posted January 24, 2013 07:18 AM            

What's not clear to me at this point is, will women be able to decline being put on the battlefield?

Will Women Have to Register for the Draft?

Strange that CNN is also reporting today that women in the military have a high rate of unplanned pregnancies...a whopping 11% of military women have had one. Part of the problem is, they aren't taking contraceptives, because they aren't expecting to get raped...but 20-40% of them do get raped, and that figure could be higher, but many women won't report getting raped. From what I've read, there isn't much incentive to do so.

(Incidentally, a pregnant soldier has to be sent home immediately which costs the military...US taxpayers...up to $10,000. Abortion is not available through military medical services, and is considered unsafe in places like Afghanistan.)
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/23/health/unplanned-pregnancies-military/index.html?hpt=h p_bn12

If women can keep up with men, meeting the physical requirements to get on the battlefield, and the women are really intent on doing that, I see no reason to ban them.

However, my concern is that women will eventually be abused in this scheme- forced into combat against their will. The high number of rapes is one indication that the military isn't doing enough to protect women...is it just getting worse now?

Your opinion?

posted January 24, 2013 07:31 AM            

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted January 24, 2013 07:37 AM            

Theoretically I am in favor of women having the opportunity to do what they want, and be eligible for whatever careers are available.

But the military seems so inherently biased against women, I wonder why anyone would go to work for them?

quote:

---

The problem is even worse than that. The Pentagon estimates that 80% to 90% of sexual assaults go unreported, and it's no wonder. Anonymity is all but impossible; a Government Accountability Office report concluded that most victims stay silent because of "the belief that nothing would be done; fear of ostracism, harassment, or ridicule; and concern that peers would gossip." More than half feared they would be labeled troublemakers. A civilian who is raped can get confidential, or "privileged," advice from her doctors, lawyers, victim advocates; the only privilege in the military applies to chaplains. A civilian who knows her assailant has a much better chance of avoiding him than does a soldier at a remote base, where filing charges can be a career killer — not for the assailant but the victim. Women worry that they will be removed from their units for their own "protection" and talk about not wanting to undermine their missions or the cohesion of their units. And then some just do the math: only 8% of cases that are investigated end in prosecution, compared with 40% for civilians arrested for sex crimes. Astonishingly, about 80% of those convicted are honorably discharged nonetheless.

---

CONVICTED rapists are honorably discharged??

posted January 24, 2013 07:59 AM            

Women should not only be allowed in regular infantry, but also in Rangers, 101st, 82nd Airbornes and Recon Marines. Women should even be allowed to qualify for Special Forces. I don't know about Delta and DEVGRU/Six. That's a different matter.

There are already women F22 Raptor Wing Commanders. There are very good women F18 Super Hornet Commanders on carriers. There are women nuclear submarie commanders. Why shouldn't there be women as combat Marines?

Women serve honorably and very effectively in combat roles around the world. Russia, Israel and South Korea are only some countries that not only have women in infantry, but also have dedicated female special forces, including counter-terrorism.

Should women meet differential combat standards? Yes. We cannot expect a 120 woman to drag a 230 pound man out of a burning M1 Abrams tank. I know from my own training of the enormity of that task because I was expected to lift a man 80 pounds heavier than myself and 8 inches taller.

Now, there is the issue of SERE training. That's one arena that must be kept realistic because women are going to be severely tortured when captured. The enemy isn't going to sit a woman down to tea. The worst can and will happen.

My wife signed up for the US Naval Academy via her Senator and passed the fitness requirements but could not get Medical clearance.

posted January 24, 2013 08:16 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by YoursTrulyAlways:

Definitely all women should be required to sign up for the draft. It works well in Israel. Women should be sent into combat like male American citizens should WWIII occur.

---

My daughter is not being drafted, raped, and shoved into combat.

F*** anyone who wishes that on her.

posted January 24, 2013 09:52 AM            

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted January 24, 2013 03:40 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lexxigramer:
There should be no draft again.
That goes for males and females.
All should however be allowed to voluntarily join if they wish to do so.

---

posted January 25, 2013 09:41 AM            

MOS(job/field)-specific physical requirements might seem discriminatory, but they just seem to make sense.

posted January 26, 2013 09:23 AM            

You sound like you're from a military family. The MOS for certain vocations appear arbitrarily high and inherently isolate women from certain combat vocations.

I believe light infantry and airborne are good areas to start, including the Marines. I don't see why women can't operate in the 82nd or 101st. The better women should be able to pass Ranger indoctrination and earn their tab. Or regular Recon Marines. Like I said, I don't know about SOCOM.

posted January 26, 2013 11:22 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by aquaguy91:
^ we could have and should have taken care of china, russia,and north korea 60 years ago. but thats another matter entirely....

---

Hmmm. General MacArthur, whose birthday is today, felt the same.

quote:

---

The Korean War began in 1950. After North Korean Communists invaded South Korea in 1950, MacArthur was appointed the Supreme United Nations commander. After the Chinese Communists entered the war on the side of the North Koreans, MacArthur wanted to attack the Chinese mainland. His enthusiasm for pushing on and attacking areas of China was not shared by President Truman. On April 11, 1951, MacArthur was relieved of his command by the president. MacArthur, always straightforward with his opinions, had publicly disagreed with Washington`s campaign stategies, which in the American system of government, military leaders are not permitted to do.

---

posted January 26, 2013 01:58 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by aquaguy91:
^ we could have and should have taken care of china, russia,and north korea 60 years ago. but thats another matter entirely....

---

The cost of the Truman doctrine of containment is high. Short term conflict avoidance can lead to a prohibitively costly long-term headache.

And no offense. But the people of the US hardly have the resolve of the Vietnamese people. Americans have no appetite for body bags.

posted January 27, 2013 01:00 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by YoursTrulyAlways:
The cost of the Truman doctrine of containment is high. Short term conflict avoidance can lead to a prohibitively costly long-term headache.

And no offense. But the people of the US hardly have the resolve of the Vietnamese people. Americans have no appetite for body bags.

Russia could be an ally. But we make it a point to perpetually tick them off. And you must be joking about finishing off the Soviet Union. They were the ones that finished off the Nazis, remember?

---

posted January 27, 2013 01:11 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by YoursTrulyAlways:
The cost of the Truman doctrine of containment is high. Short term conflict avoidance can lead to a prohibitively costly long-term headache.

And no offense. But the people of the US hardly have the resolve of the Vietnamese people. Americans have no appetite for body bags.

Russia could be an ally. But we make it a point to perpetually tick them off. And you must be joking about finishing off the Soviet Union. They were the ones that finished off the Nazis, remember?

---

posted January 28, 2013 05:25 AM            

But it's not clear to me how WE couldn't have beat the Russians, just because the Nazis couldn't. For a while, only the US had atomic bombs (USSR tested its first in 1949) and if the US had been aware of Stalin's atrocities earlier, they might have taken action.

For decades the US maintained the technological edge over the USSR, which eventually made them give up the Cold War. So, in a sense, we "won" via threat and diplomacy.

posted January 28, 2013 08:59 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by aquaguy91:

no resolve?tell that to the marines who methodically hunted down the japanese like rats

---

The military did really well in South Vietnam as well and was well on the way to winning a decisive war.

I'm referring to the American media and society. Look. 90% of the discussion here involves pacificism.