I think it's OK. No one misunderstands what is meant. My pet peeve is "petite," which means small. In clothing it means 5 ft. 3 in. in height or less, which neither of these women is. "Petite" is one of the many ways of saying "little woman." At least they didn't call them "pert," "perky," or "feisty."

I think the American public is ready for Women in Combat. This feeling is a hold over from WWII and does not reflect current reality. The Soviet Union and Israel has had Women in Combat roles for many years. In fact the Soviets had Women in combat roles during the Second world war. The top Sniper for the Soviet Union was a woman.

If they want let them serve. I think it should be a volenteer situation and not mandatory for Women to serve in combat roles. I did notice that these two women were Officers in Sapper units ie. Blowing up stuff.

Modern conflicts do not have traditional front lines so it doesn't matter where you are in a combat zone you are in a combat situation.

There were naysayers galore when the Air Force opened the acft mechanic career fields to women, I knew of at least three young women who eventually became A-10 Crew chiefs and one of them maybe was 5', and weighed 100 lbs soaking wet. You GO Girls; oh yeah I'm a male.

um what?

Each person faces combat differently and it doesn't matter if they are a man or a woman. The real test is when it gets down to hand-to-hand combat and you are alone facing one or more opponent intent on your death. What matters then is you being the one to walk away from it.

First of all, I was a combat engineer for 22 years; the Sapper Leadership test is NOT one of the toughest in the military. It is a cake walk compared to Airborne, Ranger, SpeciaL Forces, SEALs, etc. So, the author is exaggerating.

Second, being physically fit for combat means a hell of a lot more than being able to march or run in full gear. It means being able to heft and drag your 240 lb wounded buddy to safety. It means being able lift a bombed out vehicle frame off of a soldier pinned underneath it. It means being able to climb out of deep or high obstacles by yourself, so nobody needs to make themselves a target trying to asisst you up/over. Being 5'2" and 110 lbs doesn't cut it.

By the way, Ed Orr, there 's a hell of a lot of difference in the physical demands between repairing aircaraft and fighting in ground combat!

I don't see a problem with women in combat provided they understand two things.

1) When they are smaller, they may be able to carry the same weight but, it will be harder on them than larger people on the joints than large women and men.

2) There still are men who do not like to see them maimed by battle wounds. Don't be surprised to find out that some try to shield them from some of the dangers.

Women should be able to serve in any role, if they meet the standards. They should also be required to register for the draft, the same as men. We women often want the rights, just not the responsibilities.

I love a women in uniform or out of uniform. Their kind of a head ache on cutters . They even had us go to classes on sexual harassment . I always felt i could do that without the class. ;-)

AG, my pet peeve is the prospect of American "women"/"females" in combat; "petite" or otherwise.

Based upon the outstanding performance of women in every other aspect of American military service they have so far been allowed entry, I think it likely it would only be a matter of time before they would be 'showing-up' men in combat, too! (and I'm not sure our fragile male egos can handle that. HA!)

I suppose I'm a bit biased about women, however. My own mother was a woman. ;-)

Some people here are confused as to what "liberal" and "conservative" traditionally mean. They simply take the term they don't like and apply it to anything else they don't like as if they go together.

For example, a traditionally liberal viewpoint would advocate women being able to do anything they want, while conservatives traditionally expect them to remain in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant.

Try again, Arthur66. Your partisanship is showing.

AG, 'Arthur66' doesn't show his "partisanship" ...rather he shows his hatreds and intolerances (which are many). They are reflected in almost every comment he posts (read his page).

Yes, I've seen his posts before. I was just trying to sound a little more rational than he does.

Thats great, let them come to your Infantry squad. If they can not pick me up in full kit the have no place on the field they are only a liability.

The idea that this Sapper Leader course is one of the toughest in the military is a complete joke. This course is a stroll in the park when compared to going through qualification for Rangers, SEALs, etc. A few women making it through this course does not in any way speak to the ability of women to serve in ground combat roles. I would hate to see more guys dying in combat because some woman was too tired out and did not have the strength to drag the guy to safety wen he was wounded. Also, there are some personal hygiene issues that women have to deal with that men do not. A man in combat can end up having to go for days with seeing running water or getting a change of clothes. I can just see a woman at that time of the month having to do the same. Then we would have these women complaining about their needs not being taken into account when they start getting infections that incapacitate them. This may sound sexist, but it is a very real issue that must be considered. Men are just physically different from women and that makes them better equipped to deal with certain situations and environments than women are. I will not even go into the issue of women being captured by the enemy and what they will do to them, particularly in a Muslim nation. They would have no problem with raping any women they captured, as the have proven time and again. This whole push for women to be allowed in combat roles is all about the career advancement issue and has nothing to do with these women really wanting to be in combat. They are just upset that they can not get certain promotions because they are restricted to combat eligible personnel and because there are fewer senior level billets available in non-combat roles. If these women were not pushing for promotion they would not care about whether or not they were allowed in combat. This is just about promotions and the money/prestige that goes with them, not abut these women actually wanting to be on the front lines.

As a former engineer in the Army, I am proud of their achievement. In my humble opininon, they truly lived up our Corps' motto:

ESSAYONS!!!!! (LET US TRY!!!)

JD in SD: couldn't agree with you more. My husband is military, as I have said many times on this forum and I asked about the SAPPER test and how hard it really it. He agrees it is difficult, however not that difficult. And not even close to Ranger school and servered with 75th Ranger Regiment (2nd Battalion).

On thing that we have discussed countless times is the fact that many of the requirements, for the Army Physical Fitness tests are significantly easier for women. Both need to pass each part of the test by a minimum of 60 points. One example is push ups; 17-21age group. Men need to have at least 42 push ups in 2 min, while women need 19. Anyway, I am all for equality but when certain standardized tests are made easier for women, it leads to not being completely qualified. Now, if men and women can pass the required testing with the same standards, that is even better. And I do not think women should be in combat.

So, from the article two women made it through a military test.

Several comments here say that test is tough but not as tough as the article made it out to be.

@AG99 is taking the traditional douchebag route claiming conservatives want women to stay home in the kitchen.

Well, I have to admit...I've learned nothing here.

Thank you internet...

Lovetherain, physiologically men have more muscle mass than women per pound of body weight. This is just biology. So the issue isn't number-for-number equality, it's parity of strength levels. 42 pushups for an average man is comparable to 19 pushups for an average woman. Note the term average. Many fit women can do more than 19, just as many fit men can do more than 42. But those numbers indicate a high level of fitness, which is what the test goals are looking for.

The point is to have highly fit individuals. That the standard is slightly different for strong men than it is for strong women isn't a real issue.

Have a certain standard that is expected, period (such as 'need to carry a 250lb weight a certain distance' period - not a different weight based on gender) - and whoever passes it, passes it. Gender would then not be an issue, as there is nothing to argue.

For the comment re:time of month .... ummmm .... welcome to the 21st century - lots of options to prevent that from happening period (pun intended ;) Ways that don't pose a risk to the woman or a lawsuit down the road, or the need to always take a pill at the exact same time every day. You may want to educate yourself before you make a ridiculous comment such as that.

Re: the comment "what would happen to a woman if she was captured by the enemy (1) I am sure the women who want to be in combat are well versed on the risks (2) I am sure when men are captured they aren't treated like delicate flowers and um ... women aren't the only people with places to penetrate ... just saying. Torture is torture. Either you have the mental ability to deal with it or you don't, don't they screen for that prior to letting people into combat situations, especially with the elite units such as SEALs???

