[onerifle]

Hmm...I wonder how this'll play, it being an election year and all...


IN THE MILITARY
U.S. proposes drafting women
Plan would require updates by young people with critical skills

Posted: May 3, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38305


© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com




The Selective Service System has proposed revamping the draft to include the registration of women, expanding the age limits and requiring that young Americans keep the government informed about those critical skills most valuable to the military.

The proposal, presented to the Pentagon before the invasion of Iraq by the agency's acting Director Lewis Brodsky, would extend the age of draft registration to 34 years old, up from 25. It was revealed by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, which obtained the plan under the Freedom of Information Act.

"In line with today's needs, the Selective Service System's structure, programs and activities should be re-engineered toward maintaining a national inventory of American men and, for the first time, women, ages 18 through 34, with an added focus on identifying individuals with critical skills," the agency said in a Feb. 11, 2003, proposal presented to senior Pentagon officials, according to the Sunday editions of the paper.

According to the report, Brodsky and Richard Flahavan, the agency's director of public and congressional affairs, reviewed the six-page proposal with Pentagon officials including Charles Abell, principal deputy undersecretary for personnel and readiness, and William Carr, deputy undersecretary for military personnel policy.

The agency officials said they would have "to market the concept" of a female draft to Congress before it could be instituted.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have said they oppose a revival of the military draft, last used in 1973 as the American commitment in Vietnam waned, beginning the era of the all-volunteer force.

Mandatory registration for the draft was suspended in 1975 but was resumed in 1980 by President Carter after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. About 13.5 million men, ages 18 to 25, currently are registered with the Selective Service.

At present, the Selective Service is authorized to register only young men and they are not required to inform the government about any professional skills. The agency has in place a special registration system to draft health-care personnel in more than 60 specialties into the military if necessary in a crisis.

[mercedesrules]

keep the government informed about those critical skills most valuable to the military.
Women have always had skills valuable to lonely soldiers away from home.

[fjolnirsson]

While I disagree with the idea of conscripted troops, and don't want anyone forced into combat(least of all my daughter), this was the part that really disturbed me:
would extend the age of draft registration to 34 years old, up from 25.

That is a HUGE chunk of the population gone away to war.

[Sean Smith]

Red herring. The draft isn't going to be reinstated. So everyone can quit going mental over its imminent expansion. :rolleyes:

[Nightcrawler]

No, no, it IS GOING TO BE REINSTATED! It is! And all the evidence you provide to the contrary is MEANINGLESS!

THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE YOUR DAUGHTER OUT OF COLLEGE, GIVE HER A BAD EVIL ASSAULT RIFLE AND MAKE HER FIGHT IN IRAQ! PANIC IN THE STREETS! BUSH IS EVIL!

:p

Seriously, guys. There's not going to be a draft. The only people talking about a draft are a couple of stupid politicians in Washington (Democrats). The president hasn't mentioned a draft, the military has explicitly said they don't want a draft, and troop strength could easily be bolstered by congress raising the approved troop limits.

[Hkmp5sd]

The acting director of the Selective Service System recommends changing the system to include females (something he has no ability to actually do) and suddenly "IN THE MILITARY: U.S. proposes drafting women"?? This must be one of those reporters that uses the nightshift janitor as a "top source in the White House".

[onerifle]

Here's the original story, plus link:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/171522_draft01.html


Sean- exactly what makes you so sure it won't be re-instated?


Selective Service eyes women's draft

The proposal would also require registration of critical skills

Saturday, May 1, 2004

By ERIC ROSENBERG
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER WASHINGTON BUREAU

WASHINGTON -- The chief of the Selective Service System has proposed registering women for the military draft and requiring that young Americans regularly inform the government about whether they have training in niche specialties needed in the armed services.

The proposal, which the agency's acting Director Lewis Brodsky presented to senior Pentagon officials just before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, also seeks to extend the age of draft registration to 34 years old, up from 25.

The Selective Service System plan, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, highlights the extent to which agency officials have planned for an expanded military draft in case the administration and Congress would authorize one in the future.

"In line with today's needs, the Selective Service System's structure, programs and activities should be re-engineered toward maintaining a national inventory of American men and, for the first time, women, ages 18 through 34, with an added focus on identifying individuals with critical skills," the agency said in a Feb. 11, 2003, proposal presented to senior Pentagon officials.

