Chicks in combat? What's next?

1st Woman to Lead in Combat 'Thrilled' With Change


Jan 25, 2013

Associated Press| by Michael Biesecker



RALEIGH, N.C. - Former U.S. Army Capt. Linda L. Bray says her male superiors were incredulous upon hearing she had ably led a platoon of military police officers through a firefight during the 1989 invasion of Panama.

Instead of being lauded for her actions, the first woman in U.S. history to lead male troops in combat said higher-ranking officers accused her of embellishing accounts of what happened when her platoon bested an elite unit of the Panamanian Defense Force. After her story became public, Congress fiercely debated whether she and other women had any business being on the battlefield.

The Pentagon's longstanding prohibition against women serving in ground combat ended Thursday, when Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced that most combat roles jobs will now be open to female soldiers and Marines. Panetta said women are integral to the military's success and will be required to meet the same physical standards as their male colleagues.

"I'm so thrilled, excited. I think it's absolutely wonderful that our nation's military is taking steps to help women break the glass ceiling," said Bray, 53, of Clemmons, N.C. "It's nothing new now in the military for a woman to be right beside a man in operations."

The end of the ban on women in combat comes more than 23 years after Bray made national news and stoked intense controversy after her actions in Panama were praised as heroic by Marlin Fitzwater, the spokesman for then-President George H.W. Bush.

Bray and 45 soldiers under her command in the 988th Military Police Company, nearly all of them men, encountered a unit of Panamanian special operations soldiers holed up inside a military barracks and dog kennel.

Her troops killed three of the enemy and took one prisoner before the rest were forced to flee, leaving behind a cache of grenades, assault rifles and thousands of rounds of ammunition, according to Associated Press news reports published at the time. The Americans suffered no casualties.

Citing Bray's performance under fire as an example, Rep. Patricia Schroeder, D-Colo., introduced a bill to repeal the law that barred female U.S. military personnel from serving in combat roles.

But the response from the Pentagon brass was less enthusiastic.

"The responses of my superior officers were very degrading, like, `What were you doing there?'" Bray said. "A lot of people couldn't believe what I had done, or did not want to believe it. Some of them were making excuses, saying that maybe this really didn't happen the way it came out."

Schroder's bill died after top generals lobbied against the measure, saying female soldiers just weren't up to the physical rigors of combat.

"The routine carrying of a 120-pound rucksack day in and day out on the nexus of battle between infantrymen is that which is to be avoided and that's what the current Army policy does," Gen. M.R. Thurman, then the head of the U.S. Southern Command, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

For Bray, the blowback got personal.

The Army refused to grant her and other female soldiers who fought on the ground in Panama the Combat Infantryman Badge. She was awarded the Army Commendation Medal for Valor, an award for meritorious achievement in a non-combat role.

Bray was also the subject of an Army investigation over allegations by Panamanian officials that she and her soldiers had destroyed government and personal property during the invasion that toppled Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega.

Though eventually cleared of any wrongdoing, the experience soured Bray on the Army. In 1991, she resigned her commission after eight years of active duty and took a medical discharge related to a training injury.

Today's military is much different from the one Bray knew, with women already serving as fighter pilots, aboard submarines and as field supervisors in war zones. But some can't help but feel that few know of their contributions, said Alma Felix, 27, a former Army specialist.

"We are the support. Those are the positions we fill and that's a big deal - we often run the show - but people don't see that," Felix said. "Maybe it will put more females forward and give people a sense there are women out there fighting for our country. It's not just you're typical poster boy, GI Joes doing it."

Spc. Heidi Olson, a combat medic, received a Purple Heart for injuries she suffered when an IED exploded in Afghanistan last May.

"It makes it official now," Olson said. "We don't have to do the back door way of getting out into a combat zone."

 

So people have different opinions, that will always be the case. It is policy just like allowing gay troops to serve openly is policy just like integrating black and white in tue military is policy. Before all these policy changes some people said how there would be all kinds of resignations en mass and all kind of problems getting the job done. Guess what every time it has turned out to be a non issue and it will this time too. Am i going to run out and try and become a PJ? no, i like being in maintenance. If you are still in and don't like it then vote with your feet when you ets.

