RANGER AGAINST WAR: Big Boys Don't Cry <

Wednesday, May 09, 2012

Big Boys Don't Cry

--Letter to the Mother, N. But

These are great days we're living, bros.
We are jolly green giants, walking the earth with guns.
These people we wasted here today
are the finest human beings we will ever know.

After we rotate back into the world,

we're gonna miss not having anyone around

that's worth shooting,

--Full Metal Jacket
(1987)

War don't ennoble men.

It turns them into dogs... poisons the soul

--The Thin Red Line
(1998)

The very purpose of a knight

is to fight on behalf of a lady

--Thomas Malory

_____________________

Before addressing women in the military, look at this photo leading the article, "Marines Moving Women Towards the Front Lines":


Ranger will pass on the cheap shot about the right troopie's eye makeup, and the dainty way she is feeding rounds into a magazine. Nor will he question why the troopers are not feeding their magazines with 10-round stripper clips, as they would in real life (
"You fight as you train, and vice versa.")

He will, however, point out that the recruits have live ammunition plus their weapons -- a safety violation. Live ammo, recruits and weapons should only be united on the firing line, securely controlled by safety personnel. Live ammo is
only present when the Range officer orders the ammmo to the firing points, where they are then loaded. Remember the scene in the film "Full Metal Jacket"? Recruits and live ammo do not mix. (Also note: no "empty chamber devices" on the weapons.)

These small observations prompt questions about the Marine's Basic Rifle Marksmanship (BRM); who is running this range?


But to the story, where in the Phony War on Terror (
PWOT ©) do we have "front lines"? Since the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan at D plus 30 days, there were none, and this is because what we are calling War is actually Low Intensity Conflict (LIC), with unconventional (UW) or guerrilla (GW) characteristics. There are no front lines in LIC, UW or GW. When troops are rat-holed in secure patrol bases, the concept of front lines is illusory.

Why the revelation of this new move to allow females into classic combat arms now? Is our Warrior Commander in Chief pushing the change to further estrange female voters from Mitt Romney in the next presidential election? Why would we want to push our women up to the front line? In Ranger's opinion, that would compromise the military's combat effectiveness.


Is the U.S. up against a shortage of military-eligible males? Isn't the U.S. the nation that put 11 million men in uniform almost 70 years ago?


"The Marine Corps also plans to collect data from female and male volunteers who will be asked to do three physically demanding tasks: carry a heavy machine gun, evacuate a casualty and do a 20-kilometer march carrying about 70 pounds. Marine officers said the data would not necessarily be used to formulate a new kind of physical fitness test, but to help senior commanders evaluate the relative strength thresholds of male and female Marines."

"The Army, which like the Marine Corps has excluded women from many jobs because of the physical demands or proximity to combat, is also studying ways to integrate women into ground combat units."

What is the point of the exercise? Why the light load (70 pounds)? In the early stages of the Afghan invasion, Marine Light Infantry grunts carried 100 lb+ combat loads on their backs. Why make this weight exception? Women's hip structure and more lax joints were not built for humping heavy loads (unless being paid well for such acts in the porn industry.)

Ranger has consistently opposed the use of women in maneuver units of any kind based upon his experience as Line Mechanized Infantry and Ranger/Special Forces Light Infantry, with assignments as a junior officer in all three types of units. There were times he was so hungry, exhausted and physically beaten down that he often wished he would get hurt just so he could bug out in a militarily acceptable manner. Though his experiences were miniscule compared to that of those at the freezing Bulge or Chosin, he can understand from whence the mentality of the self-inflicted wound.


A further question: Why is the United States Marine Corps -- the branch so opposed to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" -- now all-aboard for exposure of females to the rigors combat experience? Is this some sort of over-compensation? If fitness is a concern, a homosexual male would surely be more capable of carrying a heavy combat load than a female.

Additionally, there are physiological issues. When Ranger was a patient in the 24th Evac in 1970 RVN, there was an abundance of circumcisions being performed because the men were contracting epididymitis because of the filth and infections caused therefrom. Women would face their own new set of troubling equivalencies to "crotch rot", "jungle rot" and urinary problems. Do you want yourself or your female relations living in such filth and deprivation?


