Panel to Recommend Allowing Women in Combat

[Andrew Tuttle]

Dies Irae,

Dies Irae wrote:

Sorry. Got carried away.

No, my apologies! I screwed up my paragraph order. I just wanted Bitter Thorn to know I'd read / parsed the entire thread. I meant to type something more like

Andrew Tuttle wrote:

...but I feel I've a sense for the positions and varying viewpoints folks have offered.

(Well up until you folks starting comparing guns and mobile artillery platforms ...

I just skimmed and scanned the posts where you guys were talking mechanics, I didn't want to sound like I understood any of that jargon. In fact, it made me smile a bit, folks don't "talk shop" unless they are comfortable and relaxed enough to say / type what they really think.

Dies Irae wrote:

But then again, you don't need to know this.

Naw, but it's good stuff to know, thanks for expanding / 'spalin the jargon to me. (I think "Brainbox" is a pretty complementary term for most desk jockeys I've met. Most could use access to a brain every now and again, much less have one in a box they could carry around with them.) :D

Dies Irae wrote:

As for my stake in the matter, I'm actually curious how this will work out for a conscript army. I know our neighbors tried sending both sexes in for compulsory military service, and all they really succeeded in doing was raising the number of unwed mothers."

I can see that happening in a conscripted force.

The US is currently an all-volunteer force, so it's my thinking that if a person is capable of volunteering for military service, they'll make the adult decisions about when and where to become pregnant (if that's their intent).

Clearly, that doesn't happen even in an all-volunteer force. It'd be interesting to see actual numbers on pregnancy rates in mixed-gender military forces.

Dies Irae wrote:

It's a personal hang-up.

We've all got them, but I think you're being a bit hard on yourself. It's my perception you're "at worst" evidencing a gender-bias; "at best," you've chivalrous tendencies.

-- Andy

[Shifty]

Xpltvdeleted wrote:

TL:DR, so this may have been adressed already...

It was, quite a few times :P

[Charlie Bell]

Bitter Thorn wrote:

Charlie Bell wrote:

Kirth Gersen wrote:

nathan blackmer wrote:

Solid, well spoken points. The Air Force has a gender biased physical fitness program as well.

Yes, we all agree the physical standards are not useful. I don't see anyone claiming they are. What is see is a lot of, "would you change your mind of the standards were corrected?" And the reply is always "the current standards suck!"

Somebody doesn't agree that the standards suck or else they would be different. The Army is beginning to institute a more combat-focused PT program. It doesn't replace or change the standards of the APFT (Army Physical Fitness Test).

FWIW I've served with females in combat and I don't care what wedding tackle they've got if they can do the job. The "sex as an unnecessary complication" cat is out of the bag with the end of DADT so that shouldn't be an obstacle to females serving in combat arms any more than it is to females serving at all. If I had the magic policy wand I'd allow females in combat arms, do away with height/weight standards, make one PT standard for both sexes and all ages, and let the chips fall where they may. If we wound up with more recruits than billets I'd raise the standards to make it more competitive. But if an individual can perform combat tasks I don't care whether they're male, female, black, white, gay, straight, overweight, or a purple-skinned squirrel-worshipping mime that's willing to risk their life to serve their country, I say let 'em serve.

Do your NCO's and junior officers tend to feel the same way?

Honestly, it doesn't really come up that much. It's not a good idea to call into question, in a professional environment, policies that we have to enforce. When I've talked with male soldiers about serving with females, I've noticed a lot of stories like, "well I was worried that if I made an off-color joke, she was going to hit me up with a sexual harassment complaint, but once I got to know her she was actually pretty cool."

OTOH I'm aware of quite a few problems in units I've served in (and I don't want to cast aspersions on excellent units composed of mostly highly professional leaders and soldiers) where higher-up males have been caught sleeping with lower ranking soldiers--which is not only against the law, but ethically wrong. I'm not talking about some LT picking up a girl on the town and later finding out she's an E5 in the Reserves, either. I'm talking sergeants major, drill sergeants, captains, or colonels with privates. In about half of those cases, the guilty leader got away with "early retirement" at worst. IMO, though, that isn't a problem with females in the ranks, it's a problem with professionalism in the leaders that can't handle authority + females.

[Bitter Thorn]

Charlie Bell wrote:

Bitter Thorn wrote:

Charlie Bell wrote:

Actually, females already serve in some combat arms branches. The Field Artillery has had female officers leading troops in combat for two years now.

