Home | Community | Message Board


FreeSpores.com
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1
Invisibleusefulidiot
It's notfascist, it's...Neoconservative!

Registered: 11/21/02
Posts: 732
Pentagon Wants Women In Combat
    #3475906 - 12/10/04 02:06 PM (11 years, 11 months ago)

http://newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/12/9/133043.shtml
Pentagon Wants Women In Combat

Dave Eberhart, NewsMax.com
Friday, Dec. 10, 2004

Elaine Donnelly: "yet more women will die ? or be captured and possibly raped."

The Pentagon is implementing new military plans that will make the concept of women in combat a reality.

The Center for Military Readiness warned this week that the Pentagon is flouting policies mandated by Congress in an effort to implement politically correct policies that increase the number of uniformed women put into harm?s way.

Others suggest the Pentagon tinkering with rules forbidding women in combat is a clear effort to increase boots on the ground as the troop-strapped DoD faces manpower shortages in Iraq and elsewhere around the globe.

Seven female U.S. soldiers have thus far been killed in Iraq and many more have been wounded. The question is, why? Aren't women supposed to be kept out of units that may see combat?

Story Continues Below

Female combat pilots and military police (patrolling the streets of Baghdad, for instance) are a recognized part of Congress?s loosening of the restriction on the roles females can play in combat operations, even though there remains fixed in the rule book a regulation that exempts women from direct ground combat units that engage in deliberate offensive action against the enemy.

Established by then-Defense Secretary Les Aspin on Jan. 13, 1994, the so-called ?Aspin Rules? exempt female soldiers from assignments in smaller direct ground combat (DGC) units that engage in deliberate offensive action against the enemy, and from units that collocate with them.

So far, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has not approved any change in the Aspin rules.

However, the DoD has already started to sidestep the exemption of female soldiers from the flagged assignments in smaller direct ground combat (DGC) units that engage in deliberate offensive action against the enemy, and from units that collocate with them.

The Pentagon's modus operandi to skirt the rules: attach Forward Support Companies (FSGs) and their inevitable contingent of female soldiers to bigger support brigades ? a separation the Army contends does not violate the hard-and-fast policy.

What?s more, the Army is mulling the idea of imbedding mixed-sex FSGs into actual combat brigades.

But as to this percolating plan, DoD officials concede it would violate the Pentagon policy against collocating women-included units and would require notification to Congress.

What really brings the issue to a head is the inevitable military personnel numbers game.

According to a Washington Times report, last May the Army told Pentagon officials in a special report that if it was forced to keep the vital FSCs all-male, it would simply not have enough soldiers.

?Army manpower cannot support elimination of female soldiers from all units designated to be unit of action elements,? the Army report concluded.

Excluding women ?creates an immediate personnel readiness impact: issue of insufficient male soldiers in inventory to fill forward support companies ... Creates potential long-term challenge to Army; pool of male recruits too small to sustain force.?

"It doesn't seem to be a big deal," retired Navy Capt. Lory Manning, who tracks military issues for the Women's Research and Education Institute, told the Associated Press.

"We could not do what needs to be done over there without women. If there needs to be a body search of an Iraqi woman, there's no way an American male could do that."

In a recent statement by the Army to The Washington Times, officials said further, ?The Army takes seriously its obligations to develop planned force structure changes.

Unit of Action

"As such, the ongoing development of the new Army Brigade Combat Team, otherwise known as a Unit of Action, is taking place with the continued consultation of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and the awareness of Congress.

"The Army will remain in compliance with public law and DOD policy regarding the assignment of women soldiers.?

Technically true.

However, writes Mackubin Thomas Owens, an associate dean of academics and professor of national-security affairs at the Naval War College in Newport, R.I., in the National Review, the "units of action" are not supposed to have women in them.

But they do anyway, almost surreptitiously.

"Army commanders," he writes, "have simply transferred forward-support companies from the maneuver battalions into "gender-integrated" brigade-support battalions, thereby avoiding the requirement to report the policy change to Congress.

"Of course, no matter where the FSCs appear on a table of organization, the fact is, they will live and work with the maneuver battalions all the time."

In other words, no matter what label the Army uses, units with women in them will be around combat constantly.

Another strong critic of all the DoD maneuvering, Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, says that if new DoD plans on the drawing boards go forward, yet more women will die ? or be captured and possibly raped.

