Women in Combat: An Army for All

Women have now been allowed to serve in combat units in the armed forces of the United States of America. This isn’t to say that women haven’t already been serving in combat roles already; thousands of women have fought alongside their male counterparts in the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. Many have been wounded or killed as a result of their combat roles. Now, women will be allowed to join units whose primary role is taking the fight to the enemy. I think that is about time women were included. I also recognize some of the arguments against their inclusion. I will explore some of them in this essay. In order for the integration women into combat units to be effective, 3 things must change: military standards must be equalized, institutional mindsets must change and cultural views must be modernized.

So, what’s the big deal? Why make such a fuss over women serving in combat units? Women have been in almost every other part of the military for a long time. Why all of this push-back? They say women aren’t strong enough. If a Marine or Army Infantryman is injured on the battlefield, the average woman would not be able to pick him up and carry him to safety.  Or a woman would not be able to carry all of the necessary combat gear (weapons, ammunition, ruck sack, etc.) unaided. I even heard a talking head on an NPR show this week say that since we don’t allow women to play football, we shouldn’t allow them to be in combat units. In other words, a female can’t hold her own in a head-to-head match up with a male.

The other argument against females serving in combat units is the issue of distraction. As the argument goes, males will be distracted from their mission simply by the presence of a female. A male would want to help a woman with her equipment; he will focus more of his attention on her, to the detriment of the mission. Chivalry will win out over professionalism.

The last argument against females in combat units is not one that I have heard or read. But, I can sense it becoming an issue as the new policy is implemented. The issue is that of sexual harassment and sexual assaults in the military. As a former Equal Opportunity Non-Commissioned Officer for the 145^th Surface Maintenance Company, I was charged with training and recommending action on cases involving sexual harassment. I was not involved in cases of sexual assault, because sexual assault is a crime and therefore would be investigated by military law enforcement. Instances of sexual harassment often go unreported in the military because many victims feel that nothing will come of the report. Often there is no hard evidence; it’s a “he said-she said” thing.  Similar reasons are cited for the under-reporting of sexual assaults. So if women are allowed to serve on the “front lines”, how much more difficult will it be for a victim of a sexual assault or sexual harassment to prove her case if the alleged incident occurred in the field, away from the prying eyes of the Uniform Code of Military Justice? A related concern is the issue of torture. It would be a stain on America’s psyche if a female is captured by the enemy and subjected to torture. If the enemy employs any of the tactics used in Rwanda or in Sudan against women on our females, it would be a hard sight to bear.

One Standard

Ok, now that I have listed the main arguments, let me shoot them down. Forgive the pun. Women aren’t strong enough, you say. Point taken. Generally speaking, men have more upper body strength than women.  But, as any Bruce Lee fan will tell you, there is more to overpowering your enemy than brute force. But since our issue concerns brute force, let’s talk about it.  When I was going through basic training, I met a woman who could do 80 push ups in 2 minutes. Meanwhile I was shaking like a leaf at 60. So if she could meet or exceed the standard, why not allow her to serve in combat? Women can meet the standard. Not all women, certainly. But not every man can meet the standard either. It is wrong to exclude and entire class of people because a portion may not be up to the task. They tried to exclude black people from combat missions, too. But the Tuskegee Airmen and countless other brave African Americans proved than skin color is unrelated to military skill. I would argue that gender, too, has no bearing on military skill.

In order for a female’s skill to be tested, there must be a standard to measure it against. This standard cannot be arbitrary or lessened in any way. In order for women to be effectively integrated into combat units, there needs to be 1 standard. The military must do away with separate physical standards for women. If a certain amount of strength, prowess and intelligence is needed to effectively perform a soldiering function, then that level of strength should be required for all candidates. Those who are able to meet the standard will be seen as more than female or male; they will become warriors.

 Institutional Mindset

Seeing women as warriors instead of damsels in distress will take some effort on the part of the military. When I was in Korea on one of my unit’s field exercises, I walked back into the tent to warm up after getting some chow. Imagine my surprise when I walked into the tent to find my male squad leader massaging to feet of one of the squad members. He tried to play it off by asking if I wanted my feet massaged too. “Hell no!!” Would he have offered to massage my feet had she not been there? I think not. Throughout my military experience, the women were the last to be placed on guard duty. If they were on guard duty, it was during the day, usually near heat or air conditioning. I sound like a hater. But, a combat unit in the thick of a fight requires that every member of the team pull their weight. If a team member needs help, the other members will help. But that help should not be given because of the perceived weakness of the individual. Even in Iraq, there were female soldiers who went on convoys without complaint. They were warriors, ready to go; locked, cocked and ready to rock. There are more women like them in the armed services; they should be given a chance to show the world what they can do. For that to happen, members of the armed services have to change their mindset.