For the comment(s) re: the test the two women took was "easy". Tell that to all the men who passed as well. In fact, maybe say that when you give everyone the certificate (or whatever they get) "Here is your cruddy dumb validation ... too bad you are still inferior to a SEAL" and insert eyeroll for good measure. REALLY???? The women (and all the men who passed) passed a test I bet the vast majority of North Americans would be unable to complete. Most North Americans probably can't even run around the block without passing out, we are in horrendous shape physically as reflected to the growing rise of obesity and lack of physical activity among adults and kids period. They should all be commended for their wonderful acheivement as well as for their intitiative in training for it, completing it, and wanting to be in a physically active, demanding career!!

Finally - there are other tests that people can take, non-army tests. Such as the Spartan Beast. That is NOT the same as the usual Spartan races that are all the rage, I am taking about the absolute top test in that division. Have you heard of it? I am sure there are people who will say "it is no big deal". but no one should criticize it if you haven't tried it as then your opinion is just that - an opinion, not fact. Look it up online, you can see the challenges in online videos. Like most challenges - it is not just physical strength and endurance, but a huge part is mental strenghth and endurance. Interestly enough, a lot of men quit at some point - men who apparently had passed superior tests and training in the army - yet of all the people who did finish, two were women. Women who do NOT get allowances for being women, but have to do the exact same tasks of skill and strength as the men. The other part that I found interesting was which men dropped out vs. which stayed in ... there is no set visual predictor (outside the totally obvious) for who is in perfect shape and ability and who is not up to the task.

So treat people as people, have one set of standards for people to pass, and don't consider gender unless it becomes an absolute proven liability.

As a combat arms vet, the only time I would have ever wanted to serve with a women is if she was held to the same physical fitness standards and elevated performance standards. Yes, 60% is passing however you were on extra PT if you were under 75%. Fireman carries, drags, full combat load marches, etc.. should have the same performance milestones. These are personal concerns combat arms soldiers have, does not matter if its men or women at the side. Your battle buddy needs to be capable, because its not some equal rights BS as the women's right groups like to beat the drum to. Life's are on the line, there is no room for political BS or agendas.

No jay, the point is not to "The point is to have highly fit individuals." The point is to be able to rely on the person in the foxhole next to you, whatever may come. A 120 lb "fit" women that can only do 40 pushups but not lug a 200 lb wounded man to safety is not what I would call combat efficient. If women were held to the same standard as men, then they would be in the same physical shape as the men. Equal...

It's biology... women, for the most part, are not as physically fit as men. If you want women in combat, have one standard, and make sure it's on the high side. If they can achieve that, then by all means, combat on!

Carl, sorry to prove you wrong but the top Soviet sniper in WWII was Mikhail Surkov with 702 confirmed kills. Number two was Ivan Sidorenko with 542 confirmed kills. The top female Soviet sniper was Ludmila Pavlichenko with 309 confirmed kills and she is not even in the top 20 Soviet snipers, which were all men. That of course in no way diminishes the fact that she was a remarkable woman, soldier, and a tremendous markswoman. If you are going to try to post a historical anecdote, mke sure it is accurate and you do a little research.

As regards to the article, kudos to the two young ladies on completion of their training. The doors to all job fields in the military need to be swung wide open to all eligible candidates, whether they be male or female. this is the 21st century people. Other nations are doing it and doing well. We should be able to do the same.

Whats remarkable about sitting in a nest and shooting someone? Women are not warriors, Jessica Lynch proved that. She led a caravan into a hostile zone, got lost, was attacked, dropped her rifle without it being fired even once, then was taken prisoner, gave medical attention for her wounds, was reported in a hospital and the US military was sent numerous messages by the Iraki's as to her location, even asked if they the Iraki's should deliver her to them, then comes hollywood, The US military tries to WAG THE DOG by attacking a hospital and retrieving Lynch, then comes the BS, military lied lied lied about her ordeal. To her credit Lynch stopped the lies by eventually going public about what happened. Shock and Awe. Yeah, that really fooled the Iraki's. Stop the government from lying to the American public with a Constitutional Amendment with a specific penalty, lets say 5 years to any government official whether elected, appointed or hired that lies to the American public. That'l work.

Jay, actually it about numbers to numbers. I consider myself a physically strong lady, however, there is no way I could cary a 150 lbs guy (and that weight is being light) to safety. And I would feel like at biggest piece of sh** if he died because I couldn't pass a test that is required for men but not women. Just saying.

I did Basic Training at Leonard Wood, it is a snake infested pit. No endurance course there would be a cake walk, give these women the credit they deserve.

@Getmadstaymad

Hate the military much? I'll bet you think Bradley Manning is a hero also! I pity you in your ignorance.

Tell that to all the men who passed as well. In fact, maybe say that when you give everyone the certificate (or whatever they get) "Here is your cruddy dumb validation ... too bad you are still inferior to a SEAL" and insert eyeroll for good measure.

I find it difficult to believe that 26 days with little food and water and minimal sleep is a "cakewalk." I would like to know how long a SEAL or a Ranger can go with as little food and as little sleep? 60 days? 90 days?

I have a feeling they test different types of endurance.

Hate the military much? I'll bet you think Bradley Manning is a hero also! I pity you in your ignorance.

Hate the US much? I'll bet you think Bradley Manning is a traitor.

I don't understand all these people asking "can a 120 lb woman drag a 240 lb man to safety?" MY question is, can a 120 lb MAN drag a 240 lb man to safety? I've been in the military and yes, there were plenty of small guys that weighed no more than I did, and did anyone ever test to see if it could be done? Not in MY basic training (USAF in 1979). Further, I only knew one guy that weighed in the 240 range, most weighed under 200 lbs. So can I, a 52-year-old woman weighing in at (roughly) 140 lbs drag my (roughly) 240 lb husband to safety? Yep, pretty sure I can -- next question???

Bradley Manning IS a traitor!!!

Byron, I love the U.S. much more than you could probably imagine. I served it honorably for 20 years. How about you? And yes, I do think Bradley Manning is a traitor but that is up to a millitary court to decide. Next question?

"can a 120 lb woman drag a 240 lb man to safety?" MY question is, can a 120 lb MAN drag a 240 lb man to safety?

Well that sure wasn't on any test I ever took.

Bassai - its not testable on paper, but it was drilled over and over and over in combat roles and was harped. At least in the artillery and Inf units (combat roles. .

Never said it was a written test.  Show me where you find on this anything about anyone dragging away a person twice their size.

Battle Drill 07-3-D9507 - Evacuate a Casualty (Dismounted and Mounted)

TASK: Evacuate a Casualty (Dismounted and Mounted) (07-3-D9507)

CONDITIONS: The unit is stationary or moving, conducting operations. A Soldier has been injured and must be evacuated. All enemy in the area has been suppressed, neutralized or destroyed and local security is established. Some iterations of this drill should be performed in MOPP4.

STANDARDS: The unit suppresses, neutralizes, or destroys the enemy and/or threat (example: Improvised Explosive Device [IED]) and establishes security. Element members conduct first aid and evacuate the casualty without dropping or causing further injury to the casualty. The unit leader, combat medic, or any Soldier requests MEDEVAC if necessary and reports the contact to higher headquarters....

https://rdl.train.army.mil/catalog/view/100.ATSC/FE6DF956-9F45-4C41-AAE4-40C2E167DCE0-1312233952782/BATTLE_DRILLS.HTM#d9507

Have you passed it?

That figure means little. More importantly are the passing PERCENTAGES of women and men who took the course. Without those figures, your whine means little.

Beth ..... each class has between 5-10% females who can qualify to take the course. Each class 60% fail to complete the course and 40% succeed in gaining 700 out of 1000 total points. That holds true for both female and males regardless of gender. 60% of the 10% qualifying female soldiers in the course fail to complete successfully.

