Women in Combat!

[Ms. Spam]

Should we have a requirement they sign up when they turn 18?

[Guest El Chalupacabra]

As in women should be required to register for selective service? If so, then yes, women should be required to sign up for selective service, just like men.

 

A better question is why SHOULDN'T women be required to register selective service, just like men?

[Ms. Spam]

YES! I find this interesting. I can hear a lot of daddy's freaking out though.

[Guest El Chalupacabra]

True, but I suspect they wouldn't be the only ones complaining about it.

[Destiny Skywalker]

Now I think it's valid because women are now eligible for all combat roles. Before it wasn't so valid because women weren't able to serve in every role. And let's face it, you primarily call a draft because you need infantry, not because you need support staff like telecommunications and cooks.

 

However, I think if you are going to make everyone register, there should be new exemptions because there's a larger pool. Single parents (widowed or baby mama/daddy is not around) should be exempt from selection. Mothers with children under the age of 1 should be exempt or be able to defer until their child is 1. I believe there's already an exemption for financial hardship (single income family, working parent can't be called up). There's a few out there already regarding veterans and family of those KIA/MIA.

[Guest El Chalupacabra]

It must be remembered selective service doesn't mean automatic ticket to front line infantry. There are many jobs in the military, and these days, they try to place you where you will do the most good. Selective Service doesn't even mean one will necessarily even be drafted at all. It's just the shared responsibility that should be shared by all who are able to serve, if called upon to do it. That said, I don't support conscription or the draft, UNLESS there were an extreme circumstance, where the very survival of the nation was involved (IE the US was invaded). When you draft people, you don't get the best available, and you don't get people who want to be there in the first place. Not to mention, I think compulsory service runs contradictory to what a representative republic should be. And I also agree there should be exemptions for justifiable circumstances. In a nation of 310 million, and with an all volunteer military, surely we can make exceptions for circumstances that warrant them.

 

One other thing: while I sympathized with the women who wanted (and have finally got) the ability to serve in combat arms assignments, I don't buy the previous argument if women couldn't serve in combat arms, then they shouldn't be drafted, as if the other 95% of the jobs in the military don't count somehow. Such logic actually does a disservice and diminishes the accomplishments of the women who have served, fought, and were wounded or died. In basic training and my later Advanced Individual training, I had female drill sergeants, and they were both excellent soldiers. The drill sergeant from AIT was actually a jump master from the 18th airborne corps, who earned her combat jump under fire in Panama. She served right with to the infantry guys. Just because her MOS wasn't 11B, didn't mean she didn't have the same bullets flying at her as she jumped into Panama. Also, Lori Piestewa isn't any less dead, when her convoy was ambushed in Iraq.

[Destiny Skywalker]

Not disagreeing with most of what you said. I wasn't trying to say 95% of the jobs don't count, but I think you only do a draft when you expect heavy losses and mostly need warm bodies to throw at an enemy. Of course you will need support staff, and they also need to be fully trained soldiers. One of my childhood friends lost a sister in Iraq who was "just" a cook. She was still a soldier and she was still in a warzone.

 

I would be very surprised if we ever saw a draft called again. Modern warfare tactics have changed, and I think a draft to invade another country would not go over very well. As you said, it only makes sense from a self-defense standpoint.

[Ryn]

We have professional, standing armies. End registration.

[Pong Messiah]

We have professional, standing armies. End registration.

Yeah. I've said this in other threads, but if a state can't adequately defend itself with an all-voluntary military... so be it. Too bad, so sad.

 

Regarding women in combat, the only issue I can see with it is if standards are lowered in order to fulfill social scientist wet dreams of a "more representative military." Weight/strength/height/endurance/knowledge minimums should not be reduced for any job when it can be demonstrated that lowering those minimums negatively affects safety and efficiency. Otherwise, it is only fair that any non-felon of sound mind and body should be able to apply for whatever military job (or any job) they can qualify for.

[Guest El Chalupacabra]

We have professional, standing armies. End registration.

I don't necessarily disagree with the idea we don't need selective service at the moment, but if no one had anything invested because there was zero chance of ever being drafted, don't you think people would pay even less attention to military actions? Right now, there is very little chance of someone being drafted, and no one really pays attention as it is. By having a chance of being drafted (even if a remote one), it is somewhat of a check and balance against the government waging wars whenever it wants. If there were no danger of anyone fighting a war, unless they volunteered, and the war was unpopular (or illegal or immoral), and people started to protest, the government response would be "So what, you won't ever have to be drafted, so why do you care?" And you know, a good amount of people would then say, "Yep, you're right. Carry on."