This also means, stronger policies regarding sexual crimes against women.  As mentioned earlier, addressing accusations of sexual harassment and assault are hard enough in garrison. It will more difficult with women in combat units in the field. Leaders have to instill in their subordinates and sense that women are equal members and integral parts of the team and should not be disrespected, objectified, harassed or assaulted. Punishment for such actions must be swift and harsh. If the mindset can be changed, the culture will also be changed. This change however, can only come from top brass.

Cultural Views

It’s hard to know how society at large would react to an instance of a female member of a combat unit captured by the enemy and trapped behind enemy lines. But the story of Jessica Lynch can give us an idea. As you may recall, Jessica’s convoy was attacked in Iraq in 2003 and she was captured and reportedly tortured by the enemy. She was part of maintenance unit; not a front line combat unit. In 2003 you couldn’t turn on the TV without hearing about Jessica Lynch. Could our country support the possibility of more incidents of female soldiers being subjected to torture by the enemy? Is that the reason some in America oppose females in combat units? If so, then the problem is with us, not the female soldiers. The mindset of wanting to be protective of females leads to making decisions for them. That type of thinking is a societal problem, not one that women should carry.

Summary

African Americans, homosexuals, and women have a history of having arbitrary limitations placed upon them. They have all been told that their presence in the military would have some detrimental effect that never materialized. Yes, the presence of women in combat units will require some adjustments. Standards, internal culture and societal norms would have to change. Policies would have to formulated to address issues that currently don’t pose a problem. But those potential issues are minor and should not be used as an excuse to prevent able bodied, motivated women from serving alongside men. Any problem with women serving in combat units lies with the rest of us, not with women.  If they want to fight, let them fight!

Huffington Post: The Petraeus Affair: Why Is There No Male Equivalent for 'Mistress'?

 

		The Petraeus Affair: Why Is There No Male Equivalent for 'Mistress'?
	Colloquial English language has no word for that -- no label we use to describe the man with whom a married woman cheats. Gigolo doesn't really cover it. Lover, perhaps, but no newspaper account would use it in a situation like this because their goal is to talk about sex without directly mentioning it. Paramour? That just sounds ridiculous.

 

Sent from my iPhone

When Is The First Lady's Debate?

I was thoroughly unimpressed by tonight's debate. I'm going to lose my Democrat card for this but I thought Romney had a better performance. I think Obama had a lot of good ideas rolling around in his head but he just couldn't get them all out in a clear, concise manner.

Furthermore, I don't think that this debate changed anyone's mind. If you were for Obama, you still are. If you were for Romney, you still are. The question for me, is whether or not any Independent's minds were swayed.

I think Romney's statements about returning programs and services to the states is a copout. His plan ignores the fact that states are already facing huge budget crises and cannot handle an unfunded mandate from the federal government. His plan also ignores the fact that members of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans alike, will not allow federally funded programs and services for their constituencies to be cut.

So as usual, the devil is in the details. As my cousin suggested, lets have 1st Lady's debate. Hopefully that would have a bigger impact on the electorate.

Huffington Post: All About the Justices: Why Republicans Are Falling in Line for Akin

 

		All About the Justices: Why Republicans Are Falling in Line for Akin
	As President Bill Clinton famously said, "Democrats want to fall in love; Republicans want to fall in line." Today, for their values, their Justices and their post-Romney ambitions, Republicans are falling in line for Todd Akin.

 

Sent from my iPhone

Put Your Pee Where Your Mouth Is

I love talking about politics. I love comedy. But most of all I love comedians talking about politics. I think comedians have a unique way of pointing out things that are so ridiculous that we have to laugh because if anybody else says it you might just cry. Take for example, the issue of mandating welfare recipients to submit to drug testing. Proponents of such a measure would have you believe that most welfare recipients are defrauding the hard-working taxpayers by using their needs-based benefits for drugs and all manner of the debauchery. As one of the aforementioned hard-working taxpayers I don't like the idea of someone using my tax dollar in a way that it was not intended. Though I'm sure that some people do use part of their welfare check to abuse drugs or alcohol, the statistics do not support a law mandating drug tests to prevent it. Especially when it costs more money to implement the law than it saves. If the goal is to prevent fraud waste and abuse, perhaps we should take a closer look at Medicaid and Medicare fraud, or even those lovely earmarks that elected officials like to sneak into bills to fund bridges to nowhere. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a smokescreen. Instead of focusing on real, hard pressing issues, some in elected office would have you distracted with nonissues like the prevalence of drug abuse by welfare recipients. Daily Show “reporter”, Aasif Mandvi, recently asked Florida elected officials to submit to a drug test. The stated goal behind mandating drug tests for welfare recipients is to assure taxpayers that their money is not being used for drugs. Since these elected officials’ salaries are paid for by taxes, Aasif Mandvi asked them to submit a sample to assure the voting public that they were not abusing drugs. The hypocritical response is rather funny... And sad.

