| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Iraq-Jordan | |
| Women Marines Assigned to Combat Units | |
| 2005-05-11 | |
May 11, 2005: American marines in Iraq have begun to regularly take female marines with them on some raids. The female marines are there mainly to search Iraqi women who are expected to be found in the raided location. Terrorists have taken to giving some weapons or other items to women they are with, to hide in their clothing. American troops often do not search Iraqi women, because this makes Iraqi men more hostile, and often enrages them, leading to a brawl during an otherwise uneventful raid. Both soldiers and marines have used female troops for searching Iraqi, or Afghan, women, but on a sporadic basis. But now, marine units have assigned female marines, who normally do support jobs, to regular raid duty. Thus the same women would operate with the same male infantrymen on a regular basis. This enables the women to work better with the male marines in case there is a fight. The raids are usually conducted using hummers, that quickly move into an area, the troops get out and rapidly gain entry to the target building and begin the search. Sometimes there are armed terrorists in there, who start shooting. So everyone in the raiding party has to be ready for a fight. The female marines get the same infantry training as the men, although in all-female boot camp companies, and maintain their infantry skills later. The women regularly see action during combat movements, and no one doubts their ability to handle themselves in combat. Most of the women assigned to the raiding duty are eager and enthusiastic about it, as boot camp drilled into everyone that the primary job of every marine was infantry combat.
| |
| Posted by:Steve |
| #14 Fascinating, OP. I hope she takes that as much to heart as I now do. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2005-05-11 23:51 |
| #13 There is no necessary contradiction between training women for combat, especially in the defensive role as when, say, an air base is attacked by commandos, or including squad assault tactics on one hand and keeping them out of combat units. It would be a great idea to have them as well trained as possible. Current standards must be maintained in combat units. Some feminists routinely discredit standards which have proven to, 1, be useful, and 2, disproportionately exclude women. The next Tailgate could cost us. I sure hope ME women get a chance to see US women taking charge in any number of situations, including commanding US men, and being in charge of ops which require ME men to do as they are told, such as pony up ID at a checkpoint. Yes, indeed. I see two huge grunts in their battle rattle watching the car, a cute blonde briskly asking for the ID, and a redhead (whose hair is showing below her helmet) watching the whole thing over the sights of a Ma Deuce. Two women are in the back seat, taking it all in. They may even be sorry for their men, depending on how their men have treated them over the years. Snork. I recall seeing an episode of COPS in which two female cops were called to a bar for a drunk & disorderly complaint. They were having trouble with the guy until a couple of male customers helped them out. Then the drunk's wife came at them yelling and grabbing. Unable to shove her away, one cop sapped the lady over the ear. There's something to be said for avoirdupois. |
| Posted by: RIchard Aubrey 2005-05-11 23:51 |
| #12 I can't recall who alerted me to this, but female police are far more likely to resort to lethal force than males. So contrary popular belief including women on patrols will lead to more 'shoot first, ask questions later' responses. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2005-05-11 22:26 |
| #11 Elaine Donnelly spewed a bit of rubbish on NRO the other day, and I took her to task over it. She said that because the Army is beginning to "blur the lines" between combat and non-combat positions, it was going to hurt enlistments and retention. Here's my reply (apologies in advance for hogging Fred's bandwidth): I just finished your article, "Recruitment Killer", on NRO. I'm a retired Air Force NCO with 26 years' service who retired 15 years ago. I feel compelled to say that your article vastly misrepresents the problem, and what the Army is doing about it. First of all, let me say that my career was spent in imagery intelligence, primarily in Europe. I was one of many that kept track of the Warsaw Pact activities, as well as trying to keep abreast of developments in the Middle East and Africa. I'm also a history major, concentrating in Modern European History. I wrote a scenario for a training exercise for RAF Alconbury in 1987, during the drawdown and deactivation of the 1st Tactical Reconnaissance Wing. I was ordered to destroy it, because it would have simply scared the knickers off of everyone on the airbase. I suggested an attack by 150-175 trained terrorists, armed with both conventional and chemical weapons. It highlighted a failure that is still there, and still a glaring fault that will eventually cost the military hundreds of lives. There is no longer any such thing as a "front line", and hasn't been since about 1965. The Russians had plans even before that of striking deeply behind the "FEBA" at supply and support bases, creating as much chaos and killing as many people as possible. In a guerilla or terror war, every person in the area - and now with the Global War on Terror, even "back in the States" - is not only vulnerable, but targeted. If I were chairman of the Joint Chiefs, I would insist that combat training be given to everyone in the military, with refresher training every year - for THEIR SAFETY AND SECURITY. It's too late to prepare for combat when a squad-sized military force breaks into Peterson Air Force Base, or the New Orleans Coast Guard Station. In today's political environment, each of those is a distinct possibility. When it happens, the ability of every person to defend themselves and strike back at the enemy will be critical. Failing to provide combat training for every single person in the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard is to leave them the military equivalent of being blind, deaf, dumb, and stupid. The way wars are pursued has changed greatly - and frequently - ever since the armies of Pharoah. Each time, they've become more dangerous, not only for the soldier, but also for civilians. The military's job is to defend the civilian population from the ravages of war. That requires a military capable of not only defending themselves, but capable of responding rapidly to whatever danger faces this nation. The only way to protect those who serve in the Armed Forces is to prepare them for every logical danger. Failing to give each member combat training is failing to prepare them for that danger. The line between combat and support no longer exists. Every outfit is a target for combat, and the only defense is to allow every unit to act as a combat unit. Anything else is preparing for failure. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2005-05-11 21:03 |
| #10 Do you think it might give them ideas? I hope so. |
| Posted by: rkb 2005-05-11 19:10 |
| #9 I wonder what the Iraqi women think when the see a female marine operating as an equal member of a marine unit - being treated on a equal basis instead as chattel. Do you think it might give them ideas? Drive the Jihadists nuts indeed.... |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2005-05-11 18:53 |
| #8 No! Is Lucinda okya? |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-05-11 18:49 |
| #7 I don't ever want to be on the receiving end of Connie the Short Bus Lady's ire. I saw what happened after a neighbor's redbone hound got hold of Lucinda the Duck. I almost felt sorry for the guy. The owner, not the dog. I think she could do a credible job. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2005-05-11 18:44 |
| #6 Yowza, Sgt. Mom! No, I suspect he hasn't. ;-p |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2005-05-11 15:11 |
| #5 No... have you? |
| Posted by: Sgt. Mom 2005-05-11 13:39 |
| #4 Has Vasquez ever been mistaken for a man? |
| Posted by: Hudson 2005-05-11 13:07 |
| #3 I'm all for women coming in, as long as the CURRENT standards are not lowered. Some women were being allowed to join artillery units back in 94-95. They kept the standards and had very few women join. However, the women that did were throwing that 200lb shell over their shoulder and marching it to the gun by themselves. Tough women who definatly did the job, hoorah! |
| Posted by: mmurray821 2005-05-11 12:56 |
| #2 BaR, there's a difference between lowering standards for political correctness and using assets who are trained, motivated and capable. As we saw with the KY National Guard a while back, there are women who can and do perform well in battle. These Marines will do fine. They will also drive the jihadis crazy while allowing our troops to effectively search through homes where weapons and people might be hiding behind women and children. Sounds like a good plan to me. |
| Posted by: too true 2005-05-11 10:26 |
| #1 Hmph. Somehow, I'm thinking Pvt. Vasquez from "Aliens". :) |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2005-05-11 10:21 |