Hegseth: No women in combat roles
-
A long post by someone on twitter who also writes for The Federalist.
So with Pete Hegseth’s nomination as SecDef, the issue of women in combat has once again been brought to the forefront of the public consciousness.
I commanded gender-integrated units my entire Army career. I have some thoughts.
In this particular post I don’t want to discuss the issue of the physical ability of women to serve in combat MOSs. That’s a real issue, and one that is being discussed vigorously elsewhere. I want to talk about a less understood but equally important issue—that being the impact on culture, combat effectiveness and esprit de corps that gender integration has on fighting units.
The fact of the matter is that no one can deny biology. When you put 19-year-old men and women in close contact with each other 24/7 under incredibly stressful conditions, sex is going to happen, love is going to happen and jealousy is going to happen. This is horribly disruptive to unit effectiveness, particularly when that inevitable spark arises between supervisor and subordinate. Military leaders have to be able to order their troops on missions where death is a real possibility, and love or jealousy hinders effective military decision making, and disrupts the unity and overall effectiveness of units.
I have countless stories to tell—HMMWV ambulances used as brothels; a Signal E-5 who made ~$50,000 on an OIF rotation selling herself in a porta-potty (yuck). Yes, I know these are exceptions, but biology has a call all its own that is hard for too many to resist.
Personal story: my very first assignment as a 2LT was as a maintenance platoon leader of a 50-soldier platoon in the 9th Infantry Division (Motorized) out of Fort Lewis, WA. I had been in the unit less than a week when we went on a major field exercise. I really did not know any of my soldiers yet. One day I was going through a field ration line getting served horrible tray rations when the server, a young and extremely attractive female E-4 who was an artillery repairer in my platoon stopped mid-spoon serving to tell me—with others listening—“Sir, you have the nicest eyes. You have eyes just like a lieutenant I used to date in Germany.”
Holy crap. I was a 2LT and I did not know
from Shinola as they say. Plus I was a single 21 year old male with natural urges. I remember saying nothing but “uh huh” (badly wrong move) and walking off.A couple of nights later she showed up at my GP small tent (I had my own tent as platoon leader). She had heard that I liked chocolate nut cakes out of MREs. Chocolate nut cakes came in one particular meal in an entire MRE case. She had gone through basically every MRE case in the Company to grab me like 50 chocolate nut cakes and she brought them all to my tent, by herself, at around 2200 hours one night and she “wanted to talk.” Once again I handled it badly and just said something like “I have to go check the fighting positions” as I walked out.
After I rebuffed her enough times, she came to hate me and was a real discipline problem the entire time I led that platoon.
(Now I know I mishandled this, but in my defense I was totally green and I learned from it.)
Now imagine variations of this same theme times a bazillion across all five services, and I think even civilians can see that the combat effectiveness of gender integrated units is compromised by love and hormones. There are no number of awareness trainings that can defeat hormones. They exist, and they always will.
Keep in mind that my story was in a logistics unit, a type of unit that has long been gender integrated but who generally is not engaged in direct combat operations with a hostile enemy. Now imagine what I described playing out in an Infantry platoon on a remote operating base deep in the mountains of Afghanistan. Gender integrated combat units are a recipe for disaster and degrade warfighting capability.
Writing all of this pains me a bit, as the battalion I commanded in Afghanistan had a remarkably effective female Operations Officer as well as some amazing female troops, and I married a hard-core, Airborne, Expert Field Medical Badge-wearing officer medic I met in a different unit we were both assigned to as 1LTs. Nevertheless, I must admit that all-male units have better combat effectiveness than gender-integrated units.
I’m not sure what the right answer is here. I don’t think we should deny female warriors opportunities to serve, but we also need to draw a line where hormones don’t get people killed.
These are my thoughts.
The IDF seems to have no problem with it, at least none that I've seen (as if they'd acknowledge it, LOL).
-
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
I’m kinda coming around on Hegseth.
Tammy Duckworth be damned, the earlier post is far more telling.
Me/rry/Christmas
-
@LuFins-Dad said in Hegseth: No women in combat roles:
Tammy Duckworth be damned,
Sen Duckworth, if women hadn't been in combat, you'd have both your legs.
And thank you for your service.
the earlier post is far more telling.
Yeah, that's sorta been @jolly's take all along. Shit's gonna happen. Always has, always will.
Link to video -
You want to get a handle on Pete? Here it is...
Link to video -
BTW, in thar interview, Pete did not say no women in combat roles. He seems to have no problem with women in roles that do not require strength...He specifically cited pilots. Some more...
-
I wouldn't have a problem if they said no women in combat positions. It makes sense in my simple caveman brain. Men are stronger, the bond between soldiers I'd imagine is stronger in a brotherhood, you reduce the distractions of gender-based facilities or sex-based drama. I also think it's a man's job to protect. In any event... I think it comes down more to having the best fighters out there... keep the physical requirements high (and the same) for all who fight... we need the best when it comes to combat.