Survival for those on fire bases in the jungles of Vietnam was agony. It is bad enough that men must be so exposed -- why would we wish to put women through this degradation?

If Ranger is patronizing, he is so in full recognition of all that would come to bear upon the female involved in ground combat.
Men fight for different reasons, but ideals are among them. Protecting one's nation also implies protecting one's wives, mothers, girlfriends, etc. If we watch them die beside us, we lose one major impetus for being there in the first place.

If a nation must use its woman as line soldiers then that nation has lost the war before the first round goes downrange.

Labels: ,

8 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Never having thought women should be in a combat role as it's a(nother) form of woman-hating--Right Sisters?-- as well as another short step toward helping/allowing/assisting everybody kill everybody, There's really no reason to question the mode/method of that training.

LIke ol Marlon Brando said in "One Eyed Jacks": "Well, in that case, it all leads to the consequence of --nothing"

.
Save that when really pressed about what was as to the the scariest part of being in combat, I would and will always reply: The Women.
Wish I could recall that old line from Kipling regarding what the women would do to you after the battle.."Saving the last round for yourself " and all.

Tactical superiority coupled with ideological manifestation won't get it either,
What's left , Boss?

Hep me. He pme.

All Blessings,
Deryle

Deryle

Wednesday, May 9, 2012 at 10:37:00 PM GMT-5  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Having served in Afghanistan on the line, I'll say that I agree in principle and in practice.

Frontline, as it is in that war, comes at a COP or OP and on the the patrols one does from such locations. There's no room for excess at these places. One of my buddies had a female reporter come out to his base for two days. He said she refused to piss while there because the shitter was a half an oil drum filled with diesel and shit. Frankly, I think that's a good call in so far as I didn't want to piss in it either. But the architectural questions that arise from having women is just one more thing to worry about on top of everything else.

I suppose the real question that Ranger should ask about PWOT is who really gives a damn about winning? During the White House Correspondent's DInner, the President listed some accomplishments of his. Guess which one got applause, ending a war or ending DADT? No one even gave a hoot about Iraq being over. One of the cameras caught a distinguished gentleman looking like a complete buffoon, looking contemplative, like "oh yeah, I guess that did happen..." Glad no one got shot over that now completely forgotten event.

All in all if you asked Americans about any of the combat going on overseas, the care level will be right about "eh." Just enough to make sure that troops deployed in Afghanistan have to complete DADT repeal training in their down time but not enough to actually bring them home. American civilians think of the Army as some sort of social institution rather than a group of killers and so you get some odd shit occurring like this fascination with women in combat.

Sure some countries like Israel can make it work, but America is not at that place. But, you know, the good folks back home REALLY want to be at that place, so fuck it, its not like the nation's at war or anything, right? Its not like someone might die so that the good citizens of the US can feel better about who's getting shot at on their behalf.

Whatever happened to winning? When did that not become the goal of a military and a political establishment at war?

But that's total not related to the public's concern about women in combat, because, you know, some of them are pretty butch and could definitely handle the stress. There are always outliers but so what? The Army does a great job of building soldiers of exactly identical stature and capability. The Army is about the lowest common denominator uniformity so that when the time comes, bodies are available to fill the holes in the line. That's the bottom line and that's what is expected when things get really bad. Confusing or obscuring this reality by allowing 'women' at the 'frontline' won't actually change that reality.

So sure, I'm in favor of sugar coating everything because, I mean, how else could we stomach our military being EXCLUSIONARY!!

But really, if I had my druthers, I'd just have us all admit to the following: 'Our Army is not about winning wars or keeping the peace, its about putting all those ....different sorts and not-quite right kids who just 'need some discipline' into a place where we can all ignore them... preferably somewhere overseas.'

At long last, if you are still reading, my opinion is that as long as you all keep me out of your next war, you can do whatever the fuck you like.

Thursday, May 10, 2012 at 5:13:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger rangeragainstwar said...

Anon,May 10,
You do care.
jim

Thursday, May 10, 2012 at 6:53:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger Ael said...

The Canadians have had women in all MOCs for the last decade or more. The last MOC to open up were submariners. This is because the supreme court decided that equality meant just that. This has resulted in about 2% of combat arms being women. The demographics are somewhat lopsided. Combat arms women are more likely to be officers than they are to be enlisted. Since it takes an exceptional woman to be a soldier, it probably makes sense that they would self select proportionally more as officers.

