 pound belt fed MG, it was a right of passage. go to the field and guess who was on the bleed, unable to "hump the pig" due to cramps. lets say you are getting ready to deploy to a hot spot as a company commander of an infantry company made up of 30% women, and half report they are pregnant? guess who just lost 15% of their combat effectiveness without a shot even being fired?
we need to stop trying to be all things to all people, and remember as leaders we CAN NOT nor should we try to make everyone happy all the time. still respect an honor your service ladies, but unless you WILL be judged by the same tough standards of your male counterparts, you should stick to the combat support units.
and fear not, you will still get many of opportunities to prove your valor and dedication.