Brodsky and Richard Flahavan, the agency's director of public and congressional affairs, reviewed the six-page proposal with Pentagon officials responsible for personnel issues. They included Charles Abell, principal deputy undersecretary for personnel and readiness, and William Carr, deputy undersecretary for military personnel policy.

The agency officials acknowledged that they would have "to market the concept" of a female draft to Congress, which ultimately would have to authorize such a step.

Dan Amon, a spokesman for the Selective Service System, based in Arlington, Va., said that the Pentagon has taken no action on the proposal to expand draft registration.

"These ideas were only being floated for Department of Defense consideration," Amon said. He described the proposal as "food for thought" for contingency planning.

Navy Lt. Cmdr. Jane Campbell, a spokeswoman for the Defense Department, said the Pentagon "has not agreed to, nor even suggested, a change to Selective Service's current missions."

Nonetheless, Flahavan said the agency has begun designing procedures for a targeted registration and draft of people with computer and language skills, in case military officials and Congress authorize it.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, say they oppose a revival of the military draft, last used in 1973 as the American commitment in Vietnam waned, beginning the era of the all-volunteer force.

Mandatory registration for the draft was suspended in 1975 but was resumed in 1980 by President Carter after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. About 13.5 million men, ages 18 to 25, currently are registered with the Selective Service.

"I don't know anyone in the executive branch of the government who believes that it would be appropriate or necessary to reinstitute the draft," Rumsfeld said last month.

At present, the Selective Service is authorized to register only young men and they are not required to inform the government about any professional skills. Separately, the agency has in place a special registration system to draft health care personnel in more than 60 specialties into the military if necessary in a crisis.

Some of the skill areas where the armed forces are facing "critical shortages" include linguists and computer specialists, the agency said. Americans would then be required to regularly update the agency on their skills until they reach age 35.

Individuals proficient in more than one critical skill would list the skill in which they have the greatest degree of competency.

[HankB]

I can see all kinds of problems in the ranks if they were to start drafting educated people in their 30's. They'll have people who 1) don't want to be there; 2) can think for themselves; and 3) will cause morale problems with everyone else.

I don't see a draft being reinstated.

[nero45acp]

I don't foresee the draft being reenacted, but if it was I think that women should be included. Equal rights entail equal responsibilities.



nero

[RED-DOG 40]

Hmmmm...., I got it. Leave our young people ,(35& under), here to run the US and send us old farts, no questions asked.

.....:cool: .......:D

[Barbara]

I think women should be eligible, if and when men are drafted.

Right now, I know more women (3) in Iraq/Afghanistan than I do men (2) anyway.

What scares the hell out me, to be honest, is not being drafted. It's having some other stupid country attack us, forcing to us to start a draft, and having my kid go. If he wants to join the military, that's one thing..going as a draftee is hell. I'd take his place if I could, believe me. :(

[mercedesrules]

(HankB) I can see all kinds of problems in the ranks if they were to start drafting educated people in their 30's. They'll have people who 1) don't want to be there; 2) can think for themselves; and 3) will cause morale problems with everyone else.
...because what is needed in war is dumbbells that want to fight, can't think for themselves and won't make waves.

[striker3]

...because what is needed in war is dumbbells that want to fight, can't think for themselves and won't make waves.

It is not that, it is just that for older recruits, the adjustment is difficult. They go from being completely on their own, living their own lives, to being told what to do, when to do it, and how it is going to get done. I am not talking about their job, I am talking about how they live their personal lives. From when to get up in the morning, to having someone inspect their rooms, to the amount of alcohol they are allowed to have in their possesion at one time. Even, at times, to how late they can stay out. Imagine yourself a 30 year old Pvt having a midnight curfew while I, a 22 year old Sgt can come in at 0500.

It is hard enough for volunteers who come in in their mid to late 20's to make the adjustment. I don't want to know what I would have to go through to get a draftee, who doesn't want to be there in the first place, to adjust.

But the point is moot. At least for the USMC, we have filled our qutoa for Infantry well into next fiscal year. We don't need a draft. I am proud to say that everyone I fight with, WANTS to be on my right and left.

[Nightcrawler]

...because what is needed in war is dumbbells that want to fight, can't think for themselves and won't make waves.

My goodness, what a patent loathing of our Armed Forces you have...and you also obviously have no concept of what wins wars.

[HBK]

Women don't belong in combat.

[Gewehr98]

Women have always had skills valuable to lonely soldiers away from home.