Women fought and died in Kandahar in roughly equal proportion to their numbers in the combat arms generally (2 out of 160 KIA, One officer, one enlisted).

Of all the Afghan vets I have talked to, not one has mentioned women as an issue (either for or against).

Thursday, May 10, 2012 at 5:10:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger rangeragainstwar said...

AEL,
You miss my main point- Afgh/Irq are not high intensity combat. Your viewpoint is lodged in a fallacious assumption that a few womwn working in and around mechanized forces id equivalent to ,let's say the 3rd Canadian at Normandy.
You are using pie in the sky assumptions.
The larger question here is-why in the hell is Canada involved in ground opns in AFGH? How did you all get a horse in that race.?
jim

Friday, May 11, 2012 at 1:27:00 PM GMT-5  
Anonymous Nikolay Levin said...

As a man descended from five generations of servicemen spanning the Russian Empire through the Soviet Union and onto the Russian Federation, I'd have to disagree. With reservations.

As Victory Day came and went in Russia I remember seeing in interviews medals fastened onto the blouses of the women. You don't see nurses getting medals for how diligent they are or how many lives they saved. So what is the explanation for this?

In the Great Patriotic War over 800,000 served in combat. Its hard to pin down their casualties through initial research. What is known of the snipers is 2000 that served only 500 returned. The women who were admitted into the Red Army produced two fighter aces, 89 Hero of the Soviet Union commendations and hundreds of officers killed as snipers.

Its of note that even then they were restricted as military aviators, snipers and to a much lesser extent Armor Divisions. Its with this fact that I wonder if your more amendable to women in the Air Force since you didn't mention it? The acceptance of women also correlated closely with the dying of millions of young men on the front and in the countryside. You might remember the U.S. Women's Army Corps, with their training manual declaring "Your Job: To Replace Men. Be Ready." If Operation Overlord had turned out any worse then it did you might have seen of them a greater presence on the battlefield.

Then again, would you? The United States responded to an air attack on its naval facilities in a territory of its Empire. It was never under threat of a military conquest. The United States only experience with a foreign invader was their own former Empire who in 1812 sought more to humiliate their recalcitrant former colonists than waging murderous total war against them. It's easy to justify a male military monopoly when for nearly a century the goal of the American ruling class was full spectrum dominance with soldiers more trained to dominating other nations then defending their borders. God forbid an imperialist power ever carpet bombs American cities, confiscates American food stocks... and murdered and raped wives and girlfriends at home. Wouldn't that be an impetus instead to fight? Its good on the NRA that they wouldn't let its patriarchal outlooks prevent women from practicing the Second Amendment. Lyudmila Pavlichenko's unparalleled kill total might yet be challenged by another woman.

Friday, May 11, 2012 at 2:40:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger FDChief said...

I guess my problem with this is simply that we have enough issues with the guys getting pencil-whipped through BCT/OSUT without worrying about making things easier.

Make it one standard, and make that standard realistic; make sure that the 11B and 11C, the 12B, the 13B getting to the maneuver units are ready to carry their load.

If so, as an NCO I could care less whether they piss sitting down or not.

Frankly, I would imagine that any woman capable of passing a legitimate infantry training course would be perfectly capable of handling any issue that came up in the field.

But the problem is that such a POI would eliminate 96% of the women...and about 40% of the men, and the Army would shit a brick.

Frankly, I don't see this as something I'm gonna get worked up about. The abuse of my FA branch as galvanized infantrymen, maybe. But not this...

Friday, May 11, 2012 at 7:47:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger rangeragainstwar said...

NL,
I roger your transmission, but a war of national survival is much different than an elective war.
ALL OF OUR US WARS ARE ELECTIVE.
Even WW2.
THE examples that you use indicate a death struggle. Ironically the Nazis did not do the same.
I sure hope we'll never see another war in which "cauldron battles" are common place.
Bottom line-women even in the ost front did not take part in infantry assaults.
Thanks for your input.
jim

Saturday, May 12, 2012 at 8:05:00 AM GMT-5  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home