Panetta Opens Thousands of Combat Positions to Women

[bayonetbrant]

Instead of integrating the armed forces why don't we start with integrating the NBA and WNBA?  Allowing women in the NFL?

The consequences for failure are far less permanent and the opportunity for wealth and fame in men's professional sports are far greater than women's.  When you answer the question of why this is impossible then you will have answered why this is a bad idea.

That's a very interesting perspective.  Not a bad way to pose the question.
One argument you're bound to run into is that the NFL and NBA are not government entities (though you'd think so given how much money governments pay for their stadiums) and that the government has a higher burden of including the citizenry than the NFL/NBA.

On a side note, the military integrated races far, far quicker than any of the professional sports leagues.

[Airborne Rifles]

Food for thought: the current Joint Chiefs of Staff that has endorsed this does not contain a single infantryman.  Even the Commandant of the Marine Corps is an aviator.

[bayonetbrant]

Dempsey was a tanker, so that's a non-co-ed combat arm.

Odierno is an artilleryman (and an NC State grad - for his Master's) but for most of his career, the artillery was not co-ed.

[Airborne Rifles]

One argument you're bound to run into is that the NFL and NBA are not government entities (though you'd think so given how much money governments pay for their stadiums) and that the government has a higher burden of including the citizenry than the NFL/NBA.

True, but the military has a responsibility to maintain good order and discipline in its ranks which allows it to restrict many of the constitutional rights of its members.  I don't see this case as different.

[Airborne Rifles]

Dempsey was a tanker, so that's a non-co-ed combat arm.

Odierno is an artilleryman (and an NC State grad - for his Master's) but for most of his career, the artillery was not co-ed.

Appologies, no disrespect intended to those branches.  I'm just coming at the issue narrowly from my own area of expertise, which is light infantry, and which I believe has a unique set of physical challenges.

[bayonetbrant]

agreed that it has it's own physical challenges, but would you rate mech infantry closer to light infantry or armor?

[Airborne Rifles]

I honestly would rate them closer to light infantry given the likely missions today.  Mech infantry is deploying to Afghanistan and operating as light infantry.

[Longdan]

You do not have to kill or injure soldiers to ruin an army.
There are a lot of useless armies floating around out there and vanished in history.
Mostly because they lost their purpose and became something other than the Armed Force
of their nation.  My question posed at the beginning is will it make the Army better?
If it will not make it better and more effective it is a doubtful and potentially idiotic move.

[donkey_roxor]

Instead of integrating the armed forces why don't we start with integrating the NBA and WNBA?  Allowing women in the NFL?

The consequences for failure are far less permanent and the opportunity for wealth and fame in men's professional sports are far greater than women's.  When you answer the question of why this is impossible then you will have answered why this is a bad idea.

Wouldn't pistol/rifle sports be a more relevant analogy? Does modern combat involve much of the melee-range, personal, one-on-one interactions prevalent in sports like the NBA, NFL, and NHL? Of course, I don't think pistol/rifle sports are integrated - do men intrinsically shoot better than women?

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

Yes, Biathlon would be a better match.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biathlon

The bigger concern is troops that should be on guard in a war zone deciding they get more from having sex. In a vehicle, under a tree, wherever.

[Longdan]

Do young people still do that?  I know I did when I was soldier age.  Doesn't mean kids these days will.
The older, more mature officers will just tell them not to.  Nothing to see here.  Keep moving.

[bayonetbrant]

[Centurion40]

Now how are the boys going to take it?

The same way that ours did.  Initial push-back, then grudging acceptance.  The final stage is general acceptance, because in 20 years, it will be the way that it always was.

[Centurion40]

Food for thought: the current Joint Chiefs of Staff that has endorsed this does not contain a single infantryman.  Even the Commandant of the Marine Corps is an aviator.

:o

[Airborne Rifles]

Maybe I should clarify my position on all this.  I have no issue with women in the military.  My wife served for five years, a fact of which I am extremely proud.  While she was in she was certainly a better officer than I can hope to be.  My objections do not stem from any desire to "protect" women from the ravages of combat or the difficult living conditions that go along with it.  They are soldiers and whether they knew it or not, that is what they signed up for.  All the issues that people have brought up, of sanitation, sexual assault, POWs, etc., can and will be dealt with by discipline, training, and education. 

The problem is that operations with combat arms in general and infantry in particular pushes people to the edge of their physical and emotional abilities.  While I don't think that women's emotional abilities are any less than men's, I think it's pretty clear that your average male physically is going to be bigger, faster, and stronger than your average female.  Keep in mind that this is a team sport.  If you have one soldier slowing you down on a march you can't just leave him or her behind.  If a soldier cannot carry their weight then that weight has to be redistributed among their squadmates. 

If someone could assure me that in lifting the ban on women in combat arms we would also maintain high and equal standards of physical ability as a condition of joining and staying then my objections would go away.  Unfortunately, that is not going to happen.  I'm pretty sure we will either lower standards generally, or maintain our already seperate standards for males and females.  Centurion40, how did the Canadian military do it?  Do you have seperate standards for men and women up there or are they assessed differently?

The reason I used NFL/NBA as an example is because those are two events in which woman have a distinct disadvantage in income.  The sport itself doesn't really matter.  Biathalon is still a segregated event in the Olympics, why? Because if it weren't the winnings would be dominated by men, not because they are better shots but because they are stronger and faster.  Understand I am talking in averages because that is what we have to deal with in the army.

I don't usually engage in any sort of political dialogue because I think it's unhealthy for a member of the military, but I'm passionate about this subject.  I feel it is being pushed I a bunch of people who want it done so they can feel better about how fair things are, but will never suffer the consequences on the battlefield.  In the end it will be me and my fellow soldiers who will implement these new policies and make them work, and they will work.  However, they won't work as well and at the back end we will have less capable formations which will make it harder for us to accomplish our mission and in the end we will be sending more of these soldiers, male and female, home in body bags.