:scrutiny:

[Jim March]

NASCAR drivers are getting drafted!

[HBK]

The only draft I'm concerned with happened a couple of weeks ago. The Titans did a great job, too.

[Oleg Volk]

Just had this discussion with a friend yesterday...draft...just want we need, more authority and control over our lives by Washington! I stand by my original estimate of the moral justification for the practice. I also wish to point out that the economic repercussions would be extremely severe. And, lastly, I would much rather take my chances fighting Stateside than go to Thirdworldistan on a whim of the US Congress or the likes of Slick Willie or Bush or Kerry.

Proposing to draft women is a great idea, because it increases the number of people opposed to the whole enterprise.

[atek3]

what oleg said.

Women have always had skills valuable to lonely soldiers away from home.
I kinda think he was being facetious.

Seriously, guys. There's not going to be a draft. The only people talking about a draft are a couple of stupid politicians in Washington (Democrats).

Don't forget Chuck Hagel R-Nebraska, he's been the moron making waves recently.

Answer this one for me, Stop-Loss orders cannot continue forever, if iraq continues to be a quagmire (which in all likelyhood it will), and more and more soldiers leave the armed services, how will the US avoid the draft if we wish to continue occupying iraq. I know the pentagon is anti-draft as are most rational politians (I know, an oxymoron, but bear with me here), but does anyone here know, are more people enlisting or leaving right now?

atek3

[Oleg Volk]

A gentleman I met yesterday (lately of 101st in Iraq) said that he expected a draft within three years because of the net loss of army personnel. If he is right, that is bad news indeed.

[Nightcrawler]

Congress has been asking Rumsfeld for a couple years now if he wants more troops, (i.e., a larger authorized military troop strength).

Up until recently, he's said "no". Rumsfeld could probably get higher authorized troop levels from Congress if he wanted to, but it's not happening. Our military was twice as big in 1990 as it is now, and there was no draft then, either.

All they'd have to do is raise the authorized troop levels and mount a recruiting campaign. People must remember, the strength of the military is determined by Congress. If strength levels are met, recruiters turn people away.

The Defense Department published a document that someone else linked to in another thread on this, specifically stating that a draft would be a bad idea. The DoD doesn't want it. The President hasn't said anything about it. Rumsfeld hasn't said anything about it.

The only people that are seriously talking about the draft are some dumb@$$ed congressmen and a spattering of left-wing publications. It's an election year, so the story goes like this:

"George Bush will make a draft and force you to go to Iraq. Vote for John Kerry."

But, given the size of the military we maintained in the 80s, it's apparent that all that is needed for a large military is adequate funding and a recruiting drive. Conscription is not needed, nor considered desirable, and is not being sought by the Defense Department. Furrthermore, it'd be political suicide in the current environment.

The Army and the Marines have both reported that they're meeting their retention goals; in any case one of the reasons people are getting out is the heavy rotation in and out of the middle east. If the authorized troop levels were raised, and the number of active divisions expanded (this would take some time, but not any more time than conscription), then the rotation schedule could be less hectic and any retention problems that do exist would probably be greatly reduced.

Basically, we're overstretched. We've got too small of an armed force to conduct operations in Afghanistan and Iraq while maintaining a significant presence in Korea and a smaller presence in the Balkans.

Given that situation, if I were In Charge(tm), I would consider doing the following:

1. Expand the authorized troop levels; try to get the Army two or three more combat divisions
2. Unilaterally withdraw from all "peacekeeping" operations in the Balkans region
3. Start making preparations for the complete withdrawal from South Korea. Much American blood has been spilled for the peninsula and we've been protecting it for decades. Perhaps it's time that South Korea defended itself?

[Viking6]

In my not so humble opinion, we don't need a draft. Short of a WWII scenario, I never see the need for a draft except for political reasons. If there ever was a reinstatement of the draft, then women should be included. As a matter of fact, to my knowledge, all 18 year old men still have to register with the Selective Service. I'm surprised someone hasn't "sued" the government because it requires males only to register.

[Leatherneck]

Nightcrawler, Sean Smith and others have it right. Nobody here in the Pentagon wants or needs the draft to be anything more than it is now: a strategic asset to rely on only after some cataclysmic world event. Not the "police action" type of operations going on in Iraq and Afghanistan. All four services are meeting their recruiting goals, and there are even backlogs of young men and women waiting for boot camp or more advanced traing. The SSS is a civlian organization outside the control of the military. It is made up of ciivilians selected by their communities.

