rickyp wrote:bbauska

Should standards be the same for both men and women soldiers?

Are they the same in the other 20 countries that already have women in combat? In Israel?
If they are then I guess the answer is yes. If the answer is no then the answer is no.
You don't need to reinvent the wheel just examine the practical experience gained in the field.

rickyp wrote:Fate

Women in combat "worked well" because

Israel won their war of independence. With women fighting.
Afghanistan was, temporarily subdued, with women in combat.
The results on the field are why it worked well.

Would Israel and other countries be continuing the use of women in combat if they were the recipes for disaster that you and Kathleen Parker suppose?

bbauska

Should standards be the same for both men and women soldiers?

Are they the same in the other 20 countries that already have women in combat? In Israel?
If they are then I guess the answer is yes. If the answer is no then the answer is no.
You don't need to reinvent the wheel just examine the practical experience gained in the field.

Yes. Their needs are not the same

rickyp wrote:fate

Yes. Their needs are not the same

Bull.
Prove your claim.
The needs of a combat army unit are different from and (sic) American combat unit is what way?

Doctor Fate wrote:

rickyp wrote:fate

Yes. Their needs are not the same

Bull.
Prove your claim.
The needs of a combat army unit are different from and (sic) American combat unit is what way?

When was the last time any of those countries invaded a country the size of Afghanistan or Iraq? That's the difference.

bbauska wrote:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26101903

Ray Jay wrote:

bbauska wrote:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26101903

Facts ... what a novel approach ... thanks!

danivon wrote:And the US did not invade Iraq alone either. Poland and Australia were also involved n the invasion, and both countries allow women in combat roles. And of course the Kurdish peshmerga also took part and include women in combat roles.

The original Polish contingent contained:

70 soldiers from the JW Grom SOF unit, already deployed to the region, before March 2003. These were joined by another 56 men, just before the invasion.
The logistic support ship ORP Kontradmirał Xawery Czernicki which served as a base for special operations, included 50+ crew as well as the navy SOF unit JW Formoza.
74 chemical-contamination personnel from 4 Brodnicki Pułk Chemiczny (4. Chemical Warfare Regiment from Brodnica).
Another 53 men strong chemical-contamination contingent was ready to be sent to Turkey, but because of the quick victory it was stopped one day before departure.

A headquarters staff of about 60 personnel under the command of Brigadier Maurie McNarn.

Royal Australian Navy
The frigates HMAS Anzac and HMAS Darwin, which were already on-station as part of the Multinational Interception Force enforcing economic sanctions against Iraq before the invasion plan was entered into. Each ship carried a single Seahawk helicopter from 816 Squadron RAN.[3]
The transport ship HMAS Kanimbla carrying 350 crew and soldiers, including embarked Australian Army LCM-8 landing craft and an anti-aircraft contingent, a Sea King helicopter from 817 Squadron RAN, and a bomb disposal team. A detachment from the Army's 16th Air Defence Regiment provided point defence to the Kanimbla.
Clearance Diving Team Three, which worked alongside divers from several nations to clear Iraqi ports of mines.
Royal Australian Air Force
No. 75 Squadron, operating 14 F/A-18 Hornet fighter jets together with 250 command, coordination, support and aircrew personnel.
Three C-130H Hercules transport aircraft from No. 36 Squadron RAAF and 150 support personnel.
Two AP-3C Orion maritime patrol aircraft and 150 support personnel (these aircraft may have operated in the electronic intelligence gathering role).
Australian Army
A 500-strong special forces task group consisting of:
Forward Command Element
Special Forces Task Group attached to Combined Joint Special Operations Task Force-West (CJSOTF-W)[4]
1st Squadron Group, Australian Special Air Service Regiment
Platoon (+), 4th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment (Commando)
D Troop, Incident Response Regiment
Combat Service Support Group
Troop, C Squadron, 5th Aviation Regiment (3 CH-47 Chinook)
2 LCM-8 Landing Craft, 70/71 Troop Water Transport Squadron

. . .

No Australian military personnel were killed in action during Operation Falconer or Operation Catalyst, although three died in accidents or during service with British forces; many more have been wounded. Additionally as many as six Australians have been killed whilst working as private security contractors.

danivon wrote:Another is that combat is indeed changing - we are far less likely to fight melee battles than before - increasingly weaponry is ranged, or even remote. And combat roles are diversifying which means that different skills and capabilities are needed.

I agree with Sass - if they want to, and if they meet the standards then women can be in combat roles. There are ways to deal with relationships (which need to be in place for all-male forces anyway). Additionally, I am not concerned too much if the standards change over time either, as long as the military have good reason for them.

When was the last time any of those countries invaded a country the size of Afghanistan or Iraq?

rickyp wrote:fate

When was the last time any of those countries invaded a country the size of Afghanistan or Iraq?

The first troops actually on the ground in Afghanistan, were Australian Commandos , Canadian J2F and American Seals...

In Afghanistan Canada had responsibility for Kandahar after 2006. I've already linked you to an article which would have shown you that the activities of the American troops in Afghanistan. were identical to forces that use women in combat roles...
Since women served in those armies in Afghanistan, and those countries continue to employ women after the experience in Afghanistan, it proves that in the modern armed forces women can serve in combat .

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Another is that combat is indeed changing - we are far less likely to fight melee battles than before - increasingly weaponry is ranged, or even remote. And combat roles are diversifying which means that different skills and capabilities are needed.

I hope not. That would mean yet more nation-building, which is something we should just stop.

We cannot assume we will never have to fight another major war. Assumptions lead to defeat.

I agree with Sass - if they want to, and if they meet the standards then women can be in combat roles. There are ways to deal with relationships (which need to be in place for all-male forces anyway). Additionally, I am not concerned too much if the standards change over time either, as long as the military have good reason for them.

You're welcome to do whatever you like in the UK. Over here, when we have a draft again, this will cause no small stir. Not every girl dreams of being an infantryman.

danivon wrote:No it doesn't. It reflects that fighting wars is a lot different to what it used to be. Nothing to do with "nation-building".

We cannot assume we will never have to fight another major war. Assumptions lead to defeat.

And we can't assume that the next war will be fought in the same way as the past. That has been a common error throughout history.

You're welcome to do whatever you like in the UK. Over here, when we have a draft again, this will cause no small stir. Not every girl dreams of being an infantryman.

Neither does every boy. A draft would likely cause a big stir in the USA regardless of whether women were drafted too (I suspect that any draft would not include women - at least at first).