When did FA start having female officers on gun tracks?

Female FA officers don't serve on gun tracks, but NO FA officers serve on gun tracks. Junior commissioned officers are platoon leaders or fire direction officers. The female officers I mentioned are HIMARS (surface-to-surface rocket truck) platoon leaders, and we've had them for about 2-3 years now.

Bitter Thorn wrote:

Is the unit readiness impact of females in units less than it was for the first Gulf War?

I'm not important enough to know those kinds of figures.

Bitter Thorn wrote:

I assume the Army still can't officially punish female troops for getting pregnant?

Not for getting pregnant, but if you get pregnant to avoid a deployment they'll probably put you out of the Army.

Thanks Charlie, that's useful information. It helps to have a more current perspective.

Can you give me a rough idea how the Army currently handles women getting pregnant to avoid deployment?

BTW, you're a combat arms officer right?

[Charlie Bell]

Bitter Thorn wrote:

Can you give me a rough idea how the Army currently handles women getting pregnant to avoid deployment?

If you get pregnant and want to get out, you can be honorably discharged. If your chain of command finds out that you got pregnant to avoid deployment they can chapter you out, but naturally that's hard to prove. If they think you got pregnant to avoid deployment but they can't prove it you can always find a reason to chapter somebody you don't want. If you get pregnant while deployed they can chapter you out for violating General Order #1 (no sex in a combat zone) unless you get pregnant with your spouse (dual military spouses can legally cohabit in a combat zone). Even so, commanders can issue a policy prohibiting pregnancy in a combat zone, and can nail you for violating that order if you get pregnant (or if you get somebody pregnant). Those kinds of policies are not Army-wide, but they might be theater-wide.

Bitter Thorn wrote:

BTW, you're a combat arms officer right?

Yes, Field Artillery. If I was a commander (and hopefully I'll be one soon) I'd probably issue a no-pregnancy-while-deployed policy within my unit just to prevent those kinds of hijinks reducing my forward strength, especially because if I'm losing a female I'm probably losing one of my few critical medics, mechanics, or commo troops.

[Bitter Thorn]

Charlie Bell wrote:

Honestly, it doesn't really come up that much. It's not a good idea to call into question, in a professional environment, policies that we have to enforce. When I've talked with male soldiers about serving with females, I've noticed a lot of stories like, "well I was worried that if I made an off-color joke, she was going to hit me up with a sexual harassment complaint, but once I got to know her she was actually pretty cool."

OTOH I'm aware of quite a few problems in units I've served in (and I don't want to cast aspersions on excellent units composed of mostly highly professional leaders and soldiers) where higher-up males have been caught sleeping with lower ranking soldiers--which is not only against the law, but ethically wrong. I'm not talking about some LT picking up a girl on the town and later finding out she's an E5 in the Reserves, either. I'm talking sergeants major, drill sergeants, captains, or colonels with privates. In about half of those cases, the guilty leader got away with "early retirement" at worst. IMO, though, that isn't a problem with females in the ranks, it's a problem with professionalism in the leaders that can't handle authority + females.

This was a serious problem when I was in 20+ years ago, and the UCMJ enforcement was absurdly variable. Sometimes it got swept under the rug, and some couples got discharged; it was all over the map back then. I have to agree that this is far more a failure of leadership than an indictment of women in the military.

If incorporating women into combat arms doesn't harm combat effectiveness, discipline, deployability, or cost effectiveness, and if women have identical entry requirements, then I have to reevaluate my thoughts on this, but those are significant "ifs".

I'm not sure how well changes like this (or ending DADT) will work for our current armed forces, but things are obviously a lot different than they were 22 years ago when I was a young SGT. That's the main reason I want to hear from people with much more current experience. I also value the input from professionals from other armed forces with more integration.

I went to OSUT in '85, so my concerns may simply be the result of very outdated experiences and assumptions.

[Bitter Thorn]

Charlie Bell wrote:

Bitter Thorn wrote:

Can you give me a rough idea how the Army currently handles women getting pregnant to avoid deployment?

If you get pregnant and want to get out, you can be honorably discharged. If your chain of command finds out that you got pregnant to avoid deployment they can chapter you out, but naturally that's hard to prove. If they think you got pregnant to avoid deployment but they can't prove it you can always find a reason to chapter somebody you don't want. If you get pregnant while deployed they can chapter you out for violating General Order #1 (no sex in a combat zone) unless you get pregnant with your spouse (dual military spouses can legally cohabit in a combat zone). Even so, commanders can issue a policy prohibiting pregnancy in a combat zone, and can nail you for violating that order if you get pregnant (or if you get somebody pregnant). Those kinds of policies are not Army-wide, but they might be theater-wide.