Donnelly's group has already publicized the fate of Private Jessica Lynch, who was captured by enemy combatants during the operation to liberate Iraq. Lynch's doctors claimed she was repeatedly sodomized by her Iraqi captors.

But Donnelly, the former member (1984-86) of the Pentagon?s Defense advisory Committee on Women in the Services and the 1992 Presidential Commission on the assignment of Women in the Armed Services, has been monitoring what she perceives as a steady and dangerous blurring of the already vague guidelines for keeping female soldiers from the thick of battle, and agrees with Owens' analysis.

Attaching Forward Support Companies (FSCs) and their inevitable contingent of female soldiers to bigger support brigades is a ruse to skirt the rules, Donnelly charges. ?They are eliminating the collocation rule.?

In a letter of complaint sent to House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter, a California Republican, Donnelly states: ?The Army?s most recent plans ... would force female soldiers into support units that are organic to and collocated with combined [unit of action] infantry/armor battalions. These plans, which are already in progress, constitute violation of current Defense Department regulation.?

Furthermore, Donnelly has already collected 20,000 signatures on a petition protesting the DoD initiatives.

?If we are opposed to violence against women at the Air Force and other service academies, why all of a sudden if violence happens at the hands of the enemy, we say it doesn?t matter?? Donnelly said.

?Female soldiers are not eligible for assignment to infantry and armor maneuver battalions, or to organic, collocated sub-units of the maneuver battalions. The Army has no power or authorization to change DoD rules unilaterally, without the approval of the Secretary of Defense,? she added.

The Army submitted lists of positions to be opened or closed under the Aspin rules, and they were approved with a memo signed on July 28, 1994, by Aspin?s successor, William J. Perry.

Since that time career fields below the brigade level in the infantry and armor have been designated under the direct combat probability coding (DCPC) system to be ?P1,? meaning all male.

Military occupational specialties (MOSs) coded ?P2? (military police, for instance) remain open to both male and female soldiers.

Meanwhile, those intrepid women of the ?P2? variety carry on with little thought other than getting their jobs done.

One, Sgt. Erin Edwards, 23, often travels in armed convoys as part of her work as an aide to a commander of the 4th Infantry Division in Tikrit.

Sgt. Edwards left her 3-year-old son and infant daughter with her in-laws to serve in Iraq because her husband serves in the Army in South Korea.

"I would love to be at home with my kids, but I'm doing this for them. I wouldn't want to do anything else," Sgt. Edwards told the AP.

Another, Marine Lance Cpl. Kay Barnes, is a 30-year-old reservist originally from Richmond Hill, Ga., and a crew chief on a UH-1N Iroquois ?Huey? gunship serving in Afghanistan:

?They told me when I checked into my squadron they didn?t care if I were male or female, as long as I could carry a 50-caliber,? said Barnes. The GAU-16 50-caliber machine gun weighs approximately 65 pounds.

?I didn?t expect a vacation out here. I expect to perform as part of a team and accomplish missions as they arrive,? Barnes recently explained in an official ?DoD Defend America? press release. ?I didn?t see (myself) sitting around while my country was going to war without me.?

In choosing to join the marines, she said she wanted combat. ?As far as I?m concerned, the bad guys have it coming,? she said. ?If it?s in the best interests of America, then it?s in my best interests.?

This is the sort of sentiment expressed by many of the military?s women who will be around the combat zone; they feel they are as ?tough as nails? and ?bad as the boys.? But does America want its women in combat situations? It seems we?re saying no publicly and through Congress, but actions currently speak louder than words.

http://cmrlink.org/WomenInCombat.asp?DocID=242

BUSH PENTAGON MOVING TO FORCE WOMEN INTO LAND COMBAT
12/9/2004 9:44:00 AM

Officials Ignore DoD Rules, Congressional Notification Law

The United States Army plans to force female soldiers into land combat units, despite current regulations and a law requiring prior notice to Congress. CMR has learned that some Army leaders believe there might not be enough male soldiers to fill the new ?unit of action? combat brigades. They are therefore making incremental changes in policy that will soon force young unprepared women?many of them mothers?to fight in land combat.

