The Instigator
Battleratt
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
SemperVI
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points

Whould women be allowed in combat type MOS's within the US Armed Forces

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
SemperVI
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/9/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 729 times Debate No: 41962
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

Battleratt

Con

Let's talk about it.
SemperVI

Pro

I accept your challenge where you are questioning if a woman would be allowed to serve in a combatant classified military occupational specialty.

In January, 2013, Leon Panetta and General Martin Dempsey sign a memorandum ending the 1994 ban on women serving in combat roles in the military.

The US Army, under the new policy, female officers and non-commissioned officers will be assigned to combat units below the brigade level. The change will open up about 14,000 new jobs for women in the military, but there are still more than 250,000 jobs that remain closed to women.

In the US Marine Corps, the first three women ever to endure and pass the Marine Corps" combat training course " nine grinding weeks that include "live fire events" and a furious, 20-kilometer, full-pack hike " graduated last Thursday from infantry school in North Carolina.

It is no longer a "Would" argument, instead it is a "Should" argument. If you would like to discuss this, I will look forward to reading your arguments why females should not be allowed in combat a MOS. Good luck
Debate Round No. 1
Battleratt

Con

Unfortunately, I realize that I mistakenly pressed the "W" as opposed to the "S" when I was posting this debate, so I do apologize.

I agree, in today's progressive society, it is not a question of if we will ever allow females to operate in MOS's that have the capability and possibility of engaging the enemy in small arms fire, or hand to hand combat. No, the question we must ask ourselves as an elite military force in the world is "Should we allow women to participate in combat?"

Now before I go any further let me make my topic clear. This is a debate about whether or not women should be given a rifle, and operate in the same manner as men do in today's modern age of combat. I am against this topic, and my opponent is for this topic.

It is not reasonable to assume that the average women can operate at the same capacity, and perform the same tasks, as men when in a combat environment.

My first point is that the average male is physically superior to the average female. There are certain things that females cannot be expected to do, due to limitations in strength. Although some females may be able to push through the pain of a "furious, 20-kilometer, full-pack hike", it is not a true testament to what it takes to get through combat. These courses that men go through, such as School of Infantry, are not "proving grounds" where the weak are weeded out, they are just another course, that teaches men how to operate in a combat environment. Although the PT is grueling, it is in no way a testament to ones ability to perform a combat role. Therefor, ones ability to pass this course is not a point that should be considered in allowing females to serve in combat.

Let us also consider the simplicity that comes with having all male combat units. A platoon commander need not worry about separate sleeping arrangements, where each gender will use the head, where each gender will get dressed, whether or not the interactions between the two genders will result in sexual or even emotionally charged tension, but rather he can focus his attention on the mission at hand. Like it or not the number one priority in the armed forces is mission accomplishment, and after that comes troop welfare. Now this means that more often than not troop welfare will suffer in order for mission accomplishment. This means there are going to be times where one of them are just going to have to "suck it up" per se, because that specific unit neither has the time, nor the ability to offer such accommodations. You can imagine the chaos that can come out of these scenarios, everything from pregnancy while deployed, to emotional instability due to riffs in relationships, to the feeling of being treated unfairly, or being uncomfortable due to lack of privacy, these are all things that should not, but unfortunately would be, running through the minds of the troops, whose focus should be elsewhere.

Now whether it is accepted by the masses or not, the boots on the ground today are still engaging in lethal hand to hand combat on a regular enough basis, that it is still in the curriculum of the schools we have previously mentioned. The guy who wins the struggle is going to be the one who is stronger. Now I am not claiming that this is WWII and the threat is around every corner, so we need to fix bayonets and eat our Wheaties every morning just in case. What I am saying is it still happens. And when it does happen it is not with a female, it is with a male opponent. I like my chances knowing that I have a stronger and faster individual watching my back.