 

I served twenty-three years in the Marine Corps. During those years, I served in combat, and I served with women. However, I never served with women in combat. I certainly never served with women held to, and TRAINED TO, the same standards as their male counterparts, in a combat situation. (An important point, I believe.)

Therefore, any thoughts I may have on the subject of women in combat is OPINION. Similarly, I believe that anyone else, who has not served with women, trained to the same standard as their male counterparts, in combat; can only offer up OPINION.

The women highlighted in the two articles which I posted can actually offer INSIGHT. These are women who have served in combat. I value INSIGHT over OPINION, always. That was why I posted those articles.

More insight might be gained by looking at the Russian experience with females in combat during World War II. Nearly 800,000 women served in the Russian Army during World War II, as combat pilots, tank crewmen, infantry, and snipers. Russia deployed some 2,000 female snipers. Lyudmila Pavlichenko (female sniper) was credited with three hundred enemy kills. Some of the first Russian infantry soldiers to enter Berlin were female.

Before this thread degenerated into testosterone laden challenges to arm wrestle, and pee standing up, (and frankly, I thought better of some of our monkeys) the original post discussed the recent decision to allow women to officially serve in some combat related MOSs. This decision was not a call to immediately fill the ranks of the Army Rangers, Marine Recon, and Navy Seals with unqualified women candidates.

This decision is not a call to push unqualified women into the Infantry. Frankly, I can’t imagine a lot of women wanting to serve in the infantry. The incessant grind of the Infantry, in garrison, in the field, or deployed, makes it the hardest job in the military, in my ever so humble opinion. It is not a job suited to most females, nor indeed to many males.

This decision only makes it legal to consider women for combat related MOSs.

As far as I’m concerned, this decision only officially acknowledged what has been a fact on the ground for many years – that women in the American armed forces have been serving in combat zones. They are already getting shot at, and are already defending themselves.

Today’s battlefield is not an environment of stationary lines and trenches. There often is no “Rear Area.” Our experience in Iraq over the past couple of decades has provided many examples of this. In 1991, a SCUD missile slammed into a barracks in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. Twenty-seven were killed and ninety-eight were injured. Melissa Coleman (1991), Jessica Lynch (2003), and Shoshanna Johnson (2003) found themselves in combat, and became prisoners of war. We already have women in combat zones.

In some ways, this discussion sounds similar to the discussions of former generations, in which some argued that black soldiers were not suited for combat roles, and integrating them into combat units would render those units ineffective.

Perhaps our preconceived notions and biases are keeping us from seeing the situation clearly, or discussing the situation with rationality and civility.

 

That is a bs call.

First, an ARCOM with V device is not for merit it is for Valor. An ARCOM without a V device is for meritorious service. Whoever wrote the article is ignorant of anything military. It seems to be a disease, although one never did it; they watched a lot of TV and are well read.

ARCOMs, Air Medals and Bronze Stars can be awarded for merit or Valor. The difference is a little V on the medal. On


Read the small print on the back; the only way to tell is a small V added to the chest cabbage. (That is a Bronze Star not an ARCOM)

CIB Lesson
11Es or tankers cannot (maybe could not LOL) be awarded a CIB. MPs in Vietnam engaged in many a firefight pulling road security, guarding bridges; they aren't eligible either. The guys on the convoy gun trucks did not qualify. Artillery men who manned the FSBs (fire support bases) during a mass attack; they cranked their 105s down on zero deflection and fired flechette rounds weren't eligible either. Although you can bet some earned a Purple Heart.

The real Snake and Too Tall in the movie "We were soldiers" earned a Congressional Medal of Honor for heroism but they did not qualify for a CIB. What about the door gunners? History shows, no CMH for them.

Somehow, she was a victim because she was treated equally?

She lived to tell about which a lot of male MPs in quite a few wars didn't. In more modern times add female MPs.

If she ran a kick butt attack, where she was potentially discriminated against was the ARCOM with V device. For a male officer a Bronze Star with a V might have been awarded; customary was a pat on the back.