As a woman I agree with Richard (and yes I've passed it or the equivelant anyway) 4.28 women in almost 13 years? I'm sorry not impressed. I would be considered "petite" I'm 5'2 and weigh less than 130 pounds, my husband is 5'11 180 pounds and i physically (no matter how hard I try) cannot lift/drag him (and this is minus our 80+ pound rucks) I personally would not want someone like me to be in the sh*t with my husband.

Female physical requirements are currently different then the requirements for men. For instance females do less push-ups and are not required to perform the push-ups correctly, and the same for sit-ups and the 2 mile run(more time allowed).

There are always exceptions to the rule and it's likely there will always be some women who can compete with men, but does this apply to the general population ? (which is what the military is concerned with)

During basic training for any of the "combat arms" (Infantry, Tanker, Scout(recon), Engineer, Mortar, etc..) positions, there is a process of elimination, and many of those who drop out often still qualify to remain in the military, but not in combat arms, which should not be confused with any support jobs during the second phase of basic training (AIT). During the second phase of basic training, combat arms recruits aren't sent to "dorms" and their routine actually gets tougher (not softer like support jobs) and during this phase even more recruits either get the boot or go crazy, awol, or fail due to a variety of mental and/or physical problems.

Combat arms positions are extremely demanding both physically and mentally, and upper body strength is a huge factor. So where does a job that most men cannot handle fit in with the female populace ? That's a great question as most folks aren't willing to ask for an honest answer to these questions.

and yes I've passed it or the equivelant anyway

Either you completed the Sapper course or you didn't. There is not equivalent. There is no kinda the same either.

So which is it? Did you do the same Sapper course as these women or not? If not, you can draw no comparison to these women.

All your arguments are stupid.

If a male/female can complete a course, any course under the same conditions and standards then all your arguments here hold no value.

Kudos to the 2 women and others that at least will have tried and/or suceeded.

Go for it girls, from a male

First, no one, NO ONE, is advocating for lowering the standards, especially in combat roles. Whether we do that or not is completely WITHIN OUR CONTROL, ergo it is merely an excuse.

We can simply agree NOT to lower the standards, and that would NOT be illegal, seeing as there is a compelling interest in meeting those standards and performing at that level. It is a legal defense that would stand if someone tried to tweak it for females.

Continuing, how many MEN haven't completed the courses? Why do we allow all men to try, knowing some will fail and allow almost NO women to try knowing some WILL pass?

And, I would assume women would want to for the same reasons men do it. Why would their reasonings be any different or difficult for you to understand?

These are women, not girls. Girls are female humans less than 18 years old.

It really bugs me that after 40+ years of trying to educate people on this faily obvious distinction, women are still being referred to as "girls". Why does this happen when men are NEVER referred to as "boys"? Because it's an easy way to diminish women.

MorganMinPin

How can you be so uptight about a trivial thing as girl or women. Got to much spare time on your hands and nothing to do?

Being a man should i get up tight over boy or man? Definitely at the bottom of my list of important things in life.

get a life

1SGFitzsWife4ID

you're full of @!$%#

you have NOT passed the equivilent of this course

Before all of you start with all kinds of arguments, for the US Army ROTC and West Point (US Army) based on Merit normally slots are available for US Army Air Assault School (any Career Field), US Army Airborne School (any Career Field), US Army Sapper School (any Career Field), or US Army Ranger School (Men Only, usually not always Combat Arms Career Field); of course Failure threatens your Future as a US Military Officer.

Usually, to become "Elite" US Army, means going thru the Washout Phases of Training: Basic ---> Advanced --->US Army Air Assault School ---> US Army Airborne School---> US Army Sapper (Combat Support, Combat Service Support) or US Army Ranger School ---> US Army Q Course (aka US Army Special Forces). Those US Military Officers that have proven to be exceptional as US Military Special Warfare may become Joint Special Warfare Officers (required to attend the other Branches Special Warfare Schools, and even the Intelligence Community's School).

It is common for other Branches of Service to send their potential Candidates for their own Special Warfare School to the US Army Schools to determine their merit as US Army Air Assault School--->US Army Airborne School--->US Army Ranger School--->USN BUD/S (aka USN SEAL School), or USAF STT, or USMC MARSOC.

Back in my day when Black Berets were only for US Army Rangers, during US Army Ranger School it was normal to have Soldiers (future US Army Special Forces), Airmen (future STTs), Marines (future Force Recon later MARSOC), Sailors (future USN SEALs), Civilians (future Intelligence Agency) in the same US Army Ranger School Classes.

Note: Just passing US Army Q Course, USN BUD/S, USAF STT, or USMC MARSOC still does not make you "Qualified" or Operational there is still all the other Mandatory Courses after Assessments to the Teams (average age by that time 35).

It has been many years since I went through the combat engineers training at Fort Leonard Wood. I do not know how much has changed, but during my training the females did not complete as many of the physical requirements that the males did. The males would continue training long after the females were allowed to return to their barracks and the females who completed the training graduated the same as the males without having to complete all the same physical requirements. this included having to carry the same amount of supplies or the larger weapons. Although I am grateful to never have to go into a combat situation I am pretty sure the men in the unit would tire faster because of the additional weight they would have to carry without having the option of trading off with the other men due to having a reduction in males to allow females to join the unit.

Richard-3165941

1999 to 2012. 60 passed course. Average = almost 5 per year. Not impressive.

So what's your point, if they can pass it let them in. Are you insinuating that just because only a small percentage of women can do it that no females should be able to join? Even those that have passed the tests and met the standards? If so, That is unadulterated sexism!

So much hair splitting over nuances & details... who cares if they're men, women, or space aliens for that matter? Can they meet the standards and complete the course- that's the bottom line. Stigma's aside, if anyone can step up and fill the role they deserve to be there. If they can't cut it then bye bye.

Michelle, so what would it be if he was impressed? "Wow! A woman passed the course!" Wouldn't that be sexist?

I am sure that a lot more men than women fail the Sapper Leader course.

I believe that for the military (all branches), fire dept., police and similar jobs, they need to determine the mental and physical standards necessary to perform the job and then anyone who could pass the requirements should be allowed to. I realize that there are other male/female issues that present a problem in the field, not the least of which is privacy for certain "functions," that can create an issue but, physical and mental ability aren't one of them.

Again, if the females can pass the same test and standards as the men, for any job, they should be allowed in. I was Navy submariner, no big deal. Some people really want to serve their country, serve in the military, they want to be "all the can be", they should be allow to if they cut it!!

Just watched a segment on NBC evening news regarding these women.. West Point grads and passed this test. The news showed as part of the test, one of the women carrying over a wall and onward, some guy on her back. She clearly was able to do this. If she passed the test, she is as capable as any man doing the same. As to combat roles, the women are already in the same harms way since the warfare today is so different from some battles.

I've worked in male dominated careers most of my life, with females making in roads to all them. Kudos(?). Problem is that in many physical regards the standards have continually been lowered to allow more to "pass" while the rationalizing becomes more and more the norm. Case in point, I worked Crash/Rescue for several years which requires extreme upper body strength to pull a pilot out of a fighter-jet by yourself and get him the rest of the way down from the cockpit, sometimes still by yourself. The women I saw do (attempt) this were great, intelligent people with all the good intentions in the world...but they would have killed a pilot and/or themselves (crew-member) if they ever would have had to do it on their own. I witnessed "shopping" for small pilots on more than one occasion so women would have a better opportunity to pass the test. One of them was a competitive body-builder (who did better than most). In the fire service there are extremes that require explosive fitness (term we used), not just cardio or generic, and there's no substitute on the fire ground. Does it happen often where it's needed? Nope. But when it is and you can't depend on someone to LITERALLY hold up their end, then people can die.

