• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Women Should Be Allowed in Combat Units, Report Says

Apocalypse said:
There is the Caracal Battalion:
Caracal Battalion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And there are very few females who serve in used-to-be male only combat units in Golani, Nahal, Kfir, Magav, Givati etc as fighters. I personally know such person even though they make a very small minority amongst female recruits.
Click to expand...

Which kinda illustrates my point, which is that, there isn't enough evidence to support the notion that co-ed infantry units are successful.

Besides that, a lot of females such as my sister serve in roles that are labeled as "combat supporters" and are trained for non-front-line combat purposes, and there are also female soldiers that serve in roles where, while they are not intended to be used for combat purposes, they are trained for such since they are stationed in places that might put them in the situation of combat.
Click to expand...

That's the same as the United States military.

There are also some female jet pilots, a role that requires advanced combat skills.
Click to expand...

Fighter pilots don't live in the field, together in the way that combat arms units do.
 
Last edited:
I think women should serve in any role but infantry, armor and artillery. The majority of women can't hold up to the physical rigors of allot of the jobs like loaders etc. The women who could are far and few between. I do not think it is worth the investment in time or money to make it happen, and the number they would need for separate units are just not there.

Edit: The only way I can see them getting any kind of numbers for separate units means lowering the physical requirements. This would make them weaker overall compared to male or all male units. So again why would we want less capable infantry units etc?
 
Last edited:
MaggieD said:
For the life of me, I can't figure out why American women would even want to serve on the front lines. For every soldier on the front lines, there are probably (guessing) 100 supporting him. Why would a woman be so eager to change the laws so she could get herself killed? I just don't get it.
Click to expand...

Same reason some males want to serve there I suppose.
 
apdst said:
We're talking about teenagers, so the asnwer would be, yes. Not only are we talking about male soldiers, we're talking about female soldiers who will exhibit the same immaturity.
Click to expand...

exactly. the non-combat units have enough trouble dealing with the fact that their soldiers and Marines are constantly ****ing each other; with all of the jealousies, distractions, factionalism, and drama that comes with it. no need to put that kind of trouble on the guys whom it might actually kill.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
exactly. the non-combat units have enough trouble dealing with the fact that their soldiers and Marines are constantly ****ing each other; with all of the jealousies, distractions, factionalism, and drama that comes with it. no need to put that kind of trouble on the guys whom it might actually kill.
Click to expand...

If soldiers are too immature to cope with sexuality, then why are we assigning them authority over the lives of innocent bystanders?
 
Morality Games said:
If soldiers are too immature to cope with sexuality, then why are we assigning them authority over the lives of innocent bystanders?
Click to expand...

Most NCO's and officers are not 17-19 year old kids fresh from high school. That is who is doing the fighting. It is the reality of the situation.
 
Morality Games said:
If soldiers are too immature to cope with sexuality, then why are we assigning them authority over the lives of innocent bystanders?
Click to expand...

Because, that's just the way things are. That's how our society works and no amount of social engineering in the military is going to change that.
 
Blackdog said:
Most NCO's and officers are not 17-19 year old kids fresh from high school. That is who is doing the fighting. It is the reality of the situation.
Click to expand...

The average soldier must still have the same tactical authority as the average police officer, who also wields authority over the lives of innocent bystanders. Discipline and training are supposed to offset the disadvantages of youth.
 
Morality Games said:
The average soldier must still have the same tactical authority as the average police officer, who also wields authority over the lives of innocent bystanders.
Click to expand...

Your basic combat E2 and E3 has little to no authority over anyone. That's why we have NCO's and officers. Who have more training and most of the time experience.
 
Morality Games said:
The average soldier must still have the same tactical authority as the average police officer, who also wields authority over the lives of innocent bystanders. Discipline and training are supposed to offset the disadvantages of youth.
Click to expand...

Plus, lots and lots of adult supervision.
 
Blackdog said:
Your basic combat E2 and E3 has little to no authority over anyone. That's why we have NCO's and officers.
Click to expand...

They can't refer to their NCOs in a split second encounter involving civilians. Not enough time.

Plus, lots and lots of adult supervision.
Click to expand...

That argument doesn't work. If what your saying is true, we have to stop taking voluntary recruits from out of high school and start drafting from among people in their 20s.

To the extent immaturity does exist among soldiers, it has to be purged, not indulged.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
Which kinda illustrates my point, which is that, there isn't enough evidence to support the notion that co-ed infantry units are successful.
Click to expand...