[Good God a Bear]

Now I think it's valid because women are now eligible for all combat roles. Before it wasn't so valid because women weren't able to serve in every role. And let's face it, you primarily call a draft because you need infantry, not because you need support staff like telecommunications and cooks.

However, I think if you are going to make everyone register, there should be new exemptions because there's a larger pool. Single parents (widowed or baby mama/daddy is not around) should be exempt from selection. Mothers with children under the age of 1 should be exempt or be able to defer until their child is 1. I believe there's already an exemption for financial hardship (single income family, working parent can't be called up). There's a few out there already regarding veterans and family of those KIA/MIA.

Why just Mothers with children under the age of 1? Why not Fathers as well?

[Ms. Spam]

As an aside when i was measured for my uniforms in intake just before i started basic at Fort Benning the dude measuring my neck said "You'll do real well in basic. You have a big neck". Uh, thanks.

 

I kind of wish I'd stuck it out. I blew my knee pretty bad during basic so they told me to come back when it healed. I opted to not go back and to this day my knee kills me if I've been standing for a while or walking a lot. It was during the quiet Cllinton years so the Army wasn't clamouring for me. I did get a call back years later but because of some other issues the Army did not work out. I'd like to think I'd have been one of the people who made it to serve in combat. I think I'd be scared as shit but still wonder about this sometimes as I'm right across from a major installation here in Texas at Ft Sam.

 

I think we don't need selective service so opening up combat roles to women mean that some guys would have a better chance of being rejected or less picked I guess if a big draft happened. My curiousity lays in how women will deal with combat mentally than a man. PTSD and other traumas affect women differently. They're just now realizing control groups should include women for testing medication because women process medication differently.

[Destiny Skywalker]

 

Now I think it's valid because women are now eligible for all combat roles. Before it wasn't so valid because women weren't able to serve in every role. And let's face it, you primarily call a draft because you need infantry, not because you need support staff like telecommunications and cooks.

However, I think if you are going to make everyone register, there should be new exemptions because there's a larger pool. Single parents (widowed or baby mama/daddy is not around) should be exempt from selection. Mothers with children under the age of 1 should be exempt or be able to defer until their child is 1. I believe there's already an exemption for financial hardship (single income family, working parent can't be called up). There's a few out there already regarding veterans and family of those KIA/MIA.

Why just Mothers with children under the age of 1? Why not Fathers as well?

I'd love to see that, but probably a pipe dream. The reason I said mothers is because they are the primary food source for babies. AMA recommends breastfeeding until at least age 1, WHO recommends age 2.

[Good God a Bear]

Good reason

[Guest El Chalupacabra]

 

We have professional, standing armies. End registration.

Yeah. I've said this in other threads, but if a state can't adequately defend itself with an all-voluntary military... so be it. Too bad, so sad.

 

 

Interesting point. After thinking about it, I think you convinced me to be for completely doing away with selective service, altogether. I only supported it in extreme circumstances where a nation needed it to defend (not wage offensive or "preventative" wars), but if a country doesn't have the volunteers willing to fight for it when its very survival is at stake, perhaps it doesn't deserve to exist in the first place and shouldn't survive.

[Pong Messiah]

if a country doesn't have the volunteers willing to fight for it when its very survival is at stake, perhaps it doesn't deserve to exist in the first place and shouldn't survive.

Maybe it's fatalistic? I don't know. After Pearl Harbor, people were being turned away by the military, after 9/11 the bump in recruitment was much smaller. But perhaps that was because Japan was such a clearly defined enemy, while the response to 9/11 was muddled and opportunistic (plus, Bush just told people to "go shopping" or something), and it was clear from the start we wouldn't be involved in any WWII-style campaigns. I'd like to think if there were another Pearl Harbor-Type event, history would repeat itself.

 

But yeah, back to the main point: if a nation clearly has the ability (weapons, equipment, fuel, etc.) to repel an attack or invasion from a belligerent foreign power, but its citizens can't be stirred from their Cheeze Doodles and Tumblr Fainting Couches long enough to actually bother defending their own homeland, well... it's tragic fail on too many levels to count, but **** 'em.

 

Obviously, it's a much different scenario if a country is facing an enemy that is simply too powerful to fight off -- but even then, why have a draft? So you can throw kids into a meat grinder for a lost cause?