The simple fact is this. Combat is not a place for women. It is not about equality or human rights. It is about which candidate is better tasked for the job. And when the job is saving lives and taking lives that is a pretty important question to ask.
SemperVI

Pro

As we all know, there is no longer a designated frontline that protects a soldier from being in combat. The days of a battle front in a war are over. When a service man or woman is checking vehicles in Afghanistan, and the vehicle explodes due to a car bomb, that soldier is killed in combat. When female soldiers are the first ones to knock on doors in a neighborhood in Afghanistan due to cultural restrictions, they are essentially at the point-woman of a potential fire mission. We no longer have a choice but to recognize that female soldiers are in the battlefield and leading missions in nontraditional combat zones. This is a matter of fact given that fifteen percent of the military is comprised of women. Over 200,000 women have dedicated their lives to serve the United States and 20,000 of whom served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Where in these countries does the theater of operations begin or end.

My opponent states "that the average male is physically superior to the average female. There are certain things that females cannot be expected to do, due to limitations in strength." It is not reasonable to assume that the "average" women can operate at the same capacity, and perform the same tasks, as men when in a combat environment. The woman who have proven capable of operating in such an environment have demonstrated a superior capacity than their "average" male counterpart. As my opponent correctly indicated, the average male is stronger than the average female. However, according to Marine Lt. Gen. Robert Milstead, deputy commandant for manpower and reserve affairs, none of the standards males have traditionally been required to meet have been lowered for woman[1]. No lower bar has been set for female recruits, yet, select females have exceeded their own gender based standard and met and/or exceeded the higher standard set for men. This is what justifies and merits a combat role for women who met the requirements. If it"s good enough for an average male, it is certainly good enough for a superior female.

My opponent summarizes his argument of male physical superiority over females by stating, "Although the PT is grueling, it is in no way a testament to ones ability to perform a combat role. Therefor, ones ability to pass this course is not a point that should be considered in allowing females to serve in combat.[sic]"

I would like to challenge this statement. If it is not based on physical ability, what "point" should be considered allowing females to serve in combat? Military analysts agree the debate over whether women should serve in infantry and other direct ground combat roles has come to this: Are they physically strong enough? The U.S. military services have launched an extensive effort to verify the specific physical requirements needed to succeed in each of dozens of fields that had been closed to women. As previously stated, the military will not need to lower its physical standards as it opens direct combat jobs to women.[2]

The second point my opponent makes is accommodating privacy for female combatants in the field. While this is a valid point of contention " the truth is, it is not as relevant or as big a problem as it sounds. In Iraq, most combat patrols began in the green zone in the early morning dawn and ended at evening. There were specialized combat roles at night for specific raids, but these patrols operated out of an established base where both combatants and non-combatants slept. In the event a female combatant needed to sleep in the field or improvise a latrine for use, it is not unreasonable to expect the female to perform this duty the same way males do. All combatants give up any reasonable expectation of their privacy in the field. I do not see how this would be any different for females. Additionally, it would not be difficult for the chain of command to ensure both the males and females respected certain aspects of the other genders daily rituals. Provisioning this would not be difficult for a leader.

My opponent further stated "Like it or not the number one priority in the armed forces is mission accomplishment, and after that comes troop welfare." I will agree with my opponent with this assertion. Accordingly, due to cultural sensitivities in Middle Eastern theaters of operation, female soldiers are being taken on combat missions to search village women. According to Pfc, Adalina Roman, a 19 year-old supply specialist, B Co., 307th FSB. The Afghan women are sensitive about being seen by people who are not members of their family. They are sometimes upset when even female soldiers try to search them. "They"re really scared; one woman was so upset she lost control of her bowels when asked to stand up." Women are not the only ones who get emotional when searched. Brady mentioned one man who became hysterical, started crying and choking when he saw his wife being searched. This prompted all the women to start crying and Brady had to get the already very busy interpreter to help calm them all down. [3]

Can you imagine how dangerous and difficult this task would be if US service members were searching Middle Eastern woman for explosives. It would enrage the traditional patriarch society. Modern warfare involves many tactics and strategies, today"s modern battlefield is as much "hearts and minds" as it is physical combat. In a conflict where hearts and minds are important delicate handling of local people is required in order gain their support. In these conflicts, women are often better suited to intelligence gathering, medical assistance, policing and mediation than men. They are often perceived as less threatening and more understanding.[4] In addition, they would be better placed to deal with women in the local population.