This is utter alarmism designed to sell newspapers.

TC
TFL Survivor

[HankB]

(mercedesrules) what is needed in war is dumbbells that want to fight . . . Hmmm . . . interesting choice of words. But let's see . . . I think it's pretty much a "given" that a volunteer is going to be more motivated than an unwilling conscript. And the military is a bit selective about who it inducts these days, as "dumbbells" have problems operating weapons, radios, etc. (mercedesrules)...can't think for themselves... A younger person, fresh out of high school, around 18 or 19 years old, is still pretty impressionable, so he'll be more easily molded into what the military wants than an old codger of 34 with a graduate degree and 10 or more years in the workplace. (mercedesrules) . . . and won't make waves.The old conscripted codger may decide that a political decision NOT to level some turd world dungheap isn't worth his life, so a stint in the brig, Leavenworth, or Canada may be preferable to following orders likely to get him killed. (Note that our future hypothetical draftee is likely to see service in some place OTHER than Iraq or Afghanistan.) And there's the previously mentioned morale issue of a newly inducted private in his 30's under the command of a 19 or 20 year old noncom . . . especially if the old timer was in management.

Now, factor in the problems of women being drafted . . . no, I don't see them starting up the draft again for anything less than a WWII-type of situation.

[CannibalCrowley]

I don't see the big fuss, women's rights groups are constantly saying how they want to be "equal." I wonder what NOW's stance on this is. Besides, women drafted into support positions free up men for combat (as long as they don't get lost).

[fix]

I can see all kinds of problems in the ranks if they were to start drafting educated people in their 30's. They'll have people who 1) don't want to be there; 2) can think for themselves; and 3) will cause morale problems with everyone else.

Nice. I'll be sure to let all my buddies know that they can't think for themselves. Maybe when I turn 35 and get edumacated, I'll tell you what I think. :rolleyes:

[Waitone]

IIRC our worldwide committments dictate a need almost double the size of our standing military. In other words we have cut back far beyond our stated needs. Iraq is merely the latest example of over extending our armed services.

We need to take one or a combination of two possible actions:
1>cut back on military deployments
2>increase the size of the military.

What we do not need to do is:
3>do deployments on the cheap

Which is what is going on right now. A call for a renewal of the draft is a political move made during the silly season. The draft ain't gona happen. What will happen if option one or two isn't implemented is the reserves will dry up. It is one thing to commit to the reserves for periodic deployments. It is another issue altogether to stay deployed year on end, during which time the mortgage is not being paid and the job disappears. It is happening right now and sooner or later it will become an issue. Rummy is doing this war on the cheap and in a number of cases the headcount in Iraq is being financially subsidized by missed mortgage payments.

Why Bush has not asked for increased authorizations for headcount is beyond me.

[Sean Smith]

Sean- exactly what makes you so sure it won't be re-instated?

Having a brain?

The fact that the all-volunteer military was TWICE as large as it is now without resorting to the draft should also be a hint. :rolleyes:

[onerifle]

The fact that the all-volunteer military was TWICE as large as it is now without resorting to the draft should also be a hint.

..and...we had the same deployment concerns at the time?


I agree that draft reinstatement would be highly unlikely anytime soon given the current deployment needs/force levels. Throw in a terrorist attack based elsewhere, or the North Korean situation going from a simmer to an all out boil...I think all bets are off.

[killermarmot]

they did this same exact thing about 3-4 months before the war. Some senator ran a draft initiative through with stuff about drafting women and men up till 35 with no exemption for college or anything. Ofcourse it went nowhere but it scares the crap out of people. And the more they make people think Bush lies everytime he speaks when he says "there won't be a draft" people take that as validation that there will be... sad times

[Feanaro]

Hmmm . . . interesting choice of words.

Your choice of words was rather interesting as well.

I can see all kinds of problems in the ranks if they were to start drafting educated people in their 30's. They'll have people who 1) don't want to be there; 2) can think for themselves; and 3) will cause morale problems with everyone else.

I doubt you meant it that way but it seems like you are saying the military is full of morons and/or robots.

[flatrock]

The fact that the all-volunteer military was TWICE as large as it is now without resorting to the draft should also be a hint.

..and...we had the same deployment concerns at the time?


We don't have a need for the draft right now. We currently have enough people in the armed services, and they aren't having recruiting problems.

