Should Female Soldiers be Allowed to Fight on the Frontline?

Scroll to see replies

You and I both know that times are different now. The standards of the 1910s and 1940s are not the standards of now. Media has gone from the pragmatic reporting of tens of thousands of deaths in a single day to the overwhelming coverage of a single death.

Again, whether that's right or wrong or something I agree with is irrelevant, that's just what it is.

My evidence is no less anecdotal than yours, but mine is current.

Your examples are current but they are not evidence in support of the proposition you advance, The capture and deaths of British servicewomen did not result in any public clamour for their withdrawal any more than the murder of WPC Beshenivsky or Firefighter Fleur Lombard.

And come on, the reporting of the death of Edith Cavell was anything but pragmatic. Hysterical fails to do it justice.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 301

Subedei

Original post by nulli tertius

In your view the West lost the Korean War. I will think about that when driving my Kia. In your view the west lost Suez (not exactly the UK's greatest triumph). I was thinking of going on a Thomas Cook trip to Egypt this winter. We apparently lost in Iraq. Give my regards to President Hussein, won't you and to Mullah Mohammed in Kabul. There is of course the most spectacular loss of all, Vietnam. How many American kids will drink Coca Cola in Ho Chi Minh City next summer? It was that bad a loss.

According to Clausewitz, who is perhaps the father of interstate warfare theory. Victory is dependent on 1)The complete or partial destruction of the enemy's armed forces2) The occupation of his country and 3) the breaking of his will to fight. None of your examples satisfy the criteria by which a trinitarian state achieves victory over an enemy. Just because you can go on holiday there decades after the defeats doesn't make it a victory. We retreated from these engagements without fulfilling the criteria for victory. What your point seems to be is that Victory is entirely subjective, and with hindsight we can call anything a victory.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 302

Infan2a

Are they able to pull a fellow male soldier out of combat if they're injured? Are they able to push themselves to the same physical capability as male soldiers can?

Then Sure :yep:

Reply 303

nulli tertius

Original post by Subedei

According to Clausewitz, who is perhaps the father of interstate warfare theory. Victory is dependent on 1)The complete or partial destruction of the enemy's armed forces2) The occupation of his country and 3) the breaking of his will to fight. On the tactical level victory is dependent on None of your examples satisfy the criteria by which a trinitarian state achieves victory over an enemy. Just because you can go on holiday there decades after the defeats doesn't make it a victory. We retreated from these engagements without fulfilling the criteria for victory. What your point seems to be is that Victory is entirely subjective, and with hindsight we can call anything a victory.

By that definition we didn't win WWI.

Clausewitz wrote about war as a game between kings. These late 20th century wars were wars of ideologies and it is our ideology that has so far prevailed. That is why we are the victors. Insofar as you and people like you (and the torturing CIA) undermine our ideology you give aid and comfort to our enemies.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 304

asinner

Original post by biggronn

http://www.sott.net/article/270006-Thoughts-create-reality-Researchers-show-how-mindfulness-can-induce-specific-molecular-changes-to-your-genes

I agree with this.
However it only causes minor changes, this cannot neutralise sexual dimorphism.
Sorry to burst your bubble.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 305

biggronn

Original post by asinner

I agree with this.
However it only causes minor changes, this cannot neutralise sexual dimorphism.
Sorry to burst your bubble.

Posted from TSR Mobile

paradox ^

i think you should go to sleep

Reply 306

Subedei

Original post by nulli tertius

No... Clausewitz didn't write about war as a game between Kings, he moved it away from the personal and into the realm of sovereign states with a legal monopoly over war, he was the first to put into words and theory what had happened after the Treaty of Westphalia. In fact, the most prolific military theorists of the inter-war period such as Basil Lidell Hart and JFC Fuller blamed the nature of WWI on just how influential Clausewitz had become amongst the higher command of the western world.

WWI certainly satisfied the criteria the German Army disintegrated and we dictated the size and shape of the German Army which emerged afterwards, the Imperial Army was certainly destroyed physically and culturally.The industrial heartland of Germany was occupied by allied forces during 1918-1919 and the will of the German nation to fight was broken from top to bottom. I'm not sure what you meant by your first sentence :confused:

Reply 307

TurboCretin

Original post by nulli tertius

Surely you mean wars over ideologies? It's not the side that's right that wins the war, it's the side that's left.