I'm all for equality...but changing the standard to allow more to pass, just lowers the standard...it doesn't make anyone physically equal.

All soldiers must be able pass the Army's Physical Fitness Test (APFT). However, women have to pass the test at different standards than men. Soldiers are required to score a minimum of 60 points on each event (50 points per event in order to graduate Army Basic Training).

Men 17-21 must do 42 pushups to score a 60.

Women 17-21 must do 19 to score a 60.

Men 17-21 must do 53 sit ups to score a 60.

Women 17-21 must do 53 to score a 60.

Men 17-21 must run 2 miles in 15:54 to score a 60.

Women 17-21 must run 2 miles in 18:54 to score a 60.

These are the standards just to pass basic training. The women were already on an uneven footing to get this far. I myself have no problem with them being in combat arms if they can pass the same standards as males. I have seen women that can do it, that are physically stronger than the average male or female. They are far and few though.

Continuing, how many MEN haven't completed the courses? Why do we allow all men to try, knowing some will fail and allow almost NO women to try knowing some WILL pass?

As a change of pace we actually have an answer for once to that question provided by the SAPPER FAQ sheet.

What is the average attrition rate in the sapper leader course?
60% of Sappers pass the course and 40% earn enough points to wear the Sapper tab.

What is the average attrition rate for females compared to males?
The average course contains 5-10% of females to male ratio. The attrition rate affects all genders equally, so, 40% of either gender finish the course with enough points to wear the sapper tab.

Yep, that young LT female I worked with flew C-130s on shuttle runs from New Zealand to the Antarctica. Now, that was pretty stupid to let this Annapolis graduate do stuff like that.....she could have crashed a C-130 on broken ice. Matter of fact, she out performed her "male" counterparts in ALL areas and I would have watched "her six" in any combat role.

Guess that young female LT I know locally shouldn't have been flying those EA-6Bs in Iraq and Afghanistan. Wow, she could have crashed landed on an aircraft carrier after getting fired upon during a mission.

Pretty stupid to even think about putting women in combat roles. //total sarcasm//

You are more that a "little late". Join the service and let me know how you work out, that is, if you finish boot camp.

News flash -- they are already there! Didn't you note this statistic...

More than 130 female service members were killed and 800 wounded

That generally happens IN COMBAT.

Beth, technically they mean in a combat "zone". That number doesn't come from the front lines...yet. I have faith that they will get there soon enough. I just wish we weren't WHERE we are right now for them to prove their mettle.

Hey, if they can pass the same grueling tests that the guys can...I say let em do what they want. They have earned it. Gimme a woman who passed the course to have my back over a guy who failed it. Anyday.

Randoo,

With 1800+ days in the Afghanistan as a Marine, the one thing I failed to find was the "front lines".

Randoo ...

Chances are pretty good if they are dead or wounded ... they were in the "combat zone" -- such as it is! Trouble is, they don't get paid for it, nor are they eligible for certain awards associated with it.

The "front lines" haven't existed since the Korean War.

"front lines" are blurred now Beth, it will happen, but do you really think it's something we should do on purpose? What differentiates us from the "enemy"? We don't send our children/women into that role. Should that be next? Would it be okay to send our "undesirable" children to blow themselves up?

Women in combat is stupid? Tell the Israelis that.

Yes ... I really do think we should do it "on purpose" ... being as how they are already there (I guess you would say "on accident") and are not getting recognized or paid for it.

Would it be okay to send our "undesirable" children to blow themselves up?

Wow -- just wow. What a ridiculous leap from trained women soldiers who volunteer (as do ALL who are serving) to that. Frankly you should be ashamed of yourself to even consider posting such a thing.

" ... women in combat will be the stupidest thing they have ever done.... ... "

Actually it's only the second stupidest. Your comment is the stupidest.

" ... That number doesn't come from the front lines ... "

Please tell me. Just where are the "front lines" in Afghanistan?

" ... Tell the Israelis that. ... "

Better yet tell that to it's enemies. The dead ones.

I have no problem with females in wars if thats what they want. I do have a problem with the media making a big deal about it. If females want to be equal why do they promote their accomplishments seems like they would should just blend in instead of needing to say see some of us can do what males do. As long as they keep it in the news they are confirming the stereotype of female vs male

" ... you should be ashamed of yourself ... "

That is the real problem. People like this one, have none. And yet claim to be the only ones that do have it. The same with morals and ethics. The have none.

" ... If females want to be equal ... "

Why AREN'T they equal? Why should they have to "want" to be? Or to "prove" that they are.

These two people were not trying to prove that they are "equal". They were just proving that they could do the job. Just like everyone else who takes this course does. Male or female.

And people like you are allowed to breed? Why.

2little2late-7381371 - women in combat will be the stupidest thing they have ever done....

From Firsthand Experience, ever since the US Military Training Teams to US Ally Iraq during the Iran Iraq Wars, US Military Women HAVE been in Combat; but, never recognized, just like we were never recognized to have been in Combat during the "Peacetime US Military", including rotated to Operation Cyclone. As after Training the Iraqis Military, the US Military Trainers usually ended up Leading entire Companies, Battalions, etc. into Combat. It was normal, not the exception for these US Military Women leading entire Iraqis Women's Companies into Combat (Direct Combat, Combat Support, Combat Service Support).

As far as "Front Lines", it was trained long before the Defeat of the USSR at Command and General Staff College, and War College that Conventional Warfare was a thing of the past and the Future Wars would be Asymmetric Warfare (High Intensity, Longterm, Special Warfare) as Insurgency, Counter Insurgency, Counter Terrorist, Special Reconnaissance, Special Surveillance, Humanitarian Assistance, etc. with no such thing as "Front Lines", and Extremely Experienced Teams (wth College Level Culture and Language(s)) being key in accomplishing the Strategic Missions.

As far as Women In Combat, if that is what they want, go for that. Personally, most of us have done more than our fair share (including our Women).

Also if they plan on putting Women into Combat, then Only in the US Military Asymmetric Warfare Forces (average age above 30); NOT, the US Military Conventional Warfare Forces (immature kids both male and female with raging hormones).

george I was refering to equal in the military which I thought this article was about. So if they don't have to prove equality why is it in the news. We breed to keep people such as youself in the lower majority ya duck waddler

Women in combat is stupid? Well before I pass comment on that the Russians had women chasing and shooting the Germans all the way to Berlin. The Chinese hand women chasing the Japonese out of the country. We lost and have wounded 930 women. Where are all these Macho Men that don't want women doing a job they can't or won't do? I guess they have more important things to do like bitch about Obama and worry about their pot law being passed.

" ... Tell the Israelis that. ... "

Israelis don't use women in combat roles, either. In fact, they found it to be very problematic.

nzpete

Tell that to the Israeli women Merkava tank crews in the IDF. I think they would disagree with you!

I think the point is not to prohibit women from serving in combat, which is discriminatory. ACLU has to do with civil liberties--if a woman wants to serve in combat, then why should she be prevented because someone (like you) thinks it's "wrong"? As for rape, guess what? Men can be raped, too, so gender doesn't prevent that...

As a woman veteran who served in the US Army in the 80s I resent your comment. Are you a soldier? I doubt it. 99% of men I served with supported me and my duty. Do I love my country less than a man? Pfftt...