Information and official briefing documents obtained by CMR indicate that the soon-to-deploy Third Infantry Division is ignoring a Defense Department rule that exempts female soldiers from support units that collocate with land combat troops such as the infantry. Defense Department and Army officials have also violated a law requiring prior notice to Congress if rules affecting female soldiers are changed.

Left unchallenged, these actions could quickly affect all land combat units, including Special Operations Forces and the Marine Corps.

Since March of 2004, both civilian and uniformed Army officials have been trying in various ways to gender-integrate sub-units of combined infantry/armor ?units of action? (UA) combat brigades in the 3rd Infantry Division.

Strategies tried so far have involved violation of current rules governing the assignment of female soldiers in land combat units, unilateral redefinition of those rules, or implementation of inefficient organizational plans that would sacrifice the advantages of self-contained, modular organizations in the Army?s new combat brigades.

In pursuing these shortsighted courses of action, the Army has already violated current regulations regarding women in combat, which were established as official policy in 1994 by then-Defense Secretary Les Aspin. Officials have not provided any rationale for ignoring DoD policy, compromising the efficiency of the new units of action, or forcing female soldiers into land combat units for the first time in America?s history.

Nor has the Army complied with the law mandating prior notice to Congress over a period of 30 legislative days, when both Houses are in session. The 2002 Defense Authorization Act also requires that formal notice include an analysis of the impact of proposed changes on the constitutionality of young women?s exemption from Selective Service obligations.

To CMR?s knowledge, no such notice has been given. Some Army officials have even made the unsupported claim, contrary to plain language in the law, that prior notification to Congress is not required. In fact, they say, formal approval by the Secretary of Defense is not required. President George W. Bush and members of Congress must not allow this arrogant non-compliance to stand.

Courageous female soldiers are serving well in the War on Terrorism, and the nation is proud of them. That pride, however, does not justify acceptance of the illicit arrangement being implemented initially by the 3rd Infantry Division, which is due to deploy to Iraq early in 2005.

Army Moves to Repeal Collocation Rule

The Army?s most recent plans, as presented to House and Senate Armed Services Committee staff members on November 3, 2004, would force female soldiers into support units that are organic to and collocated with combined UA infantry/armor battalions. These plans, which are already in progress, constitute violation of current Defense Department regulations, and an unprecedented departure from sound organizational practices for combat units. They also continue a pattern of dissembling and misleading semantics designed to circumvent the law.

The organizational charts presented on November 3 purport to ?move? the forward support companies (FSCs) from the maneuver battalions into the gender-integrated brigade support battalions (BSBs), and thereby avoid the responsibility to report the rule changes to Congress. This is similar to a course of action initiated at Fort Stewart in May, which the Army admitted could be seen as a form of ?subterfuge.?

Whether ?assigned? or ?attached? on paper to one unit or the other, in real life the forward support companies will live and work with the maneuver battalions, 100% of the time. Since the battlefield of today has changed, the collocation rule should be strengthened, not weakened. The only sound policy is to stop the equivocation, keep these units all-male, and apply the collocation rule consistently in all units that are organic to or collocated with direct ground combat forces.

Female soldiers should not be forced to participate in deliberate offensive or defensive actions on land, under conditions where they do not have an ?equal opportunity? to survive, or to help fellow soldiers survive.

Policy will Not End With New Land Combat ?Unit of Action? Brigades

At the very least, President Bush and members of Congress must insist that the Army comply with the law before new precedents are set that could cost lives in combat. Incremental steps in the wrong direction would inevitably lead to radical change in all land combat units, including the Reconnaissance, Surveillance, Target Acquisition (RSTA) squadrons of the new Stryker Brigade Combat Teams (SBCTs), Special Operations Forces, and the Marine Corps.

The vision of transformation in the Army should be allowed to proceed and be tested in combat without the burden of social friction and operational inefficiencies. The Army should be making combat units and all forms of training more efficient and effective, not less so.

The Center for Military Readiness has issued a CMR Policy Analysis of the Army?s latest plans, and sent it to President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, House and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairmen Duncan Hunter (R-CA) and John Warner (R-VA), Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and other high-level civilian and uniformed officials in the Departments of Defense and the Army. That document is posted on CMR's web site at the link provided at the end of this article.

