How Did The Wheels Come Off Obama's Foreign Policy?

Manic Moran

Thomas998 wrote: »

I cannot understand how the military, the ultimate meritocracy, requires forced integration of females. Or, for that matter, lower qualifying standards for them. War isn't like that.

The latter is because, generally speaking, women are not physically as capable as men. For whatever reason, it was decided that they would like to have about as many females, as a percentage, pass the physical tests as men, as a percentage. You can argue the merits of that one, but as long as they're out of the heavy-lifting front-line roles, requiring the same effort doesn't seem unreasonable. The overall merit of this differing standard has been repeatedly questioned, especially as the push to integrate women continues.

The former is simply because we haven't yet run out of men willing and capable of doing the job, so what's the benefit to the military as opposed to the downsides? It's not simply the physical capabiity. There is, unfortunately, a distinct problem in interpersonal actions between young folks in good physical condition who are, coincidentally, at their sexual peaks. I don't know any commander of an integrated unit who has not had to deal with the troubles this causes. And then, of course, you have the privacy issues. The US is unfortunately a very prudish country, and is not currently ready for 'starship-troopers' type integration, and still relies on separated habitation and sanitary facilities. This is of limited availability in a line unit. "Girls and boys, strip. We're going to inspect your genitals and your ass for ticks" (A not unusual problem in places like Fort Knox or Fort Benning) is just asking for a sexual harassment claim to occur.

Three major military organisations have recently studied the matter. The UK took a look at it last year, again. (Two previous studies, 2002 and 2010 both concluded it would be detremental to combat effectivness). The 2014 study looked at 21 combat effectiveness factors, and concluded one would be improved, seven more or less stay the same, eleven would be worse, and two they couldn't really judge.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/389575/20141218_WGCC_Findings_Paper_Final.pdf

The Israelis also had another look at it in May of this year, with two particularly unique background factors. Firstly, they -are- running out of men willing to do the job. Secondly, they've had females operating in the tasks outside of combat unts (eg female tankers in training units) as well as having some limited practical experience of females in front-line roles. This study was based on tankers only, not infantry, and concluded that the armored force should remain a male-only environment.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4658372,00.html

Finally, the US Marines released the results of their year-long assessment in September. They also concluded that it would be detremental. Secretary of the Navy is overruling the Corps.

http://www.npr.org/2015/09/10/439246978/marine-corps-release-results-of-study-on-women-in-combat-units

Of the sixteen odd industrialised countries which allow women in combat roles to one extent or another (including Canada, Romania, France, Germany, Netherlands, Denmark, Ireland, Israel, Poland, New Zealand, Australia, Sweden), some still have limitations (eg Israel already mentioned, Netherlands Marines), some didn't have a choice in the matter (European Court of Justice rules on law, not on capability), and most of the rest are more known for their peace keeping duties than for high-intensity combat.

The writing is on the wall. Should I ever be given command of another unit, I expect it will have females in it. I don't like it, indeed, I don't know anyone in a combat arms unit who actively wants it. I will deal with all the issues which show up as best I can, but the point is that I would have enough problems without adding to them. Unless a change improves the ability of the US military to defeat its enemies in combat, the change should not be made. Experiences of the last ten years are not indicative of this, they have not been high-intensity combat situations.I'll follow orders and policy, but if you want to know why it's being forced on us, that's why. We don't believe it's in the military's best interests and would like a better reason than "Because it's not fair to women that they can't serve in combat"

Overheal

If we had more (good) women in politics maybe there'd be less fighting for the menfolk to do :pac:

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

If we had more (good) women in politics maybe there'd be less fighting for the menfolk to do :pac:

Women don't fight? What world do you live in? :pac:

two wheels good

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Well, the US did back the military junta of El Salvador during their civil war (1979-92). In the same period they provided training to the Honduran army, and Honduras served as a base for Contra rebels.

The USA trained many henchmen and death-squads who stomped all over CA and SA. Especially from the US School of the Americas, Fort Benning Georgia - now renamed, probabably partly due to its notorious reputation.