Bitter Thorn wrote:

BTW, you're a combat arms officer right?

Yes, Field Artillery. If I was a commander (and hopefully I'll be one soon) I'd probably issue a no-pregnancy-while-deployed policy within my unit just to prevent those kinds of hijinks reducing my forward strength, especially because if I'm losing a female I'm probably losing one of my few critical medics, mechanics, or commo troops.

I had a feeling that was how the pregnancy issue worked these days.

I appreciate the input; holler if you ever get to Colorado Springs, BTW.

[Charlie Bell]

Bitter Thorn wrote:

I went to OSUT in '85, so my concerns may simply be the result of very outdated experiences and assumptions.

I went to all-male Basic at Ft. Benning. And for all that I'm for females serving, I am glad that I was in an all-male company and not a mixed company. I've worked with plenty of folks who've been drill sergeants at Ft. Jackson or Ft. Leonard Wood and there are a significant number of recruits who get kicked out of Basic for fraternization. Medic AIT at Ft. Sam Houston is notorious for being a good place to get laid. I'd almost believe that all Basic training should be gender segregated, if not for the fact that it serves to weed out a lot of those folks who would have a problem with fraternization later in their careers, when it would do more damage within a unit.

[Charlie Bell]

Bitter Thorn wrote:

I appreciate the input; holler if you ever get to Colorado Springs, BTW.

Yeah man, we'll go shoot guns and dream about smaller government :)

[Bitter Thorn]

Charlie Bell wrote:

Bitter Thorn wrote:

I appreciate the input; holler if you ever get to Colorado Springs, BTW.

Yeah man, we'll go shoot guns and dream about smaller government :)

LOL! That would rock, or we could have lunch with Moff.

[Dies Irae]

Andrew Tuttle wrote:

I can see that happening in a conscripted force.

The US is currently an all-volunteer force, so it's my thinking that if a person is capable of volunteering for military service, they'll make the adult decisions about when and where to become pregnant (if that's their intent).

Clearly, that doesn't happen even in an all-volunteer force. It'd be interesting to see actual numbers on pregnancy rates in mixed-gender military forces.

Dies Irae wrote:

It's a personal hang-up.

We've all got them, but I think you're being a bit hard on yourself. It's my perception you're "at worst" evidencing a gender-bias; "at best," you've chivalrous...

I'm somewhat more concerned because the American case is likely going to color future expectations.

I have no issue with volunteers and some of them actually do rise through the ranks. There was a platoon with a female drill instructor when I was doing basic training. Real terror, that one.

There are often very heated policy debates regarding the issue of female conscription because of privileged pay for males who have served their time in the force (You should see the ridiculous excuses people come up with to avoid service). On some level, the inequality bothers me, but having spent two years in the force while the ladies went on to college makes me somewhat more accepting of my pay differential.

Take this as 2 cents from someone who served in conscript army.

[Andrew Tuttle]

Bitter Thorn,

I'm going to mash-up time a bit here responding to your most recent post to me. I don't mean to deliberately confuse or obfuscate the discussion. It's just that I'm trying to more effectively communicate how I think and feel about this to you. (That, and Paizo has chosen for good reasons not to time/datestamp messageboard posts on their corner of the intarwebz).

One of the first rules in "Communications Technology" is "Communication is the responsibility of the sender." If you feel you're not grokking what I type here, please say so.

So here we go. You responded to my post by saying,

Bitter Thorn wrote:

I just have a number of practical concerns.

I hear you and I think your concerns are valid.

A large portion of my brain thinks the idea of giving young women guns, and tossing them into a hole with young men with guns, while other people with guns are shooting at them ... is just plain "bat-s*!& crazy."

Then I shake it off, take a breath, and think real-world (and all that entails).

Domestic police and military forces are currently necessary, per common sense. (Not to say the preamble to the US Constitution, where they wanna' "ensure the domestic tranquility" -- keep folks from just bargin' into my crib, via a trained and equipped poletzi -- much less provide for "the common defense" -- keep folks from bargin' into my larger neighborhood, via an organized militia).