In response, the Army issued a three-sentence non-denial that tried but failed to conceal the truth. (See link posted here.) With all of the controversy about whether there are enough troops in Iraq or not, it is disheartening to see officials of the US Army planning to send female soldiers into land combat. The same people who retained counter-productive gender recruiting quotas to meet Clinton-era social goals are now forcing unprepared female soldiers to pay the price for their short-sighted, poor judgment. In doing so, they are knowingly compromising combat efficiency in the new unit of action combat brigades, which don?t deserve to be saddled with unprecedented social burdens in a time of war.

Americans who care about men and women in the military, and oppose policies that will make their jobs more difficult and more dangerous, should call or write the Chairmen of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA, 202/225-5672) and Sen. John Warner (R-VA, 202/224-2023).

President George W. Bush, who can be reached through the White House Opinion Line, 202/456-1414, should be asked to intervene immediately to bring the Army back into compliance with law and policy. Forcing female soldiers into land combat should not be allowed to stand as the first major policy change in President Bush?s new administration.


http://cmrlink.org/WomenInCombat.asp?docID=241


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleDNKYD
Turtle!

Registered: 09/24/04
Posts: 12,326
Re: Pentagon Wants Women In Combat [Re: usefulidiot]
    #3476657 - 12/10/04 04:28 PM (11 years, 11 months ago)

Brings a whole new meaning to "Make love, not war" :lol:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleSoopaX
Criminal DrugAnalyst

Registered: 11/13/04
Posts: 1,690
Re: Pentagon Wants Women In Combat [Re: usefulidiot]
    #3476934 - 12/10/04 05:17 PM (11 years, 11 months ago)

Pathetic.

Quote:


President George W. Bush, who can be reached through the White House Opinion Line, 202/456-1414,




Three calls, he hasn't answered me yet.
Quote:


should be asked to intervene immediately to bring the Army back into compliance with law and policy. Forcing female soldiers into land combat should not be allowed to stand as the first major policy change in President Bush?s new administration.





When the military doesn't allow female soldiers into combat, it's sexism. When they want to allow them into combat, it's sexism. Joy to the Liberal Double-speak.


--------------------


Jackie Treehorn treats objects like women, man


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblechodamunky
Cheers!

Registered: 02/28/02
Posts: 2,030
Loc: sailing the seas of chees...
Re: Pentagon Wants Women In Combat [Re: usefulidiot]
    #3477380 - 12/10/04 06:22 PM (11 years, 11 months ago)

Any woman dumb enough to want to go into combat should be allowed to go.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleAnnapurna1
liberal pussy
Female User Gallery
Registered: 05/21/02
Posts: 5,646
Loc: innsmouth..MA
Re: Pentagon Wants Women In Combat [Re: usefulidiot]
    #3477515 - 12/10/04 06:42 PM (11 years, 11 months ago)

fuck the pentagon...theres NFW im dying for the glorious cause of neoconservatism...OTOH..theres always been a few chix that were willing to die for something just as ludicrous ..

http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_4742.shtml
http://www.silk-road.com/artl/sarmatian.shtml


--------------------


"anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineCatalysis
EtherealEngineer

Registered: 04/23/02
Posts: 1,742
Last seen: 8 years, 5 months
Re: Pentagon Wants Women In Combat [Re: usefulidiot]
    #3477996 - 12/10/04 08:09 PM (11 years, 11 months ago)

Since we are all in the "equality for women" thing nowadays, lets go ahead and revise those divorce laws.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: Pentagon Wants Women In Combat [Re: Catalysis]
    #3478338 - 12/10/04 09:09 PM (11 years, 11 months ago)

Rush Limbaugh said one time that we should make a division of women who are chemically made to be in P.M.S. all month. They should then be given guns and they would be able to overrun any army(no matter how big) within a few days.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleSoopaX
Criminal DrugAnalyst

Registered: 11/13/04
Posts: 1,690
Re: Pentagon Wants Women In Combat [Re: Annapurna1]
    #3482235 - 12/11/04 05:26 PM (11 years, 11 months ago)

So you support women not being allowed to do things that they want to! Thank god, please PM me for information on the "Keep the bitches barefoot, pregnant and in the kicthen" coalition! Of course, since you are a woman, you'd be made to do menial work with the rights that you'd be taking away from yourself.

It always pissed me off how women want to vote too. End suffrage!