Reply 308

Subedei

Original post by nulli tertius

Insofar as you and people like you (and the torturing CIA) undermine our ideology you give aid and comfort to our enemies.

Hahaha, typical western civilian mentality to believe that it is western culture that keeps the world secure. It is exceptionally arrogant and delusional to believe that anything is a more powerful conduit for change than violent force. Violent force is always the prime mover in any equation throughout history Ideology cannot exist without violent force to either safeguard an environment in which it can be incubated, or to pursue and secure the interests of that ideology.

I'm really not sure what point you are trying to make here. :confused:

Reply 309

Clip

Original post by Retrodiction

Why not let the rigorous physical testing process decide who's capable rather than your uninformed prejudices?

Why would what I say be uninformed prejudice, and what you say not equally uninformed and prejudicial?

Say you let women apply to infantry. Say not a single one passes training. What have you just proven? You have gone ahead and proven without doubt in a fair, public arena that women are not capable of doing a job.

That sounds like an incredible victory for equality.

I say - leave it alone.

All the noise seems to be being made by people who have absolutely no stake in the argument. Where are the hordes of girls wanting to join the infantry? There aren't any. The people making the noise are either male, or females with no intention of being in the Army.

Why are you fighting for the right for hypothetical women to do a job that very few would want to do, and everyone in the Army knows that they are incapable of?

Reply 310

nulli tertius

Original post by Subedei

1648 meant that kings became the personification of states rather than the gatherers of peoples united merely by personal allegiance. Je suis l'etat.

WWI certainly satisfied the criteria the German Army disintegrated and we dictated the size and shape of the German Army which emerged afterwards, the Imperial Army was certainly destroyed physically and culturally.The industrial heartland of Germany was occupied by allied forces during 1918-1919 and the will of the German nation to fight was broken from top to bottom. I'm not sure what you meant by your first sentence :confused:

We occupied an insignificant part of his territory for a trivial period of time. His navy and his army that was facing us was largely intact and within 20 years he was fighting again.

Of course we won WWI but not by Clausewitz's definition of victory.

Original post by Subedei

Basically that you are wrong here. And as I say, the strength of western society is that it pushes to its margins those who do not hold its values.

Reply 311

caravaggio2

Isn't this all rather academic?
In war infantry have to carry on regardless in cold wet dirty outdoor conditions.
These are like kryptonite to women.
When was the last time you saw a woman grafting hard outdoors in cold wet dirty conditions?

Reply 312

Subedei

Original post by nulli tertius

1648 meant that kings became the personification of states rather than the gatherers of peoples united merely by personal allegiance. Je suis l'etat.

No, 1648 meant that states ceased to become the personal possession of Kings and instead became a trinitarian personification of that particular society consisting of people government and armed forces. In essence a corporation, legally distinct and independent of any single individual within it, any particular ruler could be disposed and that trinitarian state would live on largely the same.

You have it backwards, before 1648 and the following centuries, Kings were the personification of states, you would describe a war as being between Henry V and Charles VI rather than between England and France. The Treaty of Westphalia and what followed bought about a situation in which the state replaced the King as a legal person which waged war against other states with a legal personification. It was not the King who had the legal and sovereign right to wage war, it was the state, which as I stated above, Clausewitz described as the trinity of people, government and Military.

We occupied an insignificant part of his territory for a trivial period of time. His navy and his army that was facing us was largely intact and within 20 years he was fighting again.

We occupied the industrial heartland of Germany, the country could not operate without it, not to mention we blockaded all of their ports until the surrender, this resulted in over half a million civilians losing their lives. This is not insignificant in any way whatsoever, it was an eminently successful strategic decision, if you imagine that occupation is only a valid occupation when every square inch of territory is occupied then you have very simplistic ideas when it comes to strategy. Also, the Army was certainly not intact, it was reduced from millions of men to a mere 100,000 which was equivalent to a mere few divisions. Its Navy, in comparison to world Navies was a coastal patrol force. Germany was fighting again within 20 years due to mass mobilisation of the entire population, both militarily and industrial, which will always be possible with a well populated country with relatively rich resources. The only way we could have prevented Germany ever mobilising again would be to eliminate Germany as a state.... But this would be a political decision, little would be applicable militarily.