I don't care if you resent it, that is your right. Ya, everyone on these blogs can be anything they want- I have seen more war heroes and PHDs than Carter has liver has pills. What did you do in the army? tens of thousands served,, a small % in combat. Your service is appreciated none the less. Whether or not I served is not relevant (I did) Use your brain here OK , who questioned if women loved their country less than men ? where did I say that, simpleton- there are many ,many support roles women can serve in to help in a war effort, my ONLY point is why the very front line? My son is currently a Marine serving in Afghanistan on the front line, and I can tell you to a man , they DO not want women beside them fighting.

Celtic - you really just need to shut up. I am also a female veteran, and my daughter plans on joining the Marines when she gets out of college. She will be an asset to whatever path she chooses, maybe by that time even a combat role. When I served as Security Police (AF), after receiving the top gun award for best shooter out of 3 different weapons, and going thru our training, I had many men in my flight - yes, I was in charge of them - they told me they'd cover my ass in any situation, combat or no. I have found that to be more common than you're thoughts on the matter. My women were just as capable as the men I served with, and I am proud to say I was one of them.

As long as a person can do their job, and do it well - being either male or female - what does it matter? If you can't hold your own you shouldn't be there regardless, and I've been around plenty of men who fit that description. Supposed hunters who couldn't hit a target and barely passed their courses. They were the ones who belonged behind the counters in buildings shuffling paperwork, not the women I served with who did 10 times better than them.

There should be no distinguishing between male and female for any role in the military - just whether or not you can do your job. Unfortunately that's not the case now, but one day I have no doubt it will change. I have met many a woman who most certainly could kick your ass in any military situation, believe it or not, I don't care. My daughter will be one of them, beating at least half of the men she'll be assigned with because she wants to prove it not only to herself, but to others as well. She's just like me in that respect and I know she'll do it, and do it with honors befitting a Marine.

Why is the ACLU so hell-bent on putting women into combat? in my opinion there is something wrong with a society who would willing put women into direct combat, a lack of chivalry, nobility or honor to me.

Why are you so hell bent on prohibiting women from combat? Who made you the ruler of chivalry? If there are women who want to serve on the front line and have the physical ability to do so, then they should be allowed to serve on the front line. I could use chivalry as an excuse for almost anything discriminatory against women.

Ex: "Women shouldn't be allowed to vote because they shouldn't have to worry about politics. Let the men handle the fighting and vitriol at capital hill."

By the way, I am not confident that I can past the training course (not a good swimmer or endurance runner), so I would say the women that passed are more capable (or willing) than me. I am a male.

Celtic lost all credibility when resorting to name calling.

Vet68 -- kudos to you and good luck to your daughter! (I'd sure like to see a few more women in those Marine commercials though!)

Countries who currently allow women to serve in combat include Israel, France, Germany, New Zealand, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Serbia, Sweden and Switzerland

only a matter of time until US does so also

Chivalry, nobility, and honor is allowing women to choose for themselves what they want to do. To trust them as rational adults to make their own decisions, just like men.

The ACLU is NOT advocating women serve in combat, they are filing suit because women ARE ALREADY there but aren't getting credit for it. This lack of credit puts women at a disadvantage for promotions and other advancement opportunities in the military even though they have served, some wounded, some KIA, and all scarred by their time in a combat zone. Women have fought and died in combat since the beginning of time. We should recognize their contributions.

As for rape, guess what? Men can be raped, too, so gender doesn't prevent that...

Hey Jay, that was a pretty stupid statement. You don't realize that though, and that's what makes it sad.

So you are saying that you are so brainwashed by the liberal agenda that you truly believe that we are all so much 'the same' that women captured in war are only raped just as much as any man would normally be raped. I assure you that isn't the case.

I remember speaking with a good elderly friend of mine that would tell me of his experiences in one of the wars he fought in. One time, the Japanese captured a medical unit... guess what they did to the nurses... go on, take a guess...

They tied them to the ground completely naked, legs wide open, and let every male in the unit have their way with them, any time of the day. None of the captured men went through that, and I assure you that the massive rape that took place with the women was not equaled by any men throughout that entire war. In no cases was it ever reported that they took all the men from an entire unit and tied them to the ground naked so that all the other men could continuously have their way with them in that manner.

The women survived, sorta. They came back with every disease and completely pregnant by the time they were returned.

Two Points I was wrong to use the word simpleton- my apologies. the other is WOW you cannot express your opinion without attack? these were my views so Ishould just as Disabled vet says "shut up" "kick my ass- nice Where is the rebuke for that- ? Oh I see you have a different view's the gang of 5 suggests I - shut up , very open minded . , Germany France Sweden Switzerland really! - OMG that is a weak case Sir.

Celtic I agree with you, like I said above, what differentiates "us" from "them" is the fact we don't stoop to their level, what's next? Do we send our children in with bombs strapped to them?

j70141, this isn't WWII. Rape is wrong no matter what the circumstances--but it does happen to both sexes. I don't see why you felt the need to post that horrible story. Frankly, it makes even more sense to train women for combat, given that story--and assuming it's true.

You have chivalry mixed up with chauvinism; woman warriors are very chivalrous in defending a
country. They look out for their other soldiers and protect the defenseless, and can be ruthless in subduing the enemy. It takes guts to be that kind of warrior, some woman have it, some men don’t.

Chauvinism is where you send people without those warrior guts into battle and protect the ones who can champion the day. Allowing woman to fight is such a chauvinistic idea that makes it sound like you are giving permission for woman to have guts. I applaud these woman warriors.

j70141, perhaps rape wasn't the right term. Let us use the word "Torture". When you are captured by the enemy, especially by terrorists, how you are tortured doesn't seem to matter as much. Not denying that female soldiers don't have that risk. But that's a risk they understand when they sign on the dotted line. They have the risk of getting raped, we have the risk of getting our balls electro-shocked while swinging on a meat hook. My point is, to bar them from service because they MIGHT get captured and raped is idiotic. Under that line of logic, all soldiers would have to be pulled out because they all run the risk of torture.

" ... and I can tell you to a man , they DO not want women beside them fighting. ... "

The fecal excrement of the male bovine.

And if I were your son, right now I would not admit to it.

When he gets back from the Helmand Province fighting for you George I will pass on your message -

" ... these were my views so Ishould just as Disabled vet ... "

Wow. That's even a better trick. You have had your arse handed to you for your comments. So you play the "victim card".

"Oh poor me! How dare you attack me. I'm a disabled veteran. Oh poor me."

Typical.

Let me ask you this. Just how low are you willing to go to defend your ignorance, arrogance and stupidity?

No one handed me anything, if you read the rest of the blogs there are many who are making stronger, more pointed, and less political correct attacks than I did. My point is I have an opinion and expressed it, noting more nothing less. I was criticized for "name calling", fair enough i was pointing out the hypocritical nature of liberals , other than Georgie boy - piss off

Celtic 1 - My son is currently a Marine serving in Afghanistan on the front line

There is NO such thing as Front Line in an Asymmetric War. All of you have got to stop thinking of Conventional Warfare (Wars with Rules established by Civilian Committees or Conventions, like the 1908 Hague Convention and the 1949 Geneva Convention) as the Norm.

Having been involved with (survived) Asymmetric Warfare Afghanistan since Operation Cyclone. USSR 40th Army or US Military Forces on Fixed In Place Bases are just Fish in a Barrel (Old US Military Doctrine, Locate Enemy, Fix Enemy in Place, Destroy Enemy with Overwhelming Firepower); by being on a Static Base you have let the Enemy Locate you and Fix You In Place, like the attack that happened at USMC Camp Leatherneck (Afghanistan), many of the US Army and USMC FOBs and COBs.

Celtic 1 - Germany France Sweden Switzerland really! - OMG that is a weak case Sir.

