I think both of these are fair points. Certainly, a society shouldn't be blind as to how much combat power it is actually gaining when it decides to alter the way its military is structured. And of course, when I say that the U.S. has gained combat power by integrating people of color and gay and lesbian soldiers into our combat arms, I don't mean to say that it's been entirely smooth sailing - the ghettoization you refer to is perfect example.
On the other hand, combat power isn't the only thing a society should want from its military - or rather, combat power, in the long term, is not something generated solely from within the military. A discontinuity between the will of a people and the character of its military will, in the long run, sap a society's combat power just as surely as shorter-term disruptions. We still deal with racial integration issues even after the first colored regiments in the 1860s,* but I don't think anybody seriously doubts that the American military would be less powerful than it is today if we didn't let black soldiers serve in the combat arms.
Something else that occurs to me that may be relevant to this discussion: all the major integrations into U.S. combat soldiery have occurred in the context of actual shooting operations. I can't imagine that's an accident. Black soldiers first show up on our front lines in a major way during the 1860s, in response to a manpower crisis during American Civil War. We integrated our armed forces shortly after World War 2, after several all-colored units (of various ethnicities) had performed with exceptional, headline-grabbing heroism. Gay and lesbian soldiers were permitted during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, when their sexual orientation was often an open secret in their units. Combat arms were opened to women during the same wars, when women in non-combat roles found themselves in firefights on a regular basis. None of these transitions has been seamless, but I have to imagine that the opportunity to see soldiers of the relevant excluded group actually serving in the crucible of combat operations and getting the job done has made those transitions easier than they would otherwise be.
* Yes, I know that people of color have served on the front lines of the U.S.' wars since before there was a United States, but the American Civil War was still a quantum leap forward in terms of their presence on the front lines.
however, all of that is just 'blame women for men's behaviour' which is simply wrong.
this is a common argument that is simply not relevant. the women don't have to be as strong as all the men, they simply have to be strong enough to do the job. those are wildly different things.
Twelve monkeys, eleven hats. One monkey is sad.
I suppose depends on what you define as exceptional. But UK issued individual kit is around 45kg broken down: body armour 20, belt kit 5, weapon 5, helmet 2, daysack 10-15. This does not include water - at 1kg per 1L (at least 6 per day at rest not fighting, in Afghanistan), any radio, spare batteries, spare ammo for the Platoon Machine guns (shared amongst all) any mortar ammo, any specialist kit such as breaching ladders etc.
It can be carried for sure, by anybody. But carrying it from a to b and fighting in it is 2 very different things. Then the ability to jump on a stretcher, and take 1 quarter of this rate at speed to a CASEVAC site 1km away, on top of your kit.
I'M RATHER DEFINATELY SURE FEMALE SPACE MARINES DEFINERTLEY DON'T EXIST.
Kirsten there is one overarching principle to base military decision making on - within the internationally recognised Laws of Armed Conflict. If one doesn't know what that is one would probably be best acknowledging a lack of qualification to comment on military matters.
What that principle is, is as follows: Does the action/decision/policy change/procurement purchase - simple THING I am contemplating doing as a Commander, make it easier and more likely for me to achieve my mission? If so, it is probably worth considering.
A UK definition for the Infantry mission was always words to the effect of 'Close with and destroy the enemy'. When an argument is put forward that putting women on the front line will enable our military to do that easier/more efficiently, I shall fully and unreservedly support women on the front line. To date, no one has managed to argue successfully based on military necessity, that putting women on the front line is more advantageous to us in the matter of killing Her Majesty's enemies than keeping them out of the front line.
Further, if you see my latter post about the weight carriage, the strength required to simply do the job, is huge. Infanteers at the back end of an Afghan Tour are ripped to f*ck. Women in the front line had better not only be as strong as the men (that is true equality) but better hope they are stronger than the enemy men when meat meets the metal.