These reporters throw out this B. S. like the draft is imminent. However, it's obvious that it's not. What would be the point having a plan to reinstate the draft, when we don't have the equipment to arm all those additional soldiers. There's no money in the budget to pay all those soldiers.

Getting prepared to expand the military by a huge amount involves drasticly ramping up production of weapons, body armor, troop carriers, and supplies. It involves preparing bases to act as training facilities for all the new troops. It involves expanding living quarters or at least making existing quarters ready on bases to house all the new draftees.

That isn't hapening.

The only thing there is any evidence of is that the Selective Service is continueing to do their ongoing job of being prepared if the draft ever becomes necessisary again. They aren't staffing up, however they are filling positions that are becomming vacant.

Their suggestion to make changes to allow for drafting of women, and somewhat older people makes sense from their perspective. The military has changed. They are looking for different skill sets than they once were. They place a higher value on computer and technical skills than they once did. They want to expand the pool of people they can draft so they can get the skill sets they need if they ever have to reinstate the draft. That's their job, to be prepared.

I agree that draft reinstatement would be highly unlikely anytime soon given the current deployment needs/force levels. Throw in a terrorist attack based elsewhere, or the North Korean situation going from a simmer to an all out boil...I think all bets are off.

How is this a different situation now than it has been for many years? We do have more forces committed than normal, so it could possibly take a smaller war breaking out to cause the need for the draft, than if we didn't have those soldiers committed. However, a full scale war with Korea or China or some other country has always been a reason that the draft might have to be reinstated.

The reporters bringing it up now don't have evidence that there are any plans to reinstate the draft. They're just using FUD to try and scare people.

[Selfdfenz]

New draft
With women

Bad idea!


On the other hand if they would start drafting some of us soon to be senior citizens they would be onto something.

Dump us someplace with a SAW, lots of ammo and our generally bad attitude and watch the fun.

And...we won't run...we can't.

S-

[Art Eatman]

The War Gamers in the Pentagon get paid to plan invasions or other military actions against countries where the liklihood is a gazillion to one against such actions.

Same for the Selective Service folks. They take a look at those skills needed, and the numbers thought to be needed, and "War Game" a worst-case situation.

Stipulate that for some reason we have a legitimate need for a WW II equivalent military force. (I can't really see one, but I'm not a planner, either.) It would make sense to know who could be useful at what, if some sort of halfway-smart increase is needed. Why draft a farmer if what you need is a computer nerd? And, people aged 30+ are mosre likely to have developed skills that could be high-tech useful, compared to line infantry.

In WW II, the draft was more of a control of how many per week or per month were taken for Basic Training, than to force conscription. There were plenty of volunteers; more at a time, often, than could be dealt with by the system.

Were we to have a real need for large numbers, we'd be more likely, now, to take people in high-tech than we would "cannon fodder" types. I see it as drafting skills, not people.

So I neither advocate a Draft, nor do I believe it will happen.

Art

[Sean Smith]

The War Gamers in the Pentagon get paid to plan invasions or other military actions against countries where the liklihood is a gazillion to one against such actions.

That is something that seems to get lost on the general public. The military makes plans for EVERYTHING, no matter how remote the need for them might be. For instance, the US Army has a contingency plan to invade practically everyone on the map, including our allies. It doesn't mean they INTEND to, but just they have a plan in a folder someplace in the 1:1,000,000,000 chance that we need to invade, say, England.

[capt_happypants]

I'd love to see the plan to invade France.

TO&E
200,000 electric razors.
150,000 pressure washers.
12,000 trucks equipped with loudspeakers.
35 C-130s retrofitted with loudspeakers.
1 CD recording of Arnold Schwarzenegger yelling out "Strudel!"

Plan of Attack:
0600 deploy aircraft into low altitude orbit over major French cities.
0715 deploy trucks across countryside
0730 play CD
0745 drive to Paris.
0800 initiate "Operation Bathtime"

[Daniel]

Women don't belong in combat.

Dude, go tell the Amazons.

Trigger pulling and mud rolling isn't governed by sex; only social norms.

[Gewehr98]

Part 1 of 5.

[Gewehr98]

Part 2 of 5.

[Antlurz]

Daniel...

Trigger pulling and mud rolling isn't governed by sex; only social norms.

That, in and of itself may be true, however, throwing a hand grenade beyond it's own blast radius IS a function of a war fighting person. By far, the vast majority of women are unable to do that. That means that should the female decide to lob a grenade, she will herself still be within the kill zone of said ordinance.... As well as the other people with her.

"Social norms" have very little to do with the ability of a person to grab a 50 from the armory, and run with it through the passageways and ladders and across the deck to mount it and fire it.

Your sense of equality as admirable. Unfortunately, your ability to know that most women are totally unable to drag a wounded companinon through the mud to safety is not very well thought out.

But since the whole thing is an exercise in "fairness and equality" none of the truisms mean much. :rolleyes:

Ron

[Gewehr98]

Dude, go tell the Amazons.

I mean, heck, if you're gonna make blatant, sexist statements about women not belonging in combat, you may as well tell the pilot of this A-10 that she doesn't belong:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17511

:scrutiny:

[Gewehr98]

I hit the button once. :(

[Gewehr98]

Part IV of V.

[Gewehr98]

Part V.

[Sean Smith]

Gewehr98, at least your rate of fire with posts is approaching that of an A-10's gat. :evil:

[CannibalCrowley]

Gewehr98 (5 dupes, is that a record?)
I mean, heck, if you're gonna make blatant, sexist statements about women not belonging in combat, you may as well tell the pilot of this A-10 that she doesn't belong: Men and women differ in more areas than just plumbing. If women are just as suited to combat as men, why are there separate standards for women to even enter the military? Also, flying a plane is much different than front line combat.

And I doubt that the American public could deal with a large number of females dying in combat or becoming POWs. Look at the Lynch situation, the main focus was that a woman had been captured. When the men were mentioned it was almost an afterthought. How about the instances of rape and prostitution that exist when women are present? This and more is why women should return to being separated and go back to the "free a man to fight" school of thought.

The subject of changing the draft was only brought up in an attempt to scare the public. People have gotten used to the idea of selective service for men, but their daughters is where most draw the line. This was designed to stir up outrage, nothing more.

[fix]

How about the instances of rape and prostitution that exist when women are present?

Prostitution? That just can't be! :rolleyes:

Oh the stories I could tell! If the public had any idea what went on onboard a certain Naval vessel in the late 90s...

BTW, I support women being eligible for certain roles. The best helicopter pilot I ever saw was a woman...and quite a looker at that. :)

[Antlurz]

Oh the stories I could tell! If the public had any idea what went on onboard a certain Naval vessel in the late 90s...

Probably had nothing to do with why half of them end up going home preggers. :rolleyes: :D

When women are able to successfully engage one on one in the NFL or the NBA, you will get my attention as to their suitability for combat. Until then, the "Women in Combat" joke falls on deaf ears. Equal in combat? They aren't even equal in a GAME, let alone a physical life and death struggle.

I love em all the same, but sometimes reality really, really sucks.

Ron

[Sean Smith]

Red Herring Etoufee

Ingredients:

1 stick margarine
1 lb. red herring tails (or shrimp), peeled
1 med. onion, chopped
2 ribs celery, chopped
1/2 bell pepper, chopped
1 tbsp. paprika
1/2 tsp. salt
1/4 tsp. black pepper
1 c. chicken broth
1 tbsp. parsley, chopped
1 tbsp. green onion tops, cut with scissors
Cooked rice

Directions:

Do not use black iron pot. Add red herring and cook for 2-3 minutes. Remove red herring with slotted spoon and set aside. Add onion, celery, bell pepper and seasonings. Saute for 10 minutes. Return red herring tails to pan and add chicken broth. Stir and cook slowly, covered, for about 40 minutes. Serve on hot rice and sprinkle with parsley and green onion tops. Serves 4. Freezes well.

:evil:

[HBK]

Women are well-suited to flying airplanes. They may be better built for that than men. However, combat on the ground is a totally different situation. Mainly because, if you didn't know (and apparently you didn't) women and men are different. Women in general have smaller frames and are not as strong. Their bone density is also less. If you put women in combat and the firefight starts, the mission ceases to be what it was and becomes "rescue the women." It's just the way guys are wired (honorable ones, that is) to want to protect women. I thought this was common knowledge. :confused:

[Gewehr98]

And this approaches dangerous thread veer, btw - combat qualified aircrews like myself and the lady A-10 pilot, as well as ground-pounders of the female persuasion, all undergo some serious POW training. I'm not going to get into specifics, but those online who have undergone both the basic and graduate courses can relate with me. Let me just say this - upon completion of these DoD courses, nobody, neither male nor female, has any illusions that they will be left unmolested, both physically and mentally, if taken captive by enemy forces. And as part of the training, that molestation is played off against the male POW's when the female POW is made to suffer, to work on the ingrained American social value of protecting females from all things evil. "Honorable" is but a social value in this particular country, a remnant of chivalry, and as other countries adopt female combat troops, it sticks out like a sore thumb. Guess what? When held captive, it's neither a male nor female, it's a fellow POW. That's it, we all work together to survive and return with honor. Period. Whether man or woman, on entering military service, you raise your right hand, sign on the dotted line, take the training, and press on with the offensive.

Are women physically slighter of build? I'm sure they are. I'm also certain that men are built in different dimensions and bone densities. Heck, as folks progress in rank and age, their physical configurations change. The old sergeant major may not make the fast hike with a heavy pack in as quick a time as the young boot. If he's a little bit slower, I doubt anybody's going to give him a ration of you-know-what about it. So why discriminate against women who have the drive and motivation to join the armed forces and risk their lives in our nation's defense? And I'd love to see concrete evidence that mission objectives were delayed due to rescuing the female troops. Who's to say those same mission objectives weren't delayed by a slower male troop? :scrutiny:

Maybe my point of view is skewed from that same POW training, and flying with fellow aircrew who just happen to be female. Or maybe it's because Wife #2 is a Marine Brat, and a former Marine herself. She can still load up and move out like nobody's business, and delights in proving it. Her retired Gunnery Sergeant dad gave her holy hell for marrying an Air Force puke, high-altitude remote-control administration of war and all. (Although I had to remind him, as a B-52 crew-dog, that high altitude meant 400 feet to me on most of my sorties in that platform.)

[fix]

The lesson learned G98 talks about should be that the acronym is wrong. SERE should rightfully be SEER, because resistance is definitely the option that one should save for last. One might argue that it should be SEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEER! And it don't matter what you have between your legs.

[CannibalCrowley]

Gewehr98combat qualified aircrews like myself and the lady A-10 pilot, as well as ground-pounders of the female persuasion, all undergo some serious POW training First off, I'm unaware of any U.S. branch of service which utilizes female combat troops. It's pretty rare for normal infantry to get SERE training, and I wouldn't be surprised if people in supporting units don't even knew what it is.

"Honorable" is but a social value in this particular country, a remnant of chivalry, and as other countries adopt female combat troops, it sticks out like a sore thumb. Which countries have adopted female combat troops?

Are women physically slighter of build? I'm sure they are. I'm also certain that men are built in different dimensions and bone densities. Yes, a small number of men have less muscle than a very small number of females. But the average male still makes a better soldier than the average female.

I'd be willing to accept female combat troops if:
1. All females had to follow the same standards as the men.
2. They were made to take depo shots to reduce the chance of pregnancy and solve period issues.
3. Severe punishments for both parties if they become involved in a romantic relationship while in the same unit.
4. Severe punishments if they become pregnant while in a job that would be hindered by such.

[Gewehr98]

Italian rifle company:

http://www.nato.int/sfor/indexinf/142/p04a/t02p04a.htm

Israeli combat troop:

http://www.fototime.com/8D658E6AB0C072A/standard.jpg

I love the preconditions you put on female military combat service.

I get the feeling that some posters here on THR would feel more comfortable if women were instead kept barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen. Must really chap them that women were granted voting rights in 1920, too. :eek:

[Barbara]

My favorite is still "claim we're equal."

Newsflash, dude..no claims..statements..and not even of mere equality. I'm a damn sight better than a lot! :)

[CarlS]

The old sergeant major may not make the fast hike with a heavy pack in as quick a time as the young boot.
I resemble that remark!! :D

[CannibalCrowley]

Gewehr98
Here's the story related to the pic: http://www.washtimes.com/world/20031230-112834-9968r.htm It's key points: "For the past three years, female ground troops from Israel's Carcal company have patrolled the quiet desert borders with Jordan and Egypt, freeing up their male counterparts for duty in more dangerous areas." AND "Most work far from the battlefield and serve as little as half the time required of men."
I love the preconditions you put on female military combat service. Well, what regulations would you put in place to deal with the current problems related to females in the military (which would increase with women being allowed into more units)?