As part of the UN, NATO, US Mission Afghanistan, Germany and France are here too. The Deutsche Bundeswehr Commandos were to my south, and were replaced by the French Commandos Parachutistes (Special Forces), to the far Northwest are the Spanish NATO Military Forces. They like us are getting killed also (just having a certain school's qualification does not make you superman or superwoman. At least Sappers have some Basic Mountaineering, we would have to teach them the rest (Advanced Technical Mountain Warfare) as well as Winter/Arctic Warfare).

Celtic - your comment "Carter has liver pills" denotes you're about my age or older. I was a Marine combat engineer Lt. late 60's, early 70's, and I too had similar beliefs back then. I considered it respect, not lack of respect, for women that gave me those attitudes. I stand corrected. In my civilian career (research) I was often around all branches of the military, plus saw my two daughters serve well in tough situations (because they wanted to). The chicks have totally won me over. Yeah, even at my age I could whip most of them in a fair fight, but when the hell have you ever seen a woman fight fair? I'm proud of these two fine Lt's, and looking forward to more. We can't afford not to use our best Americans, and half of them are women.

Seriously, I understand your mindset, but its a little outmoded. BTW, thanks for your service.

David I am not a military tactician so my terms may be dated. I salute your service, thank you. As for my son, all I know is if someone is trying to kill him and he is trying to kill them - its front line to me.

David? He'll give you two threes for a six.

cheetah-822547 - David? He'll give you two threes for a six.

Go cyberstalk someone else since you have nothing to add to the ADULT Conversation; since you have NO Firsthand Experience.

Ya, everyone on these blogs can be anything they want- I have seen more war heroes and PHDs than Carter has liver has pills.

I had to laugh at this. It is so true!! Like after 9/11 go to any bar and you would see a few guys wearing "fire fighter" shirts as if they were one, just to pick up women. Hilarious.

I am perplexed...I haven't seen any comments that I would say are derogatory towards women. Quite the contrary, just the opposite. Both sides are concerned about women. One side about their right to die in battle, the other side about their welfare. One side is being vilified...fascinating:) Once again, a woman's right to choose(?) Once again, she's thinking about herself, and her self-actualization...not about those who are depending on her(?) Is it really about serving your country...or is it envy, jealousy etc....

(I'll start a timer to see how quickly I'm collapsed :)

Celtic you should read a little about the meaning and history of chivalry. Honor and nobility are not related to chivalry, you'd know this if you knew what the word really meant. You're not alone, however, and most people don't know what the meaning of chauvinism is either. We are either going to have "equality" or we aren't, women should not only be allowed to serve, they should be encouraged. Maybe we should be trying to get out of all of these wars and keep both our young women and young men out of harms way.

Please do not tell me to read more, I am sure I read every bit as much as you. I know what Chivalry is Sir. It is a code of conduct to protect others - children, widows, elders, it means to be loyal, generous , to always tell the truth and to have respect and HONOR women. Wow, what an old tired set of valves Liberals rip me apart for my beliefs. I do agree about keeping our young out of harms way-- my son is in harms way now!

@Carl Lafoon

The top Soviet sniper was not a woman. Miss Pavlichenko did an outstanding job, but the top sniper was Mikhail Surkov with more than twice as many kills. Miss Pavlichenko was number 35 I believe. Before anyone says "well men did better", 34 men did better. Many thousands of them did worse.

If they can pass the training give 'em the job.

Capt,

Well I voted to collapse you. Sorry, but there's no value in what you said. Of all the posts here, I have to say that was the most degrading and chauvanistic. How about you go live your life and make the choices that are appropriate for it, and women, as ADULTS, get to make the choices that are right for them. In short, it's none of your business what we choose to do ABOUT ANYTHING in our lives.

Believe it or not, we can weigh the consequences of those choices without a , "big, strong, man" to tell us what to do.

Barf.

everyone chill the ladies passed the sapper course let them perform combat support or what ever they are qualified to do...as long as the standards aren't lowered and no lives are put in any extra danger because of female combat troops...whats the problem?...its not like over night women are going to become more masculine and males more feminine or is that what some are afraid of?...lol I amuse myself sometimes...there are physically inept men and women in the military and guess what the enemy cares not!

That's the point .... allow women in but don't lower the standards. The standards at THIS school were not lowered.

Ken - exactly the point! All we want is the chance, to pass or fail is up to us and how bad we want it. If we do well and follow exactly what the men have to go thru, then give us the job we were trained for. We're not asking to be let off easy or with any other standards that apply to those courses you mentioned. More mentalities like yours are needed in the upper ranks.

Besides, if a woman fails one of those courses, why don't they mention how many men had failed as well? Not everyone will pass, male or female, but if and when they do pass, let them do their job they were trained for - both male and female. If the men can't handle it then they have the option of leaving. I guarantee you most of them won't after seeing what their female comrades can accomplish just as well as them.

Beth ... the standards had to be lowered just to let the females qualify to even be in the military. Thats the point. And yes even with the lowered standards some females were able to do better than some males who would have failed under the old standards .... that was the purpose of basic training .... ensure the new recruit to meet the barest of levels necessary and weed out those who could not.

Let me start off by saying that I'm currently in the military, so anyone who wants to bash my statements as chauvinistic or misgogynist can shove it! That being said, before people start the whole, women vs men, anything-you-can-do-females-can-do-better, female deification crap, plaguing the country, it would pay to remember that A :) they're both officers, B:) they're west point graduates. It's gender-biased to think that either of those two criterions are indicative of women as a whole in combat.

All officers, male or female, are generally in the best conditioning of their life, and expected to maintain elite physical standards -- I suppose the same is true for West point. Can the same be said, for lower enlisted, out-of-shape, females who never get off the couch? No! That's not even taking into account the numerous teases, tarts, lesbians, "Wah wah, I don't have a pee-pee" complexes, and females who work the system to their advantage, giving male-female interaction a bad name period.

A more accurate portrait would be that two female, west point grads, made it through sapper school. It's been my experience, that anytime men and woman function together militarily, females are generally a distraction. Plus, by military regs, females can't be out in a field environment for more than a few weeks cause of, you know, lady problems. Do I think men and women should be in close quarters during combat ops? Heck to the No!

Hate to tell you this Beth, but the standards for women are lower. In the Army, all soldiers must take a PT as part of the requirements to attend a training course. There is a huge difference in standards for women as opposed to men on the standard PT test scoring sheet. In addition, there is an Army regulation (FM 21-10) Field Sanitation and Hygiene. In it there is a section which includes, "soldiers should have access to a shower or bath every day, or at least once every week for good personal hygiene. Given mission constraints, if showers or baths are not available, washing daily with a wash cloth is advised."

It is highly recommended that female Soldiers that are menstruating during field exercises or deployments have daily access to bathing facilities. This does not mean that there must be a fixed facility with hot and cold running water. A private place with sufficient drainage should be adequate for a “bird bath.” "Female Soldiers who are not menstruating should be treated like male Soldiers with regard to accessing fixed shower facilities. Shower runs should be coordinated without gender preference influencing the frequency of the showers." The statement above involves normal field training conditions. There is a huge difference between normal field conditions and "combat". In combat there are NO showers nor are there any opportunities to go and get clean in a private place with gender preference. Additionally, in a combat zone water is reserved for drinking and eating, not for cleaning. I also doubt that there is a female willing to take a crap or a piss in front of her male colleagues, which is something that male soldiers do and consider as part of the job. Who will be responsible for providing the special security for these females as they try to "clean up"? Female soldiers have been a liability to their male counterparts since they joined. Look at the female POW's during the first gulf war. One of them was a Major (Rhonda Cornum) who was in a helicopter when it was shot down and the other was a truck driver (Melissa Coleman) that didn't know what she was doing and ended up getting herself and her TC captured. Both of them were assaulted during their captivity. Does Jessica Lynch ring a bell? She hid under her truck with a dirty weapon because she never cleaned it and didn't try to fight back, while her unit was involved in a firefight. I have been in the Army for over 25 years and I have seen women that impressed me for their ability and I have seen women that are a total disgrace to the uniform. I also believe that the weight of an average rucksack loaded with the units basic combat load of ammunition, equipment, food and water is too much. That is just the basic load, there are always additional items that push the weight of their rucksack well over 100 pounds. We are not even talking about their body armor and the items that they wear on a daily basis.