(Much of this is slowly becoming moot... technology and remote warfare is taking over)
-
@89th said in Hegseth: No women in combat roles:
I wouldn't have a problem if they said no women in combat positions. It makes sense in my simple caveman brain. Men are stronger, the bond between soldiers I'd imagine is stronger in a brotherhood, you reduce the distractions of gender-based facilities or sex-based drama. I also think it's a man's job to protect. In any event... I think it comes down more to having the best fighters out there... keep the physical requirements high (and the same) for all who fight... we need the best when it comes to combat.
(Much of this is slowly becoming moot... technology and remote warfare is taking over)
Technology is great, but there is no substitute for boots on the ground.
Always remember, Operation Valkyrie was an act of sedition.
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion. -
@Jolly said in Hegseth: No women in combat roles:
Technology is great, but there is no substitute for boots on the ground.
Hydrogen bombs in the sky?
-
I have trouble understanding what in his background makes him qualified to be Sec of Defense.
Yes, he was a very good combat veteran, but dont think that qualifies him to "run" a multi-billion dollar organization with hundreds or thousands of "employees".
He was a relatively junior officer. Wasnt like he was a staff officer or higher.
I dont think anybody would take best nurse in the hospital and based on this, think she was qualified to be the CEO of the hospital group.
-
@taiwan_girl said in Hegseth: No women in combat roles:
I have trouble understanding what in his background makes him qualified to be Sec of Defense.
Yes, he was a very good combat veteran, but dont think that qualifies him to "run" a multi-billion dollar organization with hundreds or thousands of "employees".
He was a relatively junior officer. Wasnt like he was a staff officer or higher.
I dont think anybody would take best nurse in the hospital and based on this, think she was qualified to be the CEO of the hospital group.
What do you believe the role of Sec Def is?
Me/rry/Christmas
-
@LuFins-Dad said in Hegseth: No women in combat roles:
What do you believe the role of Sec Def is?
An upper management role, almost like a CEO. Not involved in the details, but more the "10000 foot view". Broad policy, with experience and connections to help with implementation.
-
@taiwan_girl said in Hegseth: No women in combat roles:
I have trouble understanding what in his background makes him qualified to be Sec of Defense.
OK, the current Secretary for Health and Human Services, Xavier Becerra has zero experience in the health field.
Xavier Becerra born January 26, 1958 is an American lawyer and politician serving as the 25th United States secretary of health and human services, a position he has held since March 2021. He is the first Latino to hold this position in history.[1] Becerra previously served as the attorney general of California from January 2017 until March 2021. He was a member of the United States House of Representatives, representing Downtown Los Angeles in Congress from 1993 to 2017. A member of the Democratic Party, Becerra was chairman of the House Democratic Caucus from 2013 to 2017.[2]
He practiced law for a year before becoming Attorney General of California. He was a lawyer for ONE YEAR before becoming the highest ranking attorney in the most populous state in the US.
His sole experience in "health" is advocating for
abortionreproductive rights and fighting repeal of the ACA.Sorry...he's married to a physician, so there's that.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
@jon-nyc said in Hegseth: No women in combat roles:
@Jolly said in Hegseth: No women in combat roles:
Technology is great, but there is no substitute for boots on the ground.
Hydrogen bombs in the sky?
In that case, it doesnt matter. We're all dead.
-
@George-K I honestly dont know how Sec Becerra is doing? Maybe not so good.
If I were to be hiring a guy to be the new CEO of a car company, and my only choices were a CEO of a toy company, and a guy who had done a great job operating the service and maintenance department of a car dealer, I know which I would probably do.
Running a large organization is a very very very unique job, weather it is government or a company. Not many people can do it. Not to say that there aren't bad CEO's that were hired after being a previous CEO- there definitely are.
Running a Government organization is probably even more difficult, as I think that networks and connections are more important than in private company due to funding sources, etc. and your ability to make decisions is much less independent.
Singapore government has the attitude that their Cabinet people are like CEO's and if we want to get the best people for the job, we have to pay a competitive CEO salary. (Typically Asian CEO's make much less than US CEO's, but still more than a US cabinet secretary making ~ USD$200K)
-
@George-K said in Hegseth: No women in combat roles:
Xavier Becerra born January 26, 1958 is an American lawyer and politician serving as the 25th United States secretary of health and human services, a position he has held since March 2021. He is the first Latino to hold this position in history.[1] Becerra previously served as the attorney general of California from January 2017 until March 2021. He was a member of the United States House of Representatives, representing Downtown Los Angeles in Congress from 1993 to 2017. A member of the Democratic Party, Becerra was chairman of the House Democratic Caucus from 2013 to 2017.[2]
Awfully similar to the failed Kamala and her (in)experience before becoming AG and later a member of Congress.
