Drafting Women?

Status
Not open for further replies.

cls12vg30

Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2004
Messages
355
Location
Raleigh, North Carolina
I caught this interesting quote from Oliver North in The Federalist Patriot:
"Though neither Kerry nor his campaign 'scare-mail' acknowledge
it, no president can require compulsory military service.
Our Constitution charges Congress with the responsibility to
'raise and support armies.' Short of a cataclysmic attack on the
United States, no Congress is going to vote for conscription --
particularly since it would inevitably force our daughters to
fight." --Oliver North

This got me to thinking. If sometime in the future a draft becomes necessary, would Congress consider including females? I know that women are now serving in many psuedo-combat roles, but I find it hard to believe they would ever be drafted. Who would push for such a move? I highly doubt NOW or any of the other feminist groups would lobby Congress and say, "We insist you draft us!" So if the women don't push for it, that leaves men. What kind of man would campaign for the conscription of women? I just don't see it happening.
 
I've had this debate with others before.

My line is "If women can't get drafted then they don't deserve to vote"

Sometimes they agree......most times they don't :D

We need the women to stay home and work at the factories anyways.
 
Ummm, no, that is incorrect. NOW has rountinely voiced support for the inclusion of females in registration for the draft and to change the Selective Service Act to include women as well as lobbying DACO(half)WITS to include females.

Anything that would weaken and destroy their Great Satan (the USA) is favored by NOW. Women now are lot closer to the FEBA than you relate, especially in a conflict like Iraq.

What kind of man would campaign for the conscription of women? Alan Alda.
 
You're probably right, but the only way to know for certain is to put it to the test.

Women fought very effectively for the Russians in WWII, so I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss them as warriors.
 
Daemon, how does that argument work when there is no draft? Nobody gets to vote? Or, only gray-haired old guys who were around when the draft was active?

Regards.
 
Even if women were drafted, they would not necessarily have to be in combat units. Think of all the support personnel involved with keeping an infantry division fighting.
 
Historically, women have proven themselves capable of being excellent warriors. The idea does offend many delicate sensibilities, though. :rolleyes: ;)
 
I don't want to speak for Daemon but I'm pretty sure he meant 'could be drafted'. Just because you (or I) haven't been drafted, and just becuase they currently aren't drafting anyone, it doesn't mean you (or I) can't be drafted. Since there is currently no mechanism in place to conscript females regardless of any attempt to reinstate the draft women cannot be drafted while men certainly can be drafted.
 
I think that if women want equal rights they must have equal responsibility in society. I personaly don't have to worry about being drafted I already voulenteered. All I have to worry about now is stop loss.
 
I have read some comments about sending women with PMS into combat.
 
I have used this topic as a quick hypocrite test in the past. Anyone who says they believe in equal rights for women but who thinks woman shouldn't be registered for the draft does NOT believe in equal rights. This includes more than half of the women I've asked. They want the benefits without any of the responsibility.

That said, I don't think anyone should have to register for the draft. If America can't raise a volunteer army to defeat those who would harm us, America deserves what it gets.
 
Why are we even having this discussion? If there is ever a draft again, or some version of national service, which I support, why shouldn't women serve?

"This must be a dirty rotten commie trick!", Gen. Buck Turgidsen.
 
Daemon, how does that argument work when there is no draft? Nobody gets to vote? Or, only gray-haired old guys who were around when the draft was active?

They should be eligible for the draft if there is one. Like others said, if they want equal rights they should share the same duty to their country.
 
Women being drafted is the break up of the family and the traditional role women have in holding the family structure togather.

The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world.
 
Women get to vote, get equal rights, they can get drafted.

That being said, there certainly needs to be some of way to discharge some. Certainly you don't believe that a 90lb, 5' girl would be eligible for combat.
 
Women cause more problems in the military than they help solve.
There are problems of logistics, sexual problems, men being concerned about a woman, jealousy between men for a woman, facility problems, lack of strength of women, pregnancies, and having to leave children causing problems. When they have to leave their children they complain about it.

All in all it is a mistake, and women are too valuable to be in the military. The greatest thing a woman can do is to be a homemaker and good mother for future generations. Families depend upon good and loving mothers. A soldier is greatly comforted knowing that his wife is at home with the kids, and not in another unit getting shot at.

I really do not care what any general or congressman, or NOW says. It is a bad idea.

Jerry
 
Think National Service, not just as military service, but lots of things that work towards the betterment of our nation.
 
Certainly you don't believe that a 90lb, 5' girl would be eligible for combat.

They do; basic PT standards. I know a lady who volunteered, failed to meet the basic stength quals by the end of boot camp, and was discharged (honorably).

If I were organizing a militia unit (I won't ever be in the federal army, and so won't encouter the issue there), I would certainly accept women for combat roles (provided they met the training standards, as with male volunteers). Actual combat, I think, is more a matter of will than physical strength.
 
Actual combat, I think, is more a matter of will than physical strength.

I'd have to disagree with you there... certainly will is a factor, but the lady who can't hump a 90 pound ruck a few hundred miles is the lady I don't want in combat with me. When she's fatigued, her buddies have to carry her gear, and that slows the whole unit down.

A patrol is only as fast as its slowest member.


