NYTimes Article on the current role of women in combat. Even though we are not allowed to serve in infantry or spceial forces, women are still oversea's dieing in their supporting roles.
My personal thoughts are if a woman wants to blow shit up and slit people's throats, then she should be able to. I feel the majority of women may NOT want to do this, so the military should not worry about it. The politics are still rough - sexual hassisment and what not - and we still have to prove ourselves as "one of the guys"; but in receint events in my life I have met several women I would rather have by my side in combat over a man - they are quick and ruthless and have no problems taking down men who are 3x's their size and killing their enemy.
Below is the full length article as well as links to profiles of the fallen women.
SMM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The FallenProfiles of the 65 American female soldiers who have died in Iraq or Afghanistan.
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006By
LIZETTE ALVAREZPublished: September 24, 2006
LT. EMILY J. T. PEREZ, 23, a
West Point graduate who outran many men, directed a gospel choir and read the Bible every day, was at the head of a weekly convoy as it rolled down roads pocked with bombs and bullets near Najaf. As platoon leader, she insisted on leading her troops from the front.
Two weeks ago, one of those bombs tripped her up, detonating near her Humvee in Kifl, south of Baghdad. She died Sept. 12, the 64th woman from the United States military to be killed in Iraq or Afghanistan. Eight died in Vietnam.
Despite longstanding predictions that America would shudder to see its women coming home in coffins, Lieutenant Perez’s death, and those of the other women, the majority of whom died from hostile fire (the 65th died in a Baghdad car bombing a day later), have stirred no less — and no more — reaction at home than the nearly 2,900 male dead. The same can be said of the hundreds of wounded women.
There is no shortage of guesses as to why: Americans are no longer especially shocked by the idea of a woman’s violent death. Most don’t know how many women have fallen, or under what circumstances. Photographs of body bags and coffins are rarely seen. And nobody wants to kick up a fuss and risk insulting grieving families.
“The public doesn’t seem concerned they are dying,” said Charles Moskos, a military sociologist at
Northwestern University who has closely studied national service. “They would rather have someone else's daughter die than their son.”
What’s more, no one in the strained military is eager to engage in a debate about women and the risks they are taking in Iraq because, quite simply, the women are sorely needed in this modern-day insurgent conflict. As has happened many times in war, circumstances have outpaced arguments. They are sure to be taken up again at some point, only this time, the military will have real-life data on the performance of women in the field to supplant the hypotheticals.
Like most soldiers on the job, Lieutenant Perez, who will be buried at West Point on Tuesday, was focused on her mission, not on her groundbreaking role in a war that seems to have dispelled a litany of notions about women warriors.
For the first time, women by the thousands are on the ground and engaging the enemy in a war that has no front line, and little in the way of safe havens. In this 360-degree war, they are in the thick of it, hauling heavy equipment and expected to shoot and defend themselves and others from an enemy that is all around them. They are driving huge rigs down treacherous roads, frisking Iraqi women at dangerous checkpoints, handling gun turrets and personnel carriers and providing cover for other soldiers.
It is not so much the job titles that have changed — the policy shift that allowed women to serve in combat support units close to the front lines occurred in 1994. Rather it is the job conditions.
“We are asking far more of our female soldiers than ever before in history,” said Elaine Donnelly, director of the Center for Military Readiness, a conservative think tank.
But a line in the Iraqi sand exists. Under the 1994 Pentagon policy, women were still barred from serving in ground combat forces — infantry, armor, field artillery — but are allowed to serve as fighter pilots and on warships. In Iraq, women were not involved in the initial invasion; they did not clear insurgents from Falluja; they don’t drive tanks or, in most cases, kick down doors in house searches.
They are also barred, technically, from “co-located units” that support combat troops. A woman can serve as a medic, for example, but not as a medic in a unit that “co-locates and remains” or accompanies a unit on the front line, like an infantry unit.
In reality, though, this so-called co-location is taking place, analysts say, although it is unclear how widespread it is. The Pentagon has stretched the language of the policy, mostly because there are not enough troops, men or women. It has done so because the language is fuzzy. An effort by some House Republican leaders last year to challenge the practice was beaten back by the Pentagon, which argued that it could not sustain the mission without women in these jobs.