 

Note: if we were to require military service (obviously not combat roles) for everybody of sound mind and body, with no deferrals because your family has money or connections or because you can write a moving essay on the importance of finishing your Ph.D in basket weaving, but truly for everybody, my attitude might be a little different. When it is selective, the "honor" of compulsory national service always seems to fall disproportionately on people of less means. Screw that.

[Guest El Chalupacabra]

Yeah, like I said earlier, I have always had a problem with the concept of a draft for democracies/representative republics, but I acknowledge my hypocrisy when it comes to my former position that it would be OK to have selective service when a nation's existence is at stake. I really can't ad much to what you said, Pong, because that pretty much covers what I think, as well.

 

Which, bringing it back around to the original topic, it is also incompatible with our style of government to be allowed to discriminate. I think if there is a good thing that can be said about what took place under the Obama administration and the military, it is that women in combat MOS's has been approved finally, as well as allowing gay/lesbian soldiers to serve openly. To prevent someone from doing a job for which they are qualified for, simply based on who they are and no good logical reason, then complaining you don't have enough people is ridiculous.

 

It makes me wonder when they ended the draft all those years ago, if they had also got rid of selective service, whether we would have seen women in ground combat roles faster. This is much like how don't ask/don't tell was sort of the compromise that was made for gays/lesbians under Clinton (and was actually a good way open the door for gay/lesbian people to serve ), but in the long run actually hindered those same individuals from serving openly. I mean even at the time people knew what it was: just a way to allow gays/lesbians to serve, as long as they kept quiet about it, but Clinton just didn't want to spend the political capital on doing what he should have done, and just allowed gays/lesbians to serve out in the open from the beginning.

[Guest]

In order for history to repeat itself regarding WW2, we would have to draft ten million people.

 

As much as we have this rose colored vision of "the greatest generation," they still had to be dragged into the war far more than is widely believed. Certainly enlistment was up immediately following Pearl Harbor, but it takes more than a temporary surge to actually create a lasting military.

 

But, yeah, things are completely different now. Massive professional military changes things.

[Darth Krawlie]

I do think it's pretty adorable that NOW I'm seeing a lot of articles calling for the end of the draft, now that there's a call from the military to start including woman. One of those things where equality isn't QUITE what is wanted after all. Even my wife called this out as bullshit.

[Pong Messiah]

In order for history to repeat itself regarding WW2, we would have to draft ten million people.

 

As much as we have this rose colored vision of "the greatest generation," they still had to be dragged into the war far more than is widely believed. Certainly enlistment was up immediately following Pearl Harbor, but it takes more than a temporary surge to actually create a lasting military.

 

But, yeah, things are completely different now. Massive professional military changes things.

That's interesting. I've always gone by the massive post-Pearl Harbor registration boost and never questioned statistics beyond that. Every one of my elder relatives either signed up or were turned away due to health or personal circumstances the army or navy found unacceptable (e.g. grandfather was turned away due to age, chronic ulcers, and other health issues, but all his younger brothers got in). Then there are the celebrity stories (Reagan signing up with eyesight dovetailing with media/film duties, Joe Louis giving up a few of his prime athletic years, etc.) and loads of laughably blatant propaganda that has survived. Beyond that, the horror stories of people I know who were drafted during Vietnam (far less about the horrors of war than the horrors of utter incompetence and soul-shatteringly low morale), are backed up with countless media presentations...

 

But looking at the statistics, it's fascinating to see that 2/3 of the U.S. soldiers in WWII were drafted, while only 1/3 in Vietnam were. Granted, Vietnam was a much smaller operation, but it still challenges a lot of stereotypes (though it is also an affirmation of the view that draftees are more likely to be poor and suffer casualties). It also challenges my view of "if you can't defend yourself," though I'm not sure it changes my mind.

 

Regardless, I consider myself really well versed in history, especially 1914-1953, and am embarrassed to admit you led me down a rabbit hole I have not yet fallen. Well done. Dick.

[Ms. Spam]

My Dad was not drafted. He went to West Point and ended up leading a artillery platoon in Vietnam simply because of luck of the year he graduated high school and he wanted to get a full ride scholarship. My grandparents on his side were tenant farmers so there was not a lot of money invested for him to go to the University of GA which was his first choice. He graduated West Point the year the conflict escalated to troops going and off he went. He says it was the scariest thing he had done up to then in his life.

 

When I attempted enlistment I would have done it during the Clinton years and not have gone into battle. This actually affected my decision. If I was 19 again and it was now or even 8 years ago I'd have thunk a little harder about signing up.

 

Anyways the point of this rambling post is signing up is all about timing.