A while back (here goes the time-shifting I mentioned earlier), you posted

Bitter Thorn wrote:

I look back at my experience as a young infantry NCO, and even if the physical requirements were made identical, I think adding women to infantry units would make the job of leading young troops more difficult. Of course my experience is pretty dated.

I totally agree. I'm sure adding women to an infantry unit (even if it's not tasked for direct combat) is going to negatively-impact that unit's mission-effectiveness, over the short-term.

I'm sure it's the same with nearly any personnel change. Assigning anyone new to nearly any position is going to be a pain for a while. They don't know the ropes, they don't know the team, they don't really understand the mission ... they possibly don't know s&#*.

But then, I've not heard nor seen much in my experience where "how difficult a particular task was" mattered much to the folks making decisions regarding the application of "force" ... much less the folks responsible for fielding a militia on foreign grounds.

If you (or the organization you are associated with) has decided force is necessary, times are clearly rough.

How "easy" or "hard" a specific job is ... well. Life's tough, wear a helmet.

A while back in the same post I just quoted,

Bitter Thorn wrote:

I understand that there is a legitimate question of social justice, but my primary concern is whether incorporating women into combat units makes combat units more combat effective or less or is neutral.

I think what you've typed here is the key issue.

I suspect you already know (or suspect) incorporating women into combat units is going to decrease that unit's combat effectiveness.

I agree. I think any reasonable person, of any gender, who's familiar with reality would.

So ... it seems (to me) that projecting a "combat-effective force" isn't primarily what's going on with the US Military.

It's more important (at some level) somehow, we field a "combat-effective force" that meets the mandates of our organizing document, the US Constitution.

I still recall how I felt when I enlisted, and affirmed (I didn't want to swear, because at the time I thought "swearing" was "against God") to the Oath of Enlistment.

"So I'm promising to do what I can to support and defend these ideas, against anyone that is an enemy of them, here in my neighborhood or even way over yonder. I'll obey my 'Big Boss,' and the 'little Bosses,' too, as long as they are all behaving in accordance with the ideas I'm promising at.

(pause) And I might die, too.

(a longer pause) Yeah, okay, I'll promise."

Bitter Thorn, you responded to my post by saying,

Bitter Thorn wrote:

I'm not convinced that women in combat arms are going to be a net plus.

Short-term, I think the entire idea is suspect ... bordering on "bat-s$%!." I don't want to imagine how hard it's gonna' be.

Long-term, I have confidence in the people (men and women) serving in the US' Armed Forces. I think they'll display the professionalism necessary to uphold the promises they took when they enlisted or agreed to be appointed officers, and that the folks issuing those orders are doing the same.

I apologize for the length of this post, Bitter Thorn, this is just ... well, it's important to me. I hope you understand.

-- Andy

[Urizen]

Bitter Thorn wrote:

Charlie Bell wrote:

Bitter Thorn wrote:

I appreciate the input; holler if you ever get to Colorado Springs, BTW.

Yeah man, we'll go shoot guns and dream about smaller government :)

LOL! That would rock, or we could have lunch with Moff.

Or he could take pictures of you and Charlie shooting guns and dreaming about smaller government. ;-)

[Bitter Thorn]

@ Andy, thanks, I appreciate your input. Evidently some combat units in the US armed forces are already successfully incorporating women into combat missions and some combat arms as well as some Canadian units. I don't know the details, but if it's being done successfully in actual combat now I can't logically argue that expanding the practice will cause problems in the future if it isn't causing those problems now. If we expand the role of women in combat soon, and we get into a larger more symmetrical war in the future there may well be more problems, but I'm short on evidence beyond the anecdotal that this would be the case.

I'll have to do more research when I'm able to, but I may just be having difficulty with outdated thinking.

@ Urizen, that would be cool, but somehow when you say it everything sounds at least a little dirty. ;)

[Andrew Tuttle]

Dies Irae,

Dies Irae wrote:

Take this as 2 cents from someone who served in conscript army.

It's worth more to me than "2 cents" to type / talk to a Singaporean! I have fond memories of a rugby game at the Singapore Cricket Club.

I've two questions for you Dies Irae, if you'll entertain them:

(1) Is Singapore's conscription gender-neutral? Are both men and women required to serve?
(2) Are males who are partnered and have children paid more / do they enjoy a different pay schedule than a "single" male (a male with no dependents, nor a wife)?