Death squads, for example, that killed Oscar Romero, also 6 Jesuits and 2 women in Salvador in the 80's

two wheels good

Overheal wrote: »

If we had more (good) women in politics maybe there'd be less fighting for the menfolk to do :pac:

I read/heard similar comments more than once in the aftermath of the banking crisis. Less testosterone in the boardroom might have produced more rational decisions. Maybe fewer sociopaths too - who knows!

Amerika

two wheels good wrote: »

The USA trained many henchmen and death-squads who stomped all over CA and SA. Especially from the US School of the Americas, Fort Benning Georgia - now renamed, probabably partly due to its notorious reputation.

Death squads, for example, that killed Oscar Romero, also 6 Jesuits and 2 women in Salvador in the 80's

I know there were US trained counterinsurgency battalions. But please show me from some reputable source where they trained the units to become “death-squads.”

Manach

The current President's policy seems to be more hands off with the velvet glove than his immediate predessors and more inclined to used technology (drones)where the iron fist fist required. This level of disengagement has left a vacuum were emerging and former great powers are stepping in to fill the void. Historically the marginised areas outside the empire's metropole have bourne a measure of active intervention to impose control, but in many circumstances the lack of any clear hegomon leads to even greater levels of conflict. Hopefully this will not be the long term legacy of President Obama.

two wheels good

Amerika wrote: »

I know there were US trained counterinsurgency battalions. But please show me from some reputable source where they trained the units to become “death-squads.”

You can choose any euphemism you like. My previous link will lead you to plenty of sources. The killing of the Jesuits and 2 women is a good example - the killers were some elite military battalion.
Many other examples of the terror inflicted on the populations in Nicaragua and El salvador - and other countries too.

BTW I see there's a demonstraiton coming up next month at Fort Benning on the anniversary of that killing.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

I know there were US trained counterinsurgency battalions. But please show me from some reputable source where they trained the units to become “death-squads.”

"Death Panels" #checkmate

Amerika

two wheels good wrote: »

You can choose any euphemism you like. My previous link will lead you to plenty of sources. The killing of the Jesuits and 2 women is a good example - the killers were some elite military battalion.
Many other examples of the terror inflicted on the populations in Nicaragua and El salvador - and other countries too.

BTW I see there's a demonstraiton coming up next month at Fort Benning on the anniversary of that killing.

None I saw indicated they were done or sanctioned by the US.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

"Death Panels" #checkmate

Not so fast... Is that you're way of saying neither existed?

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Not so fast... Is that you're way of saying neither existed?

I don't have enough information about Contra for that. I started watching Kill The Messenger on HBO but the pace tapered off and my attention span completely died. But am saying that if you want to say Death Squads weren't real (probably because on paper they may have never been called that, or they just never lived up to that moniker for whatever reason) you also have to acquiesce that "Death Panels" are in turn not a thing.

two wheels good

Amerika wrote: »

None I saw indicated they were done or sanctioned by the US.

Atlacatl Battalion - that's the shower I had in mind.
"The Atlacatl Battalion, a former Salvadoran Army unit, was a rapid-response, counter-insurgency battalion created in 1980 at the U.S. Army's School of the Americas, then located in Panama. It was implicated in some of the most infamous incidents of the Salvadoran Civil War. "

You might look-up the topic of CIA death squads too.

asherbassad

Amerika wrote: »

What in the world are you going on about?

I see you have even less of a clue about anything than I originally thought.

asherbassad

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I think he might be referring to the "Contras" that Reagan backed.

No, America's training and funding of El Salvador's right-wing death squads before during and long after the Mozote massacre.

asherbassad

Amerika wrote: »

I know there were US trained counterinsurgency battalions. But please show me from some reputable source where they trained the units to become “death-squads.”

I see what makes you tick now. Rename something and that airbrushes it out of existence.

And you actually, like the "enhanced interrogation techniques" brigade, think you can fool people with that little game.