 

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-february-2-2012/poor-pee-ple?xrs=share_copy

 

They Were For It, Before They Were Against It...Who's Flip Flopping Now?

Republicans reverse themselves…again. The same people that accused John Kerry of being a serial flip flopper are at it again. The hypocrisy is astounding. My new favorite news personality, Rachel Maddow, has found video evidence of the hypocrisy. The current administration has routinely tried to include the Republicans in the policymaking process, but the Republicans won't have any of that. President Obama has tried to include Republican ideas in his policy measures only to see his hopes of bipartisan agreement dashed through stonewalling and filibustering efforts in Congress - to the extent that previously held Republican notions are now viewed as heresy by the same people who proposed them in the first place. The Republicans sole mission is to get rid of Pres. Obama. They're looking for any little thing to show that President Obama is unfit to lead this nation. The interesting part though, is that everything they find, every issue they are now against, they supported before Obama mentioned it. No wonder they can't rally behind a "true conservative" to run against him. I don't think that they know what a true conservative looks like anymore since they keep changing their positions on issues. Check out the link below and see for yourself.
 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/46335268#46335268

The Income Gap: Unfair, Or Are We Just Jealous?

I found the following story on the NPR iPhone App:
http://www.npr.org/2012/01/14/145213421/the-income-gap-unfair-or-are-we-just-jealous?sc=17&f=1001

The Income Gap: Unfair, Or Are We Just Jealous?
by Scott Horsley

- January 14, 2012

The widening gulf between the rich and everyone else is a growing source of tension in America.

A new survey from the Pew Research Center finds the income gap is now seen as a bigger source of conflict in the U.S. than race, age or national origin. That's why some believe the issue could matter in the presidential campaign, and others worry it could warp the national debate.

Two out of three Americans now perceive strong social conflicts over the income gap — up sharply from two years ago. Paul Taylor of the Pew Research Center has an idea what's behind the increase.

"The Occupy Wall Street movement kind of crystallized the issue: 1 versus 99. [It's] arguably the most successful slogan since 'Hell no, we won't go,' going back to the Vietnam era," he says. "[It] certainly triggered a lot of coverage about economic inequality."

Over the last three decades, the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans more than doubled their share of national income, while the bottom 80 percent saw their share shrink. Taylor says majorities of Democrats, independents and even Republicans now see the income gap as a cause of friction.

"There's no question that there is rising inequality in this country, and I think those perceptions are part of the national agenda in a way that they weren't," he says. "And certainly they are in times like this, where we've had this very, very difficult economy and a lot of people are struggling."

The 'Politics Of Envy'

The rise of the issue has not been welcomed by Mitt Romney, the front-running Republican presidential candidate. Romney, who made millions as a private equity investor, has accused President Obama and others of engaging in what he calls "the bitter politics of envy."

"I think it's fine to talk about those things in quiet rooms and discussions about tax policy and the like, but the president has made this part of his campaign rally," Romney says. "We hear him talking about millionaires and billionaires and executives and Wall Street. It's a very envy-oriented, attack-oriented approach. And I think it will fail."

Romney was challenged by Today Show host Matt Lauer, who asked if envy is the only reason someone might question the increasingly skewed distribution of wealth. Lauer asked if it was instead about fairness.

"I think it's about envy. I think it's about class warfare," Romney responded. "I think when you have a president encouraging the idea of dividing America based on the idea of 99 percent versus 1 percent, and those people who've been most successful will be in the 1 percent, you've opened up a whole new wave of approach in this country which is entirely inconsistent with the concept of 'one nation under God.'"

Nothing Wrong With Being Rich

Even as the Pew survey found more conflict over the income gap, it did not find evidence that Americans are growing more resentful of the rich. A separate Gallup poll found Americans far more concerned with growing the economic pie rather than changing the way it's divided.

Conservatives have long argued that growth trumps inequality, and a rising tide lifts all boats, even if some are yachts and others dinghies. But Obama's top economist, Alan Krueger, gave a speech this week arguing that severe inequality can actually threaten growth, as well as hobble the "opportunity society" that Romney says he wants to promote.

"There's a cost to the economy and society if children from low-income families do not have anything close to the opportunities to develop and use their talents as the more fortunate kin from better-off families, who can attend better schools and draw on a network of family connections," he said.

Krueger argues the economy as a whole would be in better shape if income and buying power were not so concentrated among the very rich. Obama made the same case in December in Osawatomie, Kan.

"When middle-class families can no longer afford to buy the goods and services that businesses are selling, when people are slipping out of the middle class, it drags down the entire economy — from top to bottom," he said.

Krueger notes that since World War II, income growth has tended to be strongest when it's most widespread — when rich, poor and middle-class Americans are growing together, instead of growing apart. [Copyright 2012 National Public Radio]

To learn more about the NPR iPhone app, go to http://iphone.npr.org/recommendnprnews

Sent from my iPod