Thanks,

-- Andy

[Dies Irae]

Andrew Tuttle wrote:

I've two questions for you Dies Irae, if you'll entertain them:

(1) Is Singapore's conscription gender-neutral? Are both men and women required to serve?
(2) Are males who are partnered and have children paid more / do they enjoy a different pay schedule than a "single" male (a male with no dependents, nor a wife)?

Thanks,

-- Andy

1 - No. It's a major sticking point that the male population gets the short end of the stick, hence accusations of gender inequality.

2 - I'm not entirely sure. I think there's a clause which allowed individuals to appeal but I think it's handled on a case by case basis. I know a guy who drew a higher paycheck because he was married and had a kid.

[Charlie Bell]

Urizen wrote:

Bitter Thorn wrote:

Charlie Bell wrote:

Bitter Thorn wrote:

I appreciate the input; holler if you ever get to Colorado Springs, BTW.

Yeah man, we'll go shoot guns and dream about smaller government :)

LOL! That would rock, or we could have lunch with Moff.

Or he could take pictures of you and Charlie shooting guns and dreaming about smaller government. ;-)

By the way, ECHELON, that post shouldn't be misconstrued as me advocating us accomplishing a smaller government by shooting guns.

[Dragnmoon]

Charlie Bell wrote:

[

Bitter Thorn wrote:

I assume the Army still can't officially punish female troops for getting pregnant?

Not for getting pregnant, but if you get pregnant to avoid a deployment they'll probably put you out of the Army.

I thought they could, because it goes against General Order 1?

*If it happens while deployed*

[Charlie Bell]

Dragnmoon wrote:

Charlie Bell wrote:

[

Bitter Thorn wrote:

I assume the Army still can't officially punish female troops for getting pregnant?

Not for getting pregnant, but if you get pregnant to avoid a deployment they'll probably put you out of the Army.

I thought they could, because it goes against General Order 1?

*If it happens while deployed*

Charlie Bell wrote:

unless you get pregnant with your spouse (dual military spouses can legally cohabit in a combat zone).

[Dragnmoon]

Charlie Bell wrote:

Charlie Bell wrote:

unless you get pregnant with your spouse (dual military spouses can legally cohabit in a combat zone).

I must of missed a part of the conversation...

I know about the Spouse thing, I am talking about a female getting pregnant while deployed from someone other then their spouse.

[Charlie Bell]

Dragnmoon wrote:

Charlie Bell wrote:

Charlie Bell wrote:

unless you get pregnant with your spouse (dual military spouses can legally cohabit in a combat zone).

I must of missed a part of the conversation...

I know about the Spouse thing, I am talking about a female getting pregnant while deployed from someone other then their spouse.

Oh yeah that violates GO #1 and will get you sent home and probably chaptered out.

[Bitter Thorn]

Charlie Bell wrote:

Urizen wrote:

Bitter Thorn wrote:

Charlie Bell wrote:

Bitter Thorn wrote:

I appreciate the input; holler if you ever get to Colorado Springs, BTW.

Yeah man, we'll go shoot guns and dream about smaller government :)

LOL! That would rock, or we could have lunch with Moff.

Or he could take pictures of you and Charlie shooting guns and dreaming about smaller government. ;-)

By the way, ECHELON, that post shouldn't be misconstrued as me advocating us accomplishing a smaller government by shooting guns.

LOL!

[Andrew Tuttle]

Yo! Bitter Thorn!

I hope I'm not performing thread-necromancy here, but I heard this yesterday on NPR: Silver Star Recipient A Reluctant Hero.

I don't know if you hold NPR as a trusted, suspect, or worthless news source, but I couldn't help but think of this exchange here on the messageboards a few weeks back. Looks like NPR's got a week-long series about women in combat going on, along with some collateral materials (like this Timeline: Women On The Front Lines) available.

Anyway, if you see this, and it's of interest I hope you get a chance to either read or listen to this.

-- Andy

[Bitter Thorn]

Andrew Tuttle wrote:

Yo! Bitter Thorn!

I hope I'm not performing thread-necromancy here, but I heard this yesterday on NPR: Silver Star Recipient A Reluctant Hero.

I don't know if you hold NPR as a trusted, suspect, or worthless news source, but I couldn't help but think of this exchange here on the messageboards a few weeks back. Looks like NPR's got a week-long series about women in combat going on, along with some collateral materials (like this Timeline: Women On The Front Lines) available.

Anyway, if you see this, and it's of interest I hope you get a chance to either read or listen to this.

-- Andy

Cool. Thanks!

[Andrew Tuttle]

Not a problem!

-- Andy