I have a cousin who was awarded a bronze star for valor under fire and a Purple Heart. He was in country for less than 30 days on his first combat assault; did something very brave, got shot for it and was ets'd on medical. As he was not in Vietnam for 90 days, he was not awarded a CIB.

My point was do not get caught up in a debate where one lacks knowledge of the subject matter.

 

Awards, medals and commendations are at best a hit and miss affair....unoubtedly many are deserved....some are not, some are awarded out of political expediency, some are not awarded, simply because the acts of gallantry carried out were not observed, or those who did witness such acts of combat bravery did not survive to make witness statements...some miss out because of quota systems, wherein the number of awards of a particular decoration are granted per quanta of troops per period of time, or per formation in a campaign, are restricted by the arbitrary limits imposed by such systems. Not every recommendation is approved, and in many instances fully justified decoration recommendations have been arbitrarily downgraded by some REMF in the safety of their airconditioned office to a lesser decoration or no decoration being awarded at all.

The CIB (in the USA) and the ICB (in Australia) are somewhat contentious awards. Both have very exacting criteria for their award, such that both countries have created alternative awards with somewhat similar requirements for non-infantry qualifying awardees.

In the United States... alternative awards to the CIB are the Combat Medical Badge (CMB) and the Combat Action badge (CAB): Both have been authorised to remedy a degree of unfairness in not recognising combat action engaged in by non infantry personnel in other arms and services. Combat Action Badge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(My emphasis.)

In my view Bray and her fellow MPs were not discriminated against...as they clearly failed to meet the criteria for the award extant at the time. The inequity of such a situation has been remedied by the creation of the CAB. Unfortunately for Bray and her contemporaries serving in the Panama campaign, the CAB is not retrospective beyond 18 September 2001.

In the Australian Defence Forces there are no Purple Hearts for being WIA, or KIA and No POW medals for being captured or dying in captivity...soldiers just get the same campaign ribbons that the REMFs get who are nowhere within cooee of being shot at. On the positive side...soldiers who are unable to meet the qualifying period for an award because of being WIA, KIA (and certain other very limited reasons) are deemed to have met the necessary qualifying period for the award. Had Tikka's cousin been serving in the Australian Infantry, he would have been awarded a CIB (Combat Infantry Badge) for his pains.

The pertinent thing to note, is that the brouhaha about the CIB, as fascinating as it may be, is just a distraction from the main issue of this thread which is whether or not woman ought to be employed in combat roles hitherto denied to them as a matter of policy: Some say yes...some say no...some say not on my watch...and some may say...only if they can win an @rse kicking contest with their nearest available serving USMC Gunny.

 

Another name for the PH is enemy marksmanship award.

What is a cooee?

This is a joke seen on Tee shirts, but as it mentions what it takes, to this discussion it is not a joke.

"I don't care how many sky dives you have, Until you step out of a plane into pitch black darkness at 800' at 130 knots (C130) with 200 lbs worth of lightweight gear strapped onto your butt and 40 lbs of parachute you're still just another leg!"

Strap it on and jump. When you land, ditch the 40 pounds and hump the rest to the objective; then take the objective.

Cut it and you are Airborne Infantry Now that you are, time to do it again.

Training is 800' and combat jump altitude is 500 feet. The 500' is to minimize the dispersal of the drop or it keeps everyone close together and as low as the aircraft can hold formation; it has nothing to do with less air time and getting shot at.
If you don't have enough weight to deploy the D-Bag; you get beat to death against the airplane. They find you when they pull the bags in. Didn't know that, did ya?

People seem to believe combat is some cake walk; I wish I had the power to give them the experience as I sure as H would.

 

The Problems of Women in Combat - From a Female Combat Vet

It’s not all about qualification. I’m speaking as a female Marine Iraq war vet who did serve in the combat zone doing entry checkpoint duty in Fallujah, and we worked with the grunts daily for that time. All the branches still have different standards for females and males. Why? Because most women wouldn’t even qualify to be in the military if they didn’t have separate standards. Men and women are different, but those pushing women into combat don’t want to admit that truth. They huff and puff about how women can do whatever men can do, but it just ain’t so. We’re built differently, and it doesn’t matter that one particular woman could best one particular man. The best woman is still no match for the best man, and most of the men she’d be fireman-carrying off the battlefield will be at least 100 lbs heavier than her with their gear on.

