djh@tcom.stc.co.uk (David Homon) (01/23/90)
From: David Homon <djh@tcom.stc.co.uk> Sunday newspaper report: Two female American soldiers who refused to drive into downtown Panama City at the peak of the U.S. invasion could face charges. The women "feared for their lives", defence sources said, adding: "Tears were involved". The missin was to ferry troops into the sniper-filled city on the first day of the invasion. - What price female troops?? - Comments please?? Dave. [mod.note: I was hoping nobody would bring this up, but I didn't feel I could reject it, because soldiers are a form of military hardware. Given that, I will at least offer my own rebuttal. Soldiers panic under fire, or even the threat of it. It happens all the time, and always has. I feel that this case is receiving undue attention because these soldiers happened to be women. I'm reminded of watching Walter Cronkite's "Vietnam War" series. One episode dealt with a mutiny among the soldiers of a certain infantry company, who bluntly refused to follow orders to walk down a road toward an airlift site. Not a woman among them. - Bill ]
sylvain@udcps3.cps.udayton.edu (Nicholas Sylvain) (02/06/90)
From: sylvain@udcps3.cps.udayton.edu (Nicholas Sylvain) >In article <13491@cbnews.ATT.COM> gross@dg-rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) writes: >>In article <13421@cbnews.ATT.COM> djh@tcom.stc.co.uk (David Homon) writes: >> >>Sunday newspaper report: Two female American soldiers >>who refused to drive into downtown Panama City at the peak >>of the U.S. invasion could face charges. >> The women "feared for their lives", defence sources said, >> adding: "Tears were involved". The missin was to ferry >> troops into the sniper-filled city on the first day of >> the invasion. > >I have given a great deal of thought to women in combat and have to say >that I do believe that there are many who could be excellent combat >soldiers. I'm not sure that this will happen in my lifetime, but one >day we will field co-ed units. This has been done in other countries. A recent article in the Washington Times that noted Israel initially used women in combat units, but abandoned the practice in 1948 after it was learned that Arabs fought harder against women to avoid losing face. How do you take into account fundamental physical differences? Do you allow double standards for physical requirements? With 10-15% of women in the services pregant at any given time, how do you handle that situation? You state that modern warfare has eliminated the significance of these (or any other) differences. How so? >While we are on the topic of women fighting in Panama, I find it hard to >believe that the ones who did engage in fighting will not receive the >CIB. The men who fought are getting theirs, why shouldn't the women? All of the women were Military Police, and not Infantry. According to Army regulations, only combat soldiers (infantry) can get the CIB. So none of the MPs, male as well as female, will get the CIB. They will be given the permission to switch their unit patches from one shoulder to another (I forget the exact positionings), which is a sign of combat experience. (Or something like that). -- "If you want to play the game, you better know the rules." -- Inspector Harry Callahan (_The Dead Pool_) Nicholas Sylvain sylvain@udcps2.cps.udayton.edu or sylvain$n@dayton.bitnet
carlson@gateway.mitre.org (Bruce Carlson) (02/06/90)
From: carlson@gateway.mitre.org (Bruce Carlson) In article <13491@cbnews.ATT.COM> gross@dg-rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) writes: > >While we are on the topic of women fighting in Panama, I find it hard to >believe that the ones who did engage in fighting will not receive the >CIB. The men who fought are getting theirs, why shouldn't the women? > I would like to clear up one apparent point of confusion about the Combat Infantryman's Badge (CIB). It is only awarded to infantrymen who are assigned to an infantry unit, working in an infantry MOS. I was once the Signal Officer of an infantry battalion. Although I was assigned to the battalion (not just part of a supporting unit) I was ineligible to wear the Expert Infantryman's Badge or the CIB, even if I had met the performance requirements (EIB) or had been in combat with the unit (CIB). I also remember a time period requirement for the CIB - either 30 days or 90 days. I think the Army waivered the time required for Granada and Panama since they wanted to give the CIB to those that deserved it. The point of my discussion is that since women are prohibited from being assigned to an infantry MOS, they are ineligible for the CIB. Bruce Carlson carlson@gateway.mitre.org
major@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Mike Schmitt) (02/09/90)
From: ssc-vax!shuksan!major@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Mike Schmitt) In article <13421@cbnews.ATT.COM>, djh@tcom.stc.co.uk (David Homon) writes: > > > From: David Homon <djh@tcom.stc.co.uk> > > Sunday newspaper report: Two female American soldiers > who refused to drive into downtown Panama City at the peak > of the U.S. invasion could face charges. > The women "feared for their lives", defence sources said, > adding: "Tears were involved". The missin was to ferry > troops into the sniper-filled city on the first day of > the invasion. > - What price female troops?? > - Comments please?? > Dave. > > > [mod.note: I was hoping nobody would bring this up, but I didn't > feel I could reject it, because soldiers are a form of military > hardware. > Given that, I will at least offer my own rebuttal. Soldiers > panic under fire, or even the threat of it. It happens all the time, > and always has. True enough (I won't tell you what happened to me the first time I got ambushed :-). But, it's hoped that the 'panic' is a controlled panic, panic and fear that gets the adrenalin pumping and then training and discipline take over and the soldiers take the correct action. > I feel that this case is receiving undue attention > because these soldiers happened to be women. Again, probably true. > I'm reminded of watching Walter Cronkite's "Vietnam War" > series. One episode dealt with a mutiny among the soldiers of a certain > infantry company, who bluntly refused to follow orders to walk down > a road toward an airlift site. Not a woman among them. - Bill ] I remember this incident. The story behind the story seems to be that that company took some heavy casualties on that same road previously. Then, a brand new platoon leader (Second Lieutenant) arrived and wanted go down the same road in this operation - much to the dismay of the 'older' more experienced platoon sergeant who tried to dissuad the lieutenant that that was dangerous and there was a better but alternate route. The lieutenant was being stubborn, trying to exert his authority and demanded they follow his orders to the letter. "No sir", said the sergeant, "I cannot in good faith order my men down that road, you'll have to court-martial me." 'Course the men were going to follow their sergeant. Then, the whole thing got blown out of proportion by the news media. "Normally" an incident like this (and this wasn't rare) would be taken care of by the "chain of command" - especially if new/fresh officers/leaders were doing stupid things. The sergeants could usually straighten things out. So, you see. There are echelons of ethics and integrity operating. The highest plane says, "Duty, Honor, Country." Another plane says, "An "An officer's word is his bond, and what he says, does, signs, testifies the truth of the matter." A lower plane says that an "officer must have moral courage and take care of his men." But there is another directive that all officers and sergeants must adhere to - and is usually the first directive amongst a series of orders, plans, and directives. It is, "DON'T DO ANYTHING DUMB!" ...and THAT is the only one that counts. mike schmitt