1. All females had to follow the same standards as the men.
Is there something wrong with making women meet the same standards as the men they serve beside?
2. They were made to take depo shots to reduce the chance of pregnancy and solve period issues.
Female pregnancy is an issue, even in combat zones. Depo shots would be a prevention measure that could be administrated with supervision. It would also solve performance issues related to women's periods (ie no more debilatating cramps, bleeding issues, etc).
3. Severe punishments for both parties if they become involved in a romantic relationship while in the same unit.
Romantic relationships within a unit only breed favoritism and jealousy.
4. Severe punishments if they become pregnant while in a job that would be hindered by such.
If they intentionally become afflicted with a condition that removes them from duty status, why shouldn't they be punished?

[Barbara]

Actually, I wouldn't have a problem with any of them..except possibly the last one..hard to prove and not easy to punish both guilty parties. How about we compromise on them taking the required time off but its tacked onto the end of their tour, with the understanding that the baby gets shipped somewhere until Mom and/or Dad's job is done.

(My typical smart-&@# answer: make it clear that the father of the child *must* take the 9 months following the birth off to care for said child himself..that'll cut down on unintended pregnancies.)

I would have a problem with Depro for draftees but not as a condition of enlistment. There are health risks that may be acceptable for a volunteer but that I don't think anyone should be forced to undergo.

[Gewehr98]

Tell you what, and this ain't from my near 20 years active duty - you graduated from high school what, 5 years ago? So you probably know by now it takes two to tango, or make a baby. If a pregnancy causes mission degradation, why punish just the mother, hmm?

And I wouldn't force a Depo-Provera shot on anybody. You take one yet? My first wife tried it. She ended up in the hospital as a very sick young woman, thought I was going to lose her for a while there. Make that a condition of enlistment? I think not.

Never mind the fact that you'd be forcing birth control on Americans who may have a religious objection to it, like Catholics and Mormons.

Adult relations between military members have been going on as long as there has been a co-ed military. Nothing new there. Fraternization is one well-known relationship no-no. Even when fraternization isn't the main issue, if the relationship is prejudicial to an organization's good order and discipline, the UCMJ is brought into play. That's the Uniform Code of Military Justice, by the way. And I can tell you how it would be played out. Nobody in their right mind would be put up on courts-martial for getting pregnant - that's just asinine. Administrative discharge, under honorable conditions.

And I'd be real curious to see the numbers associated with pregnant women being a problem for the military. Maybe a problem for men who don't want women in the military and are looking for an excuse to drum them out of the service...

Barbara, I agree. I've been quite vocal about paternity leave for military members for a long time. It may indeed happen, state and federal governments are already doing it for non-military employees. Unfortunately, I retire in just over a year and a half, so it may be a moot point for my cause. At least I got to attend the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute. Some other folks really should go to it, or a similar civilian course. ;)

CarlS, no disrespect meant. I can't run my 1.5 miles as fast as I could 18 years ago, either. :D

[Oleg Volk]

Good article about the draft: http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/04/draft.html

[CannibalCrowley]

Pregnancy (even in combat zones) is a problem. From a recent article: "But while we don't know what the overall pregnancy rate is among female soldiers serving in Iraq today, in Operation Desert Storm it reached 15 percent and was the single largest cause of evacuation from Bosnia during U.S. deployments there."
(link) (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/lindachavez/lc20040505.shtml)

A statement on military pregnancy from GMU (http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/98/military.htm): "Each year, between 10 and 17 percent of servicewomen become pregnant. In certain posts the rate is higher. In 1988, James Webb, Secretary of the Navy, said 51% of single Air Force and 48% of single Navy women stationed in Iceland were pregnant. During troop deployment in Bosnia, between December 1995 and July 1996, a woman had to be evacuated due to pregnancy every three days."

As for punishing those who becom pregnant, they are well aware of what causes pregnancy. If a man injured himself in order to escape a combat zone, he'd be punished, why not hold women to the same standards? It would also help discourage prostitution (which is another existing problem).

I can understand that some might be averse to Depo, but it should be clear to those that don't take it that no special concessions will be made for any complications caused by their periods.

Barbara How about we compromise on them taking the required time off but its tacked onto the end of their tour, with the understanding that the baby gets shipped somewhere until Mom and/or Dad's job is done. Actually, this should be used in conjunction with a lighter sentence (provided that she can name the father). Of course, I'd want their leave days to be used first. After that every day of missed service would equal 1.25 days of time added onto their contracts.

One of the main problems with this is those who want to run the military like a civilian institution. It isn't one, and the sooner people realize this the better.