Twis, when I took the Army intelligence test, the men were allowed to have a much lower score to qualify for enlistment. Interesting...the women beat the men in smarts. So, I guess the PT training standard is lower for women but the women are smarter! Ha....

You have no clue what you are talking about little girl. The test is standard for men as well as women, because each MOS has specific requirements as far as the GT score is concerned. You didn't take a test, because if you knew anything about the military you would not have posted such an ignorant response.

Dieter...Why did you even choose to post? You have never been in the military! All you are is pathetic little girl getting involved in discussion that you have no intelligent reason to get involved with. "Ha" Wow, such a profound remark.

Feminist tripe! Those women weren't directly sent into combat. Most likely, they were pulled occonus.

Women are NOT on the front line. What is your definition of "front line"? The definition you pulled from the article? You are living in a fantasy world were you think that women will just "get a gun and training" and be able to fight like a man is like your Call of Duty game. It should never happen as they will become an instant liability to any male that they are near. Besides, there is SO MUCH more to it than just "give them a gun and training". And as you stated "it is more noble and honorable to give our servicewomen the ability to protect themselves instead of needing to be protected by men" does Jessica Lynch ring a bell? She was the little girl that hid under her truck with a dirty weapon who couldn't fight back while her unit was being killed in Iraq, oh by the way, that wasn't on the "front line" either.

Well Lou -- guess what? You are WRONG!

Not only about women in combat ... HELLO, already there and dying .. but about women in the NFL as well. You need to keep up with the times!

NFL Commission Roger Goodell .. Dec. 2011

Times are changing,” said Goodell, “the military is about to allow women into combat. If women are going to be fighting on the battlefield, how can we stop them from participating in football. It’s not fair The NFL is open to all players now – regardless of gender.” http://weeklyworldnews.com/sports/28709/nfl-to-allow-women-to-play/

They already have women in NCAA football, and the first, a kicker, in DI.

They don't belong there...What don't you understand? Just because you can get blown up and shot like a man doesn't make you one. The fact of the matter is that women are NOT in combat. There is a big difference between driving around in your big bad MRAP pulling route security and being a combat Infantryman jumping over walls and getting face to face with some Taliban.

The more important fact that you miss is that the female reproductive system precludes females from extended ground combat due to hygiene issues. How are you going to tell me that women need to be on the frontline of a full spectrum conflict when they cant even go a day without a shower?

Beth, you missed my point.

Sounds like you think women belong in the kitchen making your food.

No Lou, I got your archaic point. I simply refuted it with a few facts.

1. Women can play in the NFL

2. Women are already dying in combat.

Hey Beth, kudos to any person that is willing to serve our country and/or aspire to do great things. I stand by my original opinion (women in combat are the exception and not the rule) but don't have the heart to discredit anyone’s extraordinary accomplishments and sacrifice based on gender alone.

Lou, that's not what you said in your OP

Military that don't make sense and females in combat is one of them

But all good.

@Beth,

Being
in the military, I fully support his statement. I think your own gender bias is blinding you to some hard, cold reality. 1,) While women do randomly play in football, currently, I know of no women who occupy positions in the National Football league. 2) Even if females do take positions on football teams those isolated incidents are more of an exception, not the rule. 3) Females are anatomically built differently than males. I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say it's probably not a good idea to have females in a full contact sport, with a man that's five or six times her size, coming at full speed. Some of the defensive linebackers are over 300 pounds

Case in point lay off whatever it is you're puffin on. Yes, women are dying in combat, because death and combat are realities of deployment, and being a soldier. I'm almost willing to bet none of them were directly sent into combat. More than likely they were pulled on a F.O.B somewhere, so while you may have Lou on semantics, he clearly has you on logic. Just because a woman is physically capable of dawning solider garb doesn't mean she's combat ready, a good marksman, or even psychologically fit for the battlefield.

The draft is fundamentally unacceptable ... no government, especially our Constitutional democracy, should ever have the authority to force any citizen to put themselves in harms way.

Bob, I agree. I am from the generation (born in '42) that was subject to draft, I enlisted in the Air Force. As I mentioned earlier I remember when Air Force opened the Acft mechanic career fields to women. I also, Beth, remember when as it was called back then Air Police first opened to women. I saw young trainees in the acft maintenance field out-perform their male counterparts and there was no difference in what one had to do.

If I'm not mistaking Israel requires its females to register, and serve.

Absolutely. Women should now be required to register just as men. I find it insulting that we are not. Then, if for some reason the draft is reinstated, everyone serves.

so beth did you enlist as you found it so "insulting" and all?........

Yes Scooter, I did. And served honorably for many years. How about you?

In many countries (e.g., Israel) military service is required for both sexes.

LOL where is Scooter...?

Beth, we shouldn't even have a draft in the first place. If it was a fight worth fighting, and the military provided decent health care and legal rights, people would fight.

I want decent physical and mental health care if something happens to me. That isn't going to happen in the military. I have heard and seen too many stories of that happening to willingly join combat.

I do not want to be raped by my fellow soldiers, who would then be allowed to walk free. I would not be a good little soldier. I would be a homicidal b**** with access to a gun.

good job beth ......VFFV.....

green

i dont live on here. got off a little after 11 yesterday. pretty rare if im on till noon.

You sir have absolutely NO clue about what you are talking about. Sapper school is hardly designed to be "passed" it has a 40 to 60% fail out and its limited to men and woman who are pulling a nearly perfect PT score. When I was active you couldn't even apply to take the entrance physical if you had under a 298 (out of 300) PT score.

mobetta99 is pretty much right on target. The military has become so watered down with politcal correctness that it's almost impossible to flunk out a soldier who cannot make the grade. There was a time when if you were over-weight, you had 6 months to lose it or you were booted out; if you couldn't pass your physical fitness test you were an academic failure and recycled, if you couldn't qualify with your individual weapons - same thing. The feminization of the miitary, in addition to watering down the standards of soldiering that existed before 1985, has tragically conviced women AND many men that women are the equals of men in combat - pure BS. If you fight BS wars that avoid high-intestity close combat, do not get into wars unless you are SURE you can control the battlefield, and make sure that you put losing the mission over the health of the soldier or too many body bags, then ANYONE can make the grade. Want to settle this once and for all? It's simple, put together a rifle company entirely of women and send them on SAME ground infantry style combat duty for a year in Afganistan that the grunts pull NOT combat support troops. I'd be surprised if any of them live through it, but there are women who are actually so moronic that they actually believe the crap they've been fed and would volunteer for the duty. Maybe we can give Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer commissions to lead them into the breach. "The truth will set us free, but first many of us will be puking non-stop".

Smartest post this week....kudos to you sir...i salute you.

VFFV

Let's get to the basics here. THERE IS NO GLORY IN WAR. WARS ARE STUPID

All this crap that dying for king and country is a glorious thing is the biggest b*ll sh*t propaganda that there is.

War is what some one enlightened has said many years ago , War is where young people die for old man grievances.