Depends on what you define as enough evidence, or evidence at all. I don't see a problem with the Caracal battalion, which exists now for 11 years.
You basically argue against the existence of such battalion, am I somehow incorrect and misleading on your argument's purpose?

That's the same as the United States military.
Click to expand...

Indeed I guess.

Fighter pilots don't live in the field, together in the way that combat arms units do.
Click to expand...

Correct but they train far harder on combat and survival skills than your regular front line unit fighter.
 
Morality Games said:
They can't refer to their NCOs in a split second encounter involving civilians. Not enough time.
Click to expand...

You can play the "what if" game all day. It does not change the reality's of military life and the rigors of combat, period. It makes women in combat less than desirable.
 
Blackdog said:
Your basic combat E2 and E3 has little to no authority over anyone. That's why we have NCO's and officers. Who have more training and most of the time experience.
Click to expand...

as a deployed E3 I told the Iraqi's what to do all the time. Civilian, Police, and Army.
 
cpwill said:
as a deployed E3 I told the Iraqi's what to do all the time. Civilian, Police, and Army.
Click to expand...

Marines have a tad more training than US Army, lol.
 
Apocalypse said:
Depends on what you define as enough evidence, or evidence at all. I don't see a problem with the Caracal battalion, which exists now for 11 years.
You basically argue against the existence of such battalion, am I somehow incorrect and misleading on your argument's purpose?
Click to expand...

My point, is that the Caracal Battalion hasn't seen enough combat to confirm coed infantry units an abolute success. When I say they haven't, "seen enough combat", I mean that the Caracals didn't serve in the Yom Kippur War, nor the 6-Day War, nor were they in Lebanon in the 80's.

Correct but they train far harder on combat and survival skills than your regular front line unit fighter.
Click to expand...

Annnnnd, for the fourth time in this thread: It's not about ability.
 
Morality Games said:
If soldiers are too immature to cope with sexuality, then why are we assigning them authority over the lives of innocent bystanders?
Click to expand...

it's not necessarily that they are too immature at all things; it's just that 19-21 year olds tend to be inordinately controlled by their sex organs. Discipline on patrol in a combat zone is very different (easier, in many ways) than discipline relaxing on the FOB. that same aggression and hyper-testosterone that makes one a good combat soldier / Marine also makes one more likely to not give a **** about what the rules say about whether or not you can have sex with the cute (and after a few months, they're all attractive) LCpl from dispersing. In addition, the tendency of stressful situations to throw the sex drive into overdrive is well documented.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
You can play the "what if" game all day. It does not change the reality's of military life and the rigors of combat, period. It makes women in combat less than desirable.
Click to expand...

How am I playing "what if?"

Certain women have the physical capability to be front-line soldiers. That's true. Put them through a meritocratic process of selection.

Then there is the theory that somehow the men majority will not be able to reconcile themselves to the presence of a women minority, which is at least as theoretical as the idea that they will respond favorably. Both are "what-if's."
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
Marines have a tad more training than US Army, lol.
Click to expand...

and we tend to push decision-making further down the chain. but the point about age and authority remains. :)
 
apdst said:
That's because it takes them longer to learn the material. :lamo
Click to expand...

:) feel free to wonder on over to the military threads where we had this debate out; soldier. Though to be fair, there was one of me and three or four army bubba's; so admittedly they were outnumbered ;)
 
Morality Games said:
How is that a "what if?"
Click to expand...

Because, you're assuming that it's one way, or the other and there's nothing in between.

Do privates have to make the call to take someone's life on the battlefield, without referring to their squad leader, or fireteam leader? Of course. At the same time, it's the job of the team leader, the squad leader, the platoon seargent and the platoon leader to have enough command and control over that platoon, so that when that E-1 has to make that decision, he already has enough situational awareness, that he can more easily make the right decision.
 
apdst said:
My point, is that the Caracal Battalion hasn't seen enough combat to confirm coed infantry units an abolute success. When I say they haven't, "seen enough combat", I mean that the Caracals didn't serve in the Yom Kippur War, nor the 6-Day War, nor were they in Lebanon in the 80's.
Click to expand...

How does that matter exactly? How does the background of the combat they've seen matters as long as they've seen combat?
Whether you are exchanging fire with hostiles during an all out war or are assaulted by militants during a sole incident you are still involved in combat and have thus 'seen combat'.

Annnnnd, for the fourth time in this thread: It's not about ability.
Click to expand...

Forgive me for not reading all of your comments in this thread, what is it about then if not the ability of females to serve in roles that require the skills of combat and survivability?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom