Leon Panetta Looking For A Few Good Women

Leon Panther

Pentagon Leon “Panther” pursuing female prey.

Obama‘s outgoing Defense secretary levels the fighting field by canning ban on women serving in combat.  Wash PostNYDN.

The Pink Panther. …

Wednesday, January 23, 2013 @ 4:59 PM


  • Sentinel

    Sure, you can serve in combat – if you can graduate the Infantry school, by the male standards only, graduate Ranger School (male standards) and able to hump the very same weight loads male infantrymen have to hump.  And one last thing – no fucking whining.

    • http://chickaboomer.com/ Marty Davis

      Women don’t have the strength like men, obviously.
      Via BlackBerry

    • Jaccharlot

      What difference does strength make, Audy Murphy weighted 140 lbs and stood 5′ 9”, refused by the Marines and Air Borne, 

      killed 250 German and Italian soldiers in close quarter combat.

      Women were used successfully in Combat in Viet Nam, they fought along side men against American Forces, and won.

      Women were used successfully during WWII by the Russians as Snipers, they were quite good, 

      so this shit about women not being up to killing and surviving on a battlefield isn’t true.

    • Sentinel

       Then start signing them up.  And it’s Airborne, not Air Borne!

    • Jaccharlot

      Airborne-my bad

      And they are signing up Sent, unless the Army has changed it’s policy again.

    • Sentinel

      Good, and when these women sign up for Airborne School, do the pushups the men do and run with the men’s formation instead of running in the women’s formation.  (Yeah, there’s different standards, I know – I went there). 

    • Sentinel

       There are plenty of studies out there refuting the idea of using women in combat.  The studies have focused not only on the structural differences of the two sexes but also on negative long term affects on female combatants.  Soldiers often experience wild body weight swings due to induced stress levels as well as the physical exertion while conducting operations.  These weight swings reek havoc on the female anatomy as well as the reproductive organs – most women lose their cycles (studies by the Israeli Army confirm this) and long term affects may manifest itself in sterility.

      Additionally, women (most of them, because of their body build) would quickly reach their physical limits much faster than males thus jeopardizing the unit’s capability and effectiveness.  It’s not a good idea!

    • Jaccharlot

      Sent., I have yet to meet one woman that wanted to join special forces, but, if Gen. Petraeus’s biographer wanted to join your unit I bet you would consider it.

    • Sentinel

       Not just no, but Hell No!  You and his biographer have no clue as to the mental and physical intensity of the training.  And the operational stresses are 100 times the training stress.  She couldn’t make it.

    • Jaccharlot

      Sentinel, when I was a child, my dad showed me some photos of Dead VC.

      One of them was a woman, She weighted all of 90lbs and was maybe 20ish, her clothing had been blown away, and you could see where her skin had been discolored.

      I asked my father why her skin was spotty, the reason, because she, along with the others, had been living in the water as protection from attack for so long, it caused the spots.

       That’s MeKong Delta water Sentinel, kind of nasty and things that will kill and or eat you in a second living there.

      Show me a special forces guy tougher than that Sent.

    • Sentinel

       No problem, I could show you 11 of them – my team.

  • Jim Coles

    One of the arguments against women in frontline combat has been their ‘emotional fragility,’ that they would reel at the violence … I have news for those who believe that tripe: no civilized person can live in and operate in that hostile and insane atmosphere for more than a day without being affected … men and women are no different in that regard: combat is horrible and grotesque…no one is immune to its effects.
    But humans are remarkably adaptable … most people manage to function in that insane universe and then when they get away from it most will be able to compartmentalize the horrors, bury some of them below their memory line; remember the camaraderie and fun (yes, there is often fun and lightness in between fights), and get on with their lives … A percentage of warriors has always come home damaged and unable to fully function in civil society…that sad fact will never change.
    When women are thrown into the combat mix, I suspect most women will adapt about as well as the men at the psychological level … but mainstream-sized women will never have the physical strength to carry the loads male combatants carry — either as much stuff, as far, or as fast … The average-sized male combatant has a hard time with those loads … the body aches, rest times are cherished and are never long enough …
    I’ve seen very fit men carrying their combat loads in the mountains of Afghanistan sucking air with every step … drenched with sweat even in the cold wind … schedules have to be maintained and extra rest time is hard to build into the fight plan … at times, the men had to shed their extra gear just to have the strength & energy to get to the fight … and there’s not one extra calorie of energy to carry part of a woman soldier’s load.
    In Iraq I saw a woman truck driver stand her ground with other Army drivers when their truck was ambushed … this woman soldier fought as well as the men but she wasn’t wearing 90-plus pounds of gear and she wasn’t required to run from one fighting position to another.
    So the bag is mixed on Panetta’s decision — in some circumstances women frontline fighters will do just as well (or as poorly) as the men around them … but other units and situations are and will remain completely inappropriate for women as combat soldiers.
    But knowing political-think I’m sure the top elected & appointive leadership will go for a ‘one-size fits all’ solution that in the end will result in reduced combat effectiveness, more dead men, dead women and failed missions. 

  • Jimbotalk

    Many men, and most women aren ‘t capable of meeting the physical demands of combat.  If we really proceed on a purely meritocratic basis–if an individual can hack it, fine, if not, you’re out–that’s great.
    But letting those unqualified into combat will cost lives.
    Something else to consider:  unit cohesion.  It matters, and we’ll have to make sure that men don’t sink into some kind of suicidal chivalry regarding women in combat.  Everybody will have to carry their own weight (literally and figuratively).
    So–can it work?  Maybe.  But I’ll bet you it won’t work well the way I think they’ll proceed.