Folks,

Since the end of the Vietnam War, woman have been joining the armies world wide. Especially Western armies. In Europe, all slots in military units are open including the paratroopers, submarines, etc. The link below is about the European battalion in Lebanon on UN duty.

It looks good. But will it hold up at crunch time. I know a lot of people are going to point out individual combat actions women were involved in in the recent past which would seem to say it is ok, but how will it be in another "hard war" like Vietnam or Korea. For example imagine if the French paratroopers battalions at Dein Bein Phu had a large number of women in them. Or imagine a large number of women in that Ranger battalion in Somalia in October 1993.

It is something I think a lot of people in the US military (and European military) are whistling past the grave yard and hoping what they actually feel privately is wrong. Especially ground combat units. Because the last time women were actually integrated in army combat units in large numbers where they fought battles like Vietnam or Korea was the Israeli Army in the 1947-49 War: And what happened was horrible. That is why there are a huge number or women in the Israeli Army, but (largely unknown to the rest of the world) there are sever restrictions -- ie look at all the news clips of combat in Lebanon and Gaza. NO WOMEN.

Finally, the women soldiers serving with those Spanish and French units are doing an admiral job. But reality is there unit is more of a heavily armed police type mission than a hard war mission. If the balloon goes up and the UN orders their units not to allow either the Israelis and more important the Hezbollah to pass through or take hostile actions against each other and worst Hezbollah decides to attack and seize members of these units as bargaining chips we may find out if it will be a repeat of 1947-49 or not. And I will bet a lot of senior commanders who their secret fears are totally wrong.

Jack E. Hammond


Spanish and French units with women in Lebanon



.

Sorry--these are not hard core infantry units having to walk distances carrying large rucks and engaging the enemy on the run.

Sure, they serve an important part just as our female soldiers do, but in their total integration, you =can bet standards were lowered.

quote:

Originally posted by hybenamon:
S N I P

Mod_Hat_Off
Jack,

Good post.

It is true, women in active combat units has historically not worked.

As Master Guns said, they ARE an Important part of the overall Military, but there are limitations to their capabilities that are genetic, and can not be changed.

Mod_Hat_On

quote:

Originally posted by goldenwings:
Sorry--these are not hard core infantry units having to walk distances carrying large rucks and engaging the enemy on the run.

Sure, they serve an important part just as our female soldiers do, but in their total integration, you =can bet standards were lowered.

When the all-conquering, world champion USA women's soccer team had its collective derriere handed to it by a group of 15 year old boys - PROFESSIONAL athletes, the best in the world at their sport, against amateur high school freshman and sophomore boys - it does not speak well for women dealing with the physical requirements of Infantry combat.

When the gender specific separation in track and field is eliminated, and women can compete against men head-to-head in the Olympics - and take away their fair share of the medals - as opposed to fair to good high school boys beating the women's world records on an all too frequent basis? The question might bear revisiting. Until that point in "evolution"?

"Someone" is putting their emotional affirmation above the defense of this nation.