/sarcasm


--------------------


Jackie Treehorn treats objects like women, man


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinekadakuda
The Great"Green".......East
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/21/04
Posts: 7,048
Loc: Asia
Last seen: 3 months, 19 days
Re: Pentagon Wants Women In Combat [Re: chodamunky]
    #3482645 - 12/11/04 07:15 PM (11 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

chodamunky said:
Any woman dumb enough to want to go into combat should be allowed to go.




yup. problem is not everyone (male or female) realyl choose to join. to some its the better of 3 options presented.


--------------------
The seeds you won't sow are the plants you dont grow.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleRavus
Not an EggshellWalker
 User Gallery

Registered: 07/18/03
Posts: 7,991
Loc: Cave of the Patriarchs
Re: Pentagon Wants Women In Combat [Re: usefulidiot]
    #3482827 - 12/11/04 07:54 PM (11 years, 11 months ago)

How come women aren't in combat already? It's stupid that there is still such a division, if a woman joins the army she should be prepared to have all the responsibilities of a man. They wanted equal rights, now they have it


--------------------
So long as you are praised think only that you are not yet on your own path but on that of another.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleSoopaX
Criminal DrugAnalyst

Registered: 11/13/04
Posts: 1,690
Re: Pentagon Wants Women In Combat [Re: SoopaX]
    #3487337 - 12/12/04 07:54 PM (11 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

SoopaX said:
So you support women not being allowed to do things that they want to! Thank god, please PM me for information on the "Keep the bitches barefoot, pregnant and in the kicthen" coalition! Of course, since you are a woman, you'd be made to do menial work with the rights that you'd be taking away from yourself.

It always pissed me off how women want to vote too. End suffrage!

/sarcasm





Got reply?


--------------------


Jackie Treehorn treats objects like women, man


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinekadakuda
The Great"Green".......East
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/21/04
Posts: 7,048
Loc: Asia
Last seen: 3 months, 19 days
Re: Pentagon Wants Women In Combat [Re: Ravus]
    #3487611 - 12/12/04 09:00 PM (11 years, 11 months ago)

dont kid yourself there is no such thing as equal in a humans world. gender, race, size, age, mentality, wealth whatever it may be people always have to decide who is better and who can do what.

some people call it reverse sexism, much like reverse racism. i call it buying a group off to shut them up. and it works for a while.

lifes a pendulum.


--------------------
The seeds you won't sow are the plants you dont grow.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleDirtMcgirt
in a pinch
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/20/04
Posts: 2,213
Loc: city of angels
Re: Pentagon Wants Women In Combat [Re: kadakuda]
    #3487629 - 12/12/04 09:05 PM (11 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

How come women aren't in combat already? It's stupid that there is still such a division, if a woman joins the army she should be prepared to have all the responsibilities of a man. They wanted equal rights, now they have it




--------------------
"And we, inhabitants of the great coral of the Cosmos, believe the atom (which still we cannot see) to be full matter, whereas, it too, like everything else, is but an embroidery of voids in the Void, and we give the name of being, dense and even eternal, to that dance of inconsistencies, that infinite extension that is identified with absolute Nothingness and that spins from its own non-being the illusion of everything."


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Pentagon Now Hiding Dead in 'Transfer Tubes'
( 1 2 all )
Zahid 1,514 20 11/11/03 06:03 PM
by PsiloKitten
* Women in combat
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
looner2 3,764 82 05/27/05 04:29 PM
by niteowl
* Army files charge in combat tactic wingnutx 262 0 10/30/03 12:30 AM
by wingnutx
* Pentagon Admitted Usage of White Phosphorus
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
trick 2,869 87 11/21/05 01:51 PM
by looner2
* Pentagon confirms Koran incidents...
( 1 2 3 all )
myndreach 2,177 49 06/02/05 02:48 PM
by CJay
* Pentagon Revises Nuclear Strike Plan phreakyzen 672 6 09/13/05 08:50 AM
by Asante
* Why doesnt the military allow women in combat?
( 1 2 all )
1stimer 1,758 24 10/26/04 01:25 AM
by Civ
* Pentagon Thought of Developing Drugs to Make Soldiers Gay Ravus 631 6 01/18/05 01:28 PM
by Ravus

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Prisoner#1, Enlil
717 topic views. 2 members, 2 guests and 5 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
The Spore Depot
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2016 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.094 seconds spending 0.004 seconds on 14 queries.