..... I can't help but think you are just disagreeing with me to disagree with me, you obviously havent read Clausewitz, nor are you very familiar with the Treaty of Westphalia, concepts of the trinitarian state, or what is generally agreed to constitute strategy within a western conceptions of war...

Basically that you are wrong here. And as I say, the strength of western society is that it pushes to its margins those who do not hold its values.

I do agree strongly with you about western society pushing those who do not conform to its margins. However, I believe that western society has become delusional in its faith in the strength of its culture(Which of course is strong), it has become arrogant in its invincibility. My belief, as I have stated before is that the Trinitarian State is obsolete, it was rendered so by the creation of the nuclear weapon, a weapon which is lethal to highly concentrated infrastructure, material and forces, which is essentially what the state is, the state came into being to wage war against other states, t came into being to protect its citizens, our culture does not protect us from the attacks of enemies, it is our own wielding of violent force that does, our culture means nothing in the face of armed men. All over the world the state is being undermined by wars between non-state armies, in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Mexico, Guatemala, Peru, Colombia, Ukraine, Egypt, Lebanon, Nigeria, Kenya, Somalia, Mali, Sudan, Pakistan, Afghanistan the list goes on and on. The common thread is the castration of the state, despite the impression through the destructive power and number of its arms, it is largely helpless when waging the new kind of war.
The state just cannot seem to win due in large part to the fickle nature and power of its population that you identify above. War for the state only lasts as long as the population remains interested in it. So we go in, fight an enemy with plenty of patience, we start off by killing many of his fighters with our power and technology, but in doing so we force him to adapt, we force him to become more lethal, more dangerous, then we retreat and leave the country. Israel in Lebanon is a perfect example, Hezbollah is one of the most impressive unconventional infantry forces in the world right now. During the 2006 invasion they halted and badly mauled the IDF, one of the most battle hardened western forces on the planet. During the battle of Bint Jbeil they halted and badly damaged an Israeli armoured battallion using tactics they had developed fighting and often being defeated by the IDF over the previous decades. The Meerkeva main battle tank is one of the most expensive, advanced MBT in history. Hezbollah were fighting with old AK's and anti tank missiles from the cold war imported via disassembled farm equipment from Iran...

Reply 313

Swanbow

Original post by Subedei

Ahh, good old Clausewitz. Although his writings have been fundamental to the development of strategic theories he was a product of his time. Some of his stuff has dated really well, others haven't.

Recently the concept of victory and how to obtain it has become less clear than it was during the 19th and 20th Century. The era of conventional, interstate warfare as understood from the end of the First World War to the end of the Cold War is over. Interstate warfare has taken the back seat. Irregular conflicts have taken the mantle piece. In irregular conflicts it is near impossible to destroys the enemy's entire armed forces, and break their will to fight. To achieve both takes a generation of military involvement and funding. So instead victory is defined in the ability to subdue armed groups to a state where their presence is near tolerable. Militant nationalist groups in Northern Ireland didn't just disappear, they evolved into new groupings and offshoots and slowly faded away to a state of near irrelevance. Breaking the will of dedicated people fighting for a cause they believe in is harder than that of breaking the will of conscripts fighting for a state that barely represents them. Neither is it about breaking the populaces will to fight, but reversing their will to fight for you against the insurgents, which is a hard task. Through this nation building and foreign aid has become a key feature in success, in both tactical and strategic terms. But even then pouring money into a country and developing infrastructure does not mean that people will be won over easily. The trouble is that victory under these conditions does not seem like victory under conventional terms. Iraq and Afghanistan went miles better than Vietnam, yet because we were unable to completely get rid of 'enemy' they have been judged as failures, even as the governments we put in place hold together. And failing to completely get rid of the enemy is dangerous. Al Qaeda and the Sunni militants never left Iraq, they were just beaten back and now we see them emerging again under the same ideology but a new banner, Daesh. Likewise the Taliban will re-emerge on a massive scale when ISAF pulls out, and not many have faith in the Afghani government security forces. Victory in irregular, guerilla type conflicts is simply too costly, both economically and politically for Western democracies to succeed in doing so.