​

Women are often great shooters but can’t run in 50-80 lbs of gear as long, hard, or fast as men. Military training is hard enough on men’s bodies; it’s harder on women’s. And until women stop menstruating, there will always be an uphill battle for staying level and strong at all times. No one wants to talk about the fact that in the days before a woman’s cycle, she loses half her strength, to say nothing of the emotional ups and downs that affect judgment. And how would you like fighting through PMS symptoms while clearing a town or going through a firefight? Then there are the logistics of making all the accommodations for women in the field, from stopping the convoy to pee or because her cycle started to stripping down to get hosed off after having to go into combat with full MOP gear when there’s a biological threat.

This is to say nothing of unit cohesion, which is imperative and paramount, especially in the combat fields. When preparing for battle, the last thing on your mind should be sex; but you put men and women in close quarters together, and human nature is what it is (this is also why the repeal of DADT is so damaging). It doesn’t matter what the rules are. The Navy proved that when they started allowing women on ship. What happened? They were having sex and getting pregnant, ruining unit cohesion (not to mention derailing the operations because they’d have to change course to get them off ship.)

When I deployed, we’d hardly been in the country a few weeks before one of our females had to be sent home because she’d gotten pregnant (nice waste of training, not to mention taxpayer money that paid for it). That’s your military readiness? Our enemies are laughing – “Thanks for giving us another vulnerability, USA!”

Then there are relationships. Whether it’s a consensual relationship, unwanted advances, or sexual assault, they all destroy unit cohesion. No one is talking about the physical and emotional stuff that goes along with men and women together. A good relationship can foment jealousy and the perception of favoritism. A relationship goes sour, and suddenly one loses faith in the very person who may need to drag one off the field of battle. A sexual assault happens, and a woman not only loses faith in her fellows, but may fear them. A vindictive man paints a woman as easy, and she loses the respect of her peers. A vindictive woman wants to destroy a man’s career with a false accusation (yes, folks, this happens too); and it’s poison to the unit. All this happens before the fighting even begins.

Yet another little-discussed issue is that some female military members are leaving their kids behind to advance their careers by deploying. I know of one divorced Marine who left her two sons, one of them autistic, with their grandparents while she deployed. She was wounded on base (not on the front lines) and is a purple heart recipient. What if she’d been killed, leaving behind her special needs child? Glory was more important than motherhood. Another case in my own unit was a married female who became angry when they wouldn’t let both her and her husband deploy at the same time. Career advancement was the greater concern.

​

I understand the will to fight. I joined the Marines in the hopes of deploying because I believe that fighting jihadists is right. And I care about the women and children in Islamic countries where they are denied their rights, subjugated, mutilated, and murdered with impunity; and where children are molested and raped with impunity (not to mention defending our own freedom against these hate-filled terrorists who want to destroy freedom-loving countries like America.) Joining the Marines was one of the best things I’ve ever done in my life, and I’m glad I got to deploy. It not only allowed me to witness the war, but to witness the problems with women in combat.

Women have many wonderful strengths, and there is certainly a lot of work for women to do in the military. But all the problems that come with men and women working together are compounded in the war zone, destroying the cohesion necessary to fight bloody, hellish war. We are at war; and if we want to win, we have to separate the wheat from the chaff. And the top priority should be military readiness and WINNING wars, not political correctness and artificially imposed “equality” on the military.

 

Good insight from someone who should know.

 

Gosh a woman said it so instant believability and others including me were probably kidding about it. As she isn't a pogue she knows.

Women fly in the 160th SOAR, the Night stalkers, no CIB but serious clank and respect. Respect is earned, not given. Earned means she would come for us and y'all don't even know what I mean. Don't bother asking either,

 

...and dangerous; they know that jew-jitsui stuff--kick your a$$ really bad.