James
 
"but the lady who can't hump a 90 pound ruck a few hundred miles is the lady I don't want in combat with me. "

There aren't many men that can hump a 90 lb ruck a few hundred miles and if they do, they ain't gonna be doing much in the way of fighting when they get there. But your point is well taken. Below, I have pasted an article in the Washington Times.

Washington Times
October 22, 2004
Pg. 1
Female Soldiers Eyed For Combat
Army seeks end of 1994 ban
By Rowan Scarborough, The Washington Times

The Army is negotiating with civilian leaders about eliminating a women-in-combat ban so it can place mixed-sex support companies within warfighting units, starting with a division going to Iraq in January.
Despite the legal prohibition, Army plans already have included such collocation of women-men units in blueprints for a lighter force of 10 active divisions, according to Defense Department sources.

An Army spokesman yesterday, in response to questions from The Washington Times, said the Army is now in discussions with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's staff to see whether the 10-year-old ban in this one area should be lifted. The ban prohibits the Army from putting women in units that "collocate" with ground combatants.

"When that policy was made up, there was a different threat," said Lt. Col. Chris Rodney, an Army spokesman at the Pentagon. "We imagined a more linear combat environment. Now, with the nature of asymmetrical threats, we have to relook at that policy."

Col. Rodney cited the fighting in Iraq as typifying the new threat whereby all soldiers, support or combat, face attack by rockets, mortars, roadside bombs and ambushes.

"Everybody faces a similar threat," he said. "There is no front-line threat right now."

Since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, the Army has suffered 793 combat deaths, including 24 female soldiers.

The Army is not seeking to lift the ban on women in direct combat units, such as infantry or armor.

What is being examined is the part of the exclusion rule that says mixed-sex support companies may not be positioned with ground combat teams.

In the disputed instance, the transformation plan of Gen. Peter Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, calls for creating Forward Support Companies, which are made up of men and women. These companies would collocate with reconnaissance squadrons, which are combat units and are part of larger brigade "units of action."

The problem is a 1994 ban signed by then-Defense Secretary Les Aspin that excludes women from land combat units. Mr. Aspin added an additional restriction. Women could not serve "where units and positions are doctrinally required to physically collocate and remain with direct ground combat units that are closed to women."

Some Pentagon officials, who asked not to be named, said the proposed Forward Support Companies are at the least "skirting" the existing ban if not violating it. They suspect the new units are a way to inch women closer to land combat despite Congress' prohibition against it.

Elaine Donnelly, who leads the pro-military Center for Military Readiness, says Congress needs to be informed of the Army's plans.

"There is a law requiring notice to Congress that has not happened, and there are regulations that forbid the Army from taking infantry units and collocating gender-integrated units with them," said Mrs. Donnelly, who opposes women in combat. "If they are doing this, putting women in land combat units would be a violation of law and policy."

The Pentagon long has banned women from combat roles. In the early 1990s, the new Clinton administration changed the rules by allowing women for the first time to serve on combat ships and pilot combat aircraft, such as jet fighters and helicopters.

But the Pentagon retained the ban on women participating in direct combat and issued the new Aspin rules.

Mr. Aspin said in a January 1994 memo to the services that "women should be excluded from assignment to units below the brigade level whose primary mission is to engage in direct combat on the ground." The policy then defined direct combat as "engaging an enemy on the ground with individual or crew-served weapons, while being exposed to hostile fire and to a high probability of direct physical contact with the hostile force's personnel. Direct combat takes place well forward on the battlefield while locating and closing with the enemy to defeat them by fire, maneuver, or shock effect."

Mr. Aspin then went further in denying collocation of mixed-sex and combat units. The Army accepted the limitation, documents show.

The 3rd Infantry Division, which played a major role in the fall of Baghdad in April 2003, is scheduled to return to Iraq early next year. It would be the first division to be reconfigured into "units of action" that would contain the new mixed-sex Forward Support Companies.

In all, Gen. Schoomaker is increasing the number of combat brigades from 33 to 48, and naming them "units of action." The brigades are being married up permanently with support units so they can move out more quickly to war zones, instead of waiting for the additional personnel to arrive.

Early in the Bush administration, Mrs. Donnelly successfully persuaded the Pentagon to restrict female soldiers from certain reconnaissance units after Army planners had penciled them into those new units.
 
If I were organizing a militia unit (I won't ever be in the federal army, and so won't encouter the issue there)
No offense but with a self imposed lack of any military training what would make you qualified to form your own militia and who would follow you.
failed to meet the basic stength quals by the end of boot camp, and was discharged (honorably).
Probably would have been a General not a full Honorable
 
Stand fast

Certainly you don't believe that a 90lb, 5' girl would be eligible for combat.
They do; basic PT standards. I know a lady who volunteered, failed to meet the basic stength quals by the end of boot camp, and was discharged (honorably).
That doesn't sound right.

If an individual leaves active duty prior to the completion of military basic, they've not been in uniform long enough to characterize their service as Honorable.

Your lady friend's departure, predicated on her failure to meet established standards, only serves to strengthen this observation.

What probably occurred here is that this recruit was processed out under the auspices of an Entry Level Separation.

If in fact she left boot camp with an Honorable Discharge in hand (and has paperwork available to prove such a transaction) then an gross injustice occurred. This non-vet will have access to unearned Veteran's benefits. I sincerely hope that this is not the case here.

TM
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top