🚀 go-pugleaf

I proudly served 8-1/2 years in the U.S. Army. The first unit I served in
was as a medic in a Clearing Company(sorta' like what you see on MASH but
smaller). 30% of our soldiers, if you can call them that with a straight
face, were female. While some of them were competent medics, and a few
were competent soldiers in the garrison evironment(i.e. non-combat). I've
known only a few that had the drive and aggression it takes to be a good
soldier in a stress filled environment. I've met none that had that along
with the extreme physical endurance that is needed to be an affective
team-member in a combat situation.

Later in my career I served in combat arms units where there were no
females, atleast not in the tactical mission. We played for higher stakes
there especially in our physical and tactical training. I don't believe
there are many (maybe any) females that could successfully complete Ranger
school or some of the "things we did for fun" like wounded buddy drills or
escape and evade excercises with 80 pound back packs. 

In short, women generally don't have all or enough of the traits needed to
be effective soldiers in combat. I base this on my experience in training
excercises and in actual combat, although I didn't work in as close
proximity to female soldiers while in combat.

As far as what you may have heard about women being easier to train than
their male counterparts. That, I believe is true. It is much easier to
train a female soldier to use a weapon. I know that from experience. I
think it is because you don't have to go through all the work of breaking
through the male ego, breaking those bad habits with weapons that young
men probably pick up by watching TV and fantacizing about being a war
hero.

However, one of the most important traits soldier can have is physical
strength and physical prowess. No matter how much some politician tries to
convince you that all current wars are fought with "push-buttons", they
aren't. A lot of it is still back-breaking work and sheer physical terror.
Every now and then I see on television some "sweet little cup-cake" that
probably only weighs 120-130 pounds saying she can perform as well as her
male counterpart. Well, even if that male counterpart was as tiny as she
is, he'd pack a lot more muscle in a smaller area, and be stronger, have
more endurance than her. (Remember, I'm talking about an average case
here...I'm sure there are cases where there are male soldiers that can't
"hang with the big dogs", but they get weeded out because their lack of
ability is not "protected by the federal government")

There are a lot of people out there who don't realize how demanding a
combat environment is. Being a soldier is not a job for people lacking in
intelectual, physical or emotional development. For the U.S. government to
expand the roles of women in the military would be a huuuuuge mistake.

Thank you. I just had to get that of my chest. I'll probably have to take
a lot of heat from "feminazis" and men who've never served or been in
combat, but that's my opinion and its based on actual experience. 

As a young NCO I got in a little trouble and got a reputation as being a
"hard-ass" for forcing females to perform at the same standards as the
males in every area of job performance. Many of them thought they deserved
a break because they were physically weaker or supposidely not as
technically proficient. I worked under the philosophy that they were to be
treated equally whether they liked it or not. Most didn't like it.

We had a few weakling men, but they didn't expect or get any sympathy.
Their coworkers wouldn't have any mercy either.

 A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. 

One more thing about standards...I could accept the idea of women in
combat only if they were held to the same standards as men...BUT THEY
AREN'T! The stanards for women for physical fitness are laughably low.
Time and time again, I've watched women fold under all the physical and
emotional pressure. There may be a few that can handle it, but they are
VERY few.