I'M RATHER DEFINATELY SURE FEMALE SPACE MARINES DEFINERTLEY DON'T EXIST.
do not be patronising, it will not get you anywhere, or convince anyone of your point.
women do not need to make the job 'easier' to achieve so long as they can do it as well as the men already there. you do not demand that each new recruit be better than the last because that is clearly impossible. there is no reason why women in the army should make the army somehow magically better, the point is they have a right to serve if they want to, and they are perfectly capable of doing so.
again, your weight point is simply not relevant. women can carry the kit, they can carry the others. we know this, it is a fact. they are already doing it. as I said before, women do not need to be as strong as men, they need to be strong enough to do the job. those are not the same thing. there is no reason for them to be stronger than the enemy either, that is just blowing smoke. are you stronger than everyone you have ever met? this is not braveheart, you are not forming a line and charging headlong at the foe swinging claymores.
Twelve monkeys, eleven hats. One monkey is sad.
Kirsten it is simple. If a change adds military value, it is worth it. If it doesn't why bother. Again, you just don't seem to get it. This isn't like people sat at home talking abut Man U getting rid of Moyes. It is a forum where poor decisions cost lives.
The women you refer to firstly, are exceptional. We don't just chuck gallantry awards around like smarties. Secondly, they were not carrying full infantry fighting loads they were carrying medic kit loads. A subtle difference. lastly, if you can link to a source showing one of them did a 1-woman extraction I would be surprised. Dragging someone out of the line of fire and conducting a full extraction are 2 different beasts.
You are supporting a change for the sole purpose of advancing equality. Not improving the military. You have not advanced a single shred of evidence that allowing women into the front line will improve performance at the front line. Not one single military-based metric that demonstrates unequivocally it is worth it.
Of course new recruits are not better than the last ones. They are the same as the knackered 40 year olds who are leaving after 22 years of service, were when they were 18.
I'M RATHER DEFINATELY SURE FEMALE SPACE MARINES DEFINERTLEY DON'T EXIST.
yes it is simple, and you are spectacularly missing the point because you cannot see past your own ideas.
you say 'for the sole purpose of advancing equality' as though that is somehow a bad thing. what is wrong with making the world fairer exactly? and again I point out the simple fact that women do not need to make the military better, that is not how it works. they simply need the opportunity to do the same job as well as the men. you are ignoring these very simple points, I suspect deliberately. women have a right to serve their country and defend it. they are physically capable of doing so. your argument is based on nothing but a tired old 'oh we can't do that' sentiment. The americans are now allowing it as you well know, they have not decided to do so on a whim, they are doing so because it is right, and because it can be done.
Twelve monkeys, eleven hats. One monkey is sad.
Firstly, the US has not opened every job immediately, it only started this month and infantry and special forces may take until 2016 to become open. Link to the US army website. Of note: Sheimo said the Army still has more than 100,000 jobs closed to women. That includes those MOS that are closed to women. Among those MOS are the 12B combat engineer, 13B cannon crewmember, 11B infantryman, and 19K M1 armor crewman, for instance.
[URL="http://www.army.mil/article/118930/Army_to_open_33_000_positions_to_female_Soldiers_i n_April/"]http://www.army.mil/article/118930/Army_to_open_33_000_positions_to_female_Soldiers_i n_April/[/URL]
Again, given what rates of complaints of mistreatment of personnel based on their gender there are in the US military compared to ours, I wouldn't necessarily hold them up as a shining light.
Secondly you are correct- women would need only be as good as the men. But fortunately, we impose a risk versus reward mentality to our decision making. And at the moment, the potential risks outweigh the potential rewards - if the product you would get from including females on the front line, is only the same as and not better than only having men.
I am not aware of a 'right' to serve one's country - but there are many ways to do so that are crucial, that are not in the front line. The military are not about fairness.
I'M RATHER DEFINATELY SURE FEMALE SPACE MARINES DEFINERTLEY DON'T EXIST.