My opponent finalizes his position by basically stating "Now I am not claiming that this is WWII and the threat is around every corner, so we need to fix bayonets and eat our Wheaties every morning just in case. What I am saying is it [hand-to-hand combat] still happens. And when it does happen it is not with a female, it is with a male opponent. I like my chances knowing that I have a stronger and faster individual watching my back."

As previously indicated a modern battlefield does have combat and on rare occasion, involves hand to hand combat. This is the exception to the rule and certainly not the norm. When small arms are the primary means of defense and offense, size and speed is irrelevant. Since the end of the Cold war, wars have become "less frequent and less deadly". In the past, wars were often fought between large armies with heavy weaponry, but many modern conflicts are L.I.C.s (low intensity conflicts), involving small terrorist groups with guerilla tactics. [5]

Women have shown great courage and sacrifice on and off the battlefield, contributed in unprecedented ways to the military's mission and proven their ability to serve in an expanding number of roles. Women have always fought and died in America's wars. As of 2010, over 600 women have died in operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. They've led men in battle, been prisoners of war, fired lethal weapons, and operated our most sophisticated systems. They fly combat aircraft, serve on combat ships and have killed the enemy. Women meet the military's physical and mental standards, are technically proficient, and are highly trained war fighters and leaders. It is for these reasons I maintain woman should fill combat roles in today's military.

[1] USA Today
HYPERLINK http://www.usatoday.com...

[2] USA Today http://www.usatoday.com...

[3] Defend America Web Article http://www.defendamerica.mil...

[4] Sisters In Arms Web Article
http://sistersinarms.ca...

[5] Global Security: Fundamentals of Low Intensity Conflict
Debate Round No. 2
Battleratt

Con

Battleratt forfeited this round.
SemperVI

Pro

I will rest on my given arguments. Thank you for the debate.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by SemperVI 3 years ago
SemperVI
Thanks for your input cbcullen84. Your points are certainly valid.
Posted by cbcullen84 3 years ago
cbcullen84
I'm liking both sides of this debate. Con I can say in your defense, since Pro has mentioned the COIN environment as the basis for most of his justification, that this environment included Iraq and Afghanistan, where Women are seen as property and given absolutely no respect for the MOST part. It is simply the culture that breeds Men who do not naturally see Women as authority figures. It is to the point that it would cause undue friction to have a Female speak to an Arab Male.

Pro I admit you have the better structured argument so far, I'm slightly hung up on the (Sorry for going there) stereotype argument that in a life or death situation, a screaming female on the battlefield would invoke those impulses in a Man that would take generations to brainwash out. You cannot go against your impulse in those situations, you sound like the type to know what I mean. In situations where life is all the way up the hill and death is just behind you...you don't formulate reasonably sound and logical plans in your head, you act on what your training and experience have afforded you...and unfortunately there is no training that will prepare you to hear or see a Female wounded or dying on the battlefield...take my word on that one.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
BattlerattSemperVITied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Nice response Pro. Battleratt....what to say....you pretty much picked a losing side. Which is problematic, because you chose that side. Pro fully answered all of your claims. According to this debate, you seem to think men are superior to women, or at least they are more trustworthy when the crap hits the fan. Your argument was quite sexist, and in a way even more unnerving to me, quite sincere. I strongly suggest that you rethink your supposedly superior position as a man. The title had poor grammar, Pro had better sources, and Pro did not insult 51% of the world. Pro wins soundly. "Emotional instability," so kick the gays and the women out. Why not have an all-female military force? "Combat is not a place for women." Seriously? Is this a timetravel debate?