In the case of the Vietnam war, America lost militarily, politically and ideologically. The US forces were unable to defeat the Vietcong, and the ARVN after them eventually collapsed. The democrats were ruined by the war, and Nixon's escalation to Cambodia hardly won him many fans. And yes, capitalism failed in Vietnam and communism won. However in the long term capitalism won. America eventually achieved their ultimate objective, albeit not due to their military intervention. Military it wasn't a victory, but ideologically in the long term it was.

Reply 314

nulli tertius

Original post by Subedei

..... I can't help but think you are just disagreeing with me to disagree with me, you obviously havent read Clausewitz, nor are you very familiar with the Treaty of Westphalia, concepts of the trinitarian state, or what is generally agreed to constitute strategy within a western conceptions of war...

I agree I have only read third party commentary on Clausewitz but I am very familiar with the Treaty of Westphalia. You did not pick up my quotation from a version of a quotation Le Suis L'etat or L'etat c'est Moi which is quote from a actual party to that treaty; Louis Quatorze.

What you struggling with, and I think that is because you lack knowledge of political and constitutional theory is the difference between men held together by a bound of personal allegiance to a sovereign and a sovereign as personification of a political entity; a state.

As far as Henry V was concerned France was whatever territory owed allegiance to the King of France. By Shakespeare's time (and embodied in the 1648 Treaty) France was becoming seen as land bordered by Rhine and Pyrenees. However the King of France personified that political entity. A foreign state had no concern with the Estates of the Realm or the Parlement. A treaty with Louis was a treaty with France. This is one of the reasons why the international community struggled with republics for so long. America sent Ministers (representatives of a government rather than Ambassadors (representatives of a sovereign and a state [here these are synonymous]) abroad until the late 19th century because foreigners could not find the seat of American sovereignty.

Reply 315

arichmond64

I have never been in the forces, but I have some very close friends who are.

I think what most people don't actually realise is that, "passing the tests" is only the beginning, they don't expect you to be able to carry 50kg of gear for 10 miles when you first join, so you have to train in order to do that, the same with dragging a 14 stone bloke out of the way in a conflict. So I think what most people are saying is that, even the women who are capable of passing the entry requirements will just hit a glass ceiling with their physical capabilities. Which isn't really sexist, men can make much bigger gains training than women, they make them quicker, and their bodies can withstand the forces put upon them better. If you put a woman and a man on the same gym training programme, in order to increase strength, the man would hit a higher standard and quicker, it's just science.

The other main reason is probably to do with relationships and how men and women function together, especially sexually, I just think there would be so many problems which could potentially arise.

I think they should just say, look, it isn't broke, so let's not try and fix it.

Reply 316

Clip

Original post by arichmond64

Since when has science, or indeed sense had anything to do with this?

This is a fight being brought by people who have not the slightest idea what they are arguing for, or why. All they know is that they perceive an inequality and want to fight about it.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 317

ChaoticButterfly

Original post by caravaggio2

When was the last time you saw a woman grafting hard outdoors in cold wet dirty conditions?

When I was grafting hard outdoors in muddy wet (and midgey) conditions doing path maintenance.

Reply 318

mackemforever

Original post by caravaggio2

When was the last time? Well how about this morning when one of my female colleagues lugged 120 Christmas trees up a hundred yard hill, one at a time, in the cold and the wet at 6am this morning.

Or last weekend training with my Army Reserves unit where we were doing field exercises in the cold & the rain all weekend and the number of women there all kept up with everybody else.

Or during every training weekend with the Officers Training Corps where half of our units Physical Training Instructors (i.e. the people who have to be the fittest in the unit) were able to outperform most of the men every single training session regardless of weather.

I could go on but I have more important things to do.

Reply 319

Retrodiction

Original post by Clip

I'm confused as to why you proposed the bolded hypothetical. By contrast, what if all of the women who would like to apply for the role would pass the tests if they were permitted to take them? If this were the case, then it would prove that the army cares more about genitalia than ability. But it seems you would rather not know if there are women capable of doing the job - I happen to care too much about the quality of the armed forces simply to let this bizarre assumption go unchallenged.