Still kudos to the girls for having tried and succeeded.

Is their main goal to rip across Muslims?

Someone should air out their grievances with brown people...

You don't turn it's off not some damn switch!!!

You do not turn it off. They do or they don't. One has to learn that what happens in combat is not the norm. Not even close to the norm. you can let it eat you alive or you can learn to use it constructively.

If you let what happens in combat define you then you are going to have major problems.

Like I said it is not some switch in which you turn off and on at will!! You are clearly speaking for you and your kind!!! The Pogue Battalion ie REMF Brigade; FOBBITS!!

Obviously never served...You cant use your big awesome brain unless you get up that 4000 meter mountain that the enemy is hiding on top of! The "stupidy" that you speak of is the only way to weed out the weak. Unless you PHYSICALLY push someone past their comfort zone you will never see what they are made of.

Get real. You seem to know a whole bunch about what it takes to turn men and women into top notch warriors.

Nice try,however your post doesn't hold crap,let alone water.Get a life and a real dose of Reality!

Turning men and women into Warriors? It's called using Common Sense and the right strategy,when it come to fighting a battle.

You shouldn't have to push anybody passed their comfort zone to see what they're made of.If they are dedicated to the military and have the determination,they already know they're are no comfort zones when you're in a fight!Because guess what? They don't exist!

Now Run Along, and go sit on Santa's lap!

Basic training of yesteryear: Designed to ensure a new soldier had a rudimentary understanding of military and use of weapons. Ensure they could meet the most bare of physical level needed.

Basic training of today: Same function of education but now no longer has the mental and physical preparations needed. Meets the P.C. arbitrary goal set for political reasons in order to pass females and less capable males.

Yes a competent soldier needs "Rambo" skills sets, that is the nature of the job. Combat Engineer is a very physical and demanding part of the military that I would want to know without a shadow of a doubt any fellow member of my unit could be relied with my life just as they rely on me and under any conditions. I am sure there is nothing preventing a female from performing to the highest standards as headquarters clerk or medical or even supply unit ... I do not have the same confidence for a female in the dirt regardless of her "brains or skill", not even as a leader that is not going to be the one lifting bridge sections or scaling a cliff carrying demolition and ordinance.

Be as logical and P.C. as you want, but it still is not going to change the reality .....

lol. Thank you for proving my point. You have no frame of reference. I guess thats why you just sign up for elite military units...Come on buddy. Its common sense. This isnt some abstract thought. EVERYONE has a breaking point. The point of all military traditions is to weed out the weak. If you have a problem with how history has proven we should train our warriors, then i guess you should speak with all the dead victorious generals. Dont tell me how to train my warriors and i wont tell you how to train your fry cooks.

Mobetta ... you have no point. My frame of referrence is 5 years U.S. Army, 4 of them in a Combat Engineer Unit. You miss the point that the traditions and standards themselves have been weakened resulting in a weaker force disregarding the historical evidence of that policy. You want a military that meets the standards of say ... holland maybe (very P.C.) ... great. But that is not going to be one I have any faith in.

somewhere Its not during battle the rape would occur its if you get captured so why do you think rape would occur in battle?

Wrong. There is a LOT more to it than brains and skill. They are necessary but without physical strength brains and skill will only take you so far.

No,I do not think Rape would occur in battle.Not when two people are fighting side by side!

Yes you're correct they can rape someone when they're captured.That goes for both male and female.

twis there's another side to that story.The lighter you are the faster you can move,and travel.That depends on which situation you're in.

So you contend that women can consistently outrun men based on their reduced weight? I know this will get collapsed but it seems to be a logical conclusion that if women were truly faster than men there would be far less rape prevalence in this country, I mean the way you make it sound it shouldn't be a problem for those swift footed women to just slip past their attackers and hoof it down the street to safety. Another contention I have with your dim viewpoint, Somewhere, rape is almost never about sex, it is a crime of anger and control, it is the ultimate form of assault not about sexual satisfaction unless it is paraphilia related and in those cases the control and pain exerted onto the victim is the source of arousal. You keep talking about how it takes brains, for your own safety, stay home, you severely lack the basic complement of intelligence.

..............Ft, Leonard Wood. POG! Let the real trigger pullers make the decisions on who watches their back. If you want a female holding your space in line at the MWR than so be it!!!

Don't watch the Olympics much, do you? Give that BS to some of those women throwers, runners and swimmers you see there ... and to the many who are ALMOST as good as the Olympians, who don't quite make it. Plenty good enough to pass a PT test!

In a training swim, Turnnidge had to drag her exhausted male partner back across the lake. Moton vigorously trained to get in shape before she ever got to the course and believes she and Turnnidge actually motivated the men. "They'd think, 'Wait, I don't wanna get beat by a girl.' Well, then run faster," she said. "I'm not going to stop."'

Apparently some of the men couldn't pass the lower standards.

Gee - I wonder if Israeli women are aware that they can't compete with men........ If you don't or can't go in mentally and physically ready to start with you sure as hell won't make it in a mere 28 day Sapper training course.

When will the ACLU go after the Olympics? I guess male Olympians should compete head to head with the female Olympians. How many would win any medals if this were the case?

Air Force IS NOT INFANTRY....

This course is a joke now, it wasn't always open to women. That is just a new thing the Army is doing. It used to be an extremely tough course... Back in the day, but the Army is just a joke now.

RobertUSMC, you're an idiot

Sapper school is one of the toughest in the military, they are part of the elite

www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIb2x-QebLA

Sorry Phuc, but sappers are not elite. People laugh at the sapper tab now. As sapper Sam said, it used to be a decent program, now it's nothing and it's certainly not ELITE. Their 4 weeks is an infantry mans every day. They're POG's. Its like attending a C school. It's a joke.

Exactly Mark ... although I've advocated taking that a little further ... add a basic mental (as in smarts) and psychological standard as well.

That would be a smart move Beth, weed out the ones who will suffer psychological combat related trauma, of course that would probably reduce the amount of women able to serve since most trauma related disorders are suffered by women at a rate nearly 10 times that of men all while men in general are far more likely to endure traumatic experience. I'm curious though, how smart does one have to be in order to die in vain?

Beth there is already basic mental (as in smarts) in place it is called the ASVAB which other than doctors, chaplains and JAG have to pass in order to serve which is gender neutral. As far as psychological standards well that is broke within the military for both male and female. At one point when the military needed meat for the grinder they allowed those with mental health history to serve to include those that had been kicked out for PTSD to rejoin. Now not so much but still happens sometimes.

Beware where is your stats for that about women at a rate 10 times that of men. How much of that is that women have a higher number that would actually report mental health issues. Look at what the military has done to try an educate that mental health needs to be raised that men hide it much more not to show weakness. That the rate for suicide is higher for men than women in the military especially in the young ages.

From what I have read in this issue when it comes to women in "combat" is not so much of them serving in the infantry (sure there is that push) but in this lawsuit and others is to allow them to serve in positions that are already open to women in the Army but blocked to Battalions that are combat units i.e. Armor BN, Infantry BN etc. They are already serving there as "attachments" but do not get the same awards and recognition as those males serving in the same postion because of the way they are attached.

I have heard all the arguments since I have been serving of why women should not be in combat, should not be in the military in general and this is all I have to say. I do not care if they are male or female can they do the job.

Anthony Gumbrell, there is a difference between being assaulted and raped while walking to your car and going into combat knowing the dangers.

Jay, you are right...the difference is, when a woman fails to protect herself and is raped and assaulted on the way to her car, society has put in place recourse for her to seek HELP by police and counselors, etc. On the battlefield, there's noone to help if you fail to protect yourself.