“It says you can have female medics, but they can’t see combat,” said Capt. Megan O’Connor, who served in Iraq for a year and a half in the New Jersey Army National Guard as a medical operations and plans officer. “It’s all combat in Ramadi. It’s so gray. They put the rules down on paper. It looks good. It reads good. But for a commander to implement, it’s impossible.”
“The women were itching for it,” she added, and accumulating commendations and medals for bravery along the way.
Ms. Donnelly said the Pentagon was openly flouting current policy and sending women out directly with combat troops, with no debate, no hearings in Congress and, so far, no consequences. She has no qualms about women, who make up 10 percent of the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, doing the jobs they are assigned in dangerous circumstances. That is standard. But to send them out with combat troops is illegal, she said.
“I have enormous respect for these women,” said Ms. Donnelly, who opposes allowing women into ground combat forces. “My criticism is not of the women in the military. They are fulfilling their responsibility to the greatest degree, and that, too, is unprecedented. The policymakers should not be ordering them into areas that are not gender integrated.”
But the fact that the Army is successfully using women in this way is likely to lead policymakers to revisit the rule, some analysts say. “It’s that policy that when this war is over is going to have to change, even if we have to keep women out of the infantry per se,” said Lory Manning, a retired Navy captain who is the director for the women-in-the-military project at the Women’s Research and Education Institute, a nonprofit public policy group. “The next door to open is ground combat. That’s the last frontier. A lot of the social conservatives have powerful feelings about training mothers to kill.”
Conventional wisdom has long dictated that women were not suited to the battlefield — too frail, emotionally and physically, to survive combat pressure. Men, it was said, would crumble at the sight of a bloodied female soldier, or put themselves at risk to protect her. The public would not stomach women coming back in body bags or suffering life-changing wounds. And mixing men and women — with all the sexual and emotional pitfalls — would strain the unit dynamic, which can lead to deadly mistakes.
Those sorts of arguments were revived last week when the former Navy secretary James Webb, running for Senate in Virginia, was reminded of his assertions 30 years ago that women could not, and should not, fight, assertions he has distanced himself from.
None of this, so far, has come to pass. “They are pulling their own weight and performing as well as men,” Ms. Manning said. “And the American public is not any more upset about women coming home in body bags than men.”
Mady Wechsler Segal, a professor of sociology at the
University of Maryland and the associate director for the Center for Research on Military Organization, said succinctly, “If they weren’t doing a good job, we would be hearing about it.”
Certainly, women in Iraq and Afghanistan face different challenges, both at war and at home. Incidents of sexual harassment on military bases are common enough, and fending that off without offending peers and superiors is tricky. Sexual assault, while less common, only intensifies combat stress, leading to greater vulnerability. It also leads to new complications. What if your attacker is also the person you must defend, or must defend you?
A whole crop of veterans are suffering from post-traumatic stress and lost limbs, circumstances that sometimes prove more difficult for women who often fill the role of nurturers to their families.
And there are practical considerations. Women on smaller bases in Iraq often share sleeping quarters with men. Equipment in women’s sizes can sometimes be harder to come by. Some women use newer forms of birth control to make their periods less frequent. Even urinating can become a problem. The military has disbursed portable contraptions the women affectionately call a weenus, for use on long truck drives.
Women also face resistance among some male commanders, who are not keen to put women at risk, some women who have served in Iraq say. But many commanders, they added, treated them no differently.
Capt. Tammy Spicer, who commanded a transportation company for the Missouri National Guard, said women were often being watched to see if they are up to the job. Driving trucks is dangerous work in Iraq, and her company drove a million and a half miles with no enemy-related casualties.
If anything was taxing, she said, it was in 2003 in Kuwait, when she and four other women shared a tent with 45 men. The women shared showers with men, on rotation, and always got the worst hours, she said. “Their bickering, their cursing, their body noises,” she said, laughing. “They would leave their food out and we would have rats. There was no relief from men.”
