Australian Army: Women on the frontline; news article.

[Dryotriorchis]

Army recruitment drive may put women in the frontline

The World Today - Thursday, 11 August , 2005 12:14:00

Reporter: Alexandra Kirk

HAMISH ROBERTSON: For the first time in the history of the Australian Army, women could serve in combat zones, including in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Federal Government is examining an army proposal, which would allow women to occupy support positions in frontline combat units, although they wouldn't be allowed to engage in any actual "hand-to-hand" fighting.

The Minister responsible for defence personnel, De-Anne Kelly, says this would maintain existing Government policy while at the same time help attract more women into the Defence Force, which is finding it hard to recruit enough people at the moment.

The suggested change has the full support of the Opposition, although Labor says it's being driven by necessity rather than by a matter of principle….

(read the rest of the story at the link)



http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2005/s1435558.htm






What are your feelings on this idea, would it have a great affect on how front line operations take place? Do you think the country is able to accept a female death at war, especially should that war be already un-popular. And to what extent do you feel the government has bought having to do this on itself with it’s recruiting policy. People say that there is a problem with recruit intakes, I leave for recruit training in 5 weeks, when I first started my testing there was 20 people, I had my physical test the other day and there where only three people (Including myself). Also what extent do women in the army today get to fill?

 

[Aussie Digger]

This is a bit of a beat up in my view. Women already serve in infantry battalions, artillery regiments and Armoured Regt's as clerks, Band corp members etc. I guess now they'll be allowed to be drivers, serve in RAEME platoons, operate as sigs within RHQ/BHQ's etc. I think it'll be a while before we see women in "actual" combat units as "rifle persons", gun numbers, armoured vehicle "crew persons" etc...

 

[Supe]

What are your feelings on this idea, would it have a great affect on how front line operations take place? Do you think the country is able to accept a female death at war, especially should that war be already un-popular.

Yes, Australian people can stomach the death of serving female personnel. If it's a matter of how popular a war is, then any death is going to be problematic for the government regardless of gender. There's a similar debate in the U.S after the recent deaths and wounding of female GI's in Iraq. There is no way you can insulate and isolate women in this particular theatre or war simply because there is no 'frontline' to speak of. I think the position of the Australian government is a reflection of that incident and the reality of the current conflict.

I was watching some news piece on American female GI's updating basic infantry skills (it looked like street fighting tactics) and learning new ones to combat insurgent attacks. The days where you could just throw a truck driver out on the road without concern as to whether they had sufficient infantry (survival) skills have gone out the window in Iraq. I don't know if the ADF will see its own rear echelon/support corps personnel go the same route with intensive training as the Americans are now doing due to ADF's (in the large scheme of things) small involvement in Iraq.

My own feeling is that ADF personnel regardless of gender should be well trained, well led and well equipped. As far as I am aware, there are no recruitment issues with the ADF?

 

[turin]

Hm, read the link but one thing is not clear to me: Are there special application rules for women in the ADF? I mean, concering physical requirements it would be a serious issue IMO, regardless of the womens final field of work. Dont get me wrong, I strongly support the employment of women in the military service, esp. combat units, and this has been an issue for the german forces in recent years as well. However, I dont think that lowering certain requirements in light of such decisions would be a good idea.

 

[Supe]

I mean, concering physical requirements it would be a serious issue IMO, regardless of the womens final field of work.

However, I dont think that lowering certain requirements in light of such decisions would be a good idea.

I agree.... I would think that whatever duty a women is assigned, it is because she can do it (merit) rather than an ideological position on a women's 'right' to it. That is, I'm not in favour of reducing the physical requirement in order to allow someone fit a role they aren't capable for.

 

[Dryotriorchis]

Well i don't think the ADF would lower the physical rec. for joining from what they have now. To join the army, no matter what position you chose, everyone must complete 15 push ups, 45 sit ups and a shuttle run to the level of 7.5. To join the RAN and RAAF this is the same except you only have to run to a level of 6.5 . I couldn't see the army lowering this just so women could take up field positions.

 

[webmaster]

Backing for combat role ban
A DEFENCE think-tank has called for the retention of a ban on women soldiers taking part in combat, saying it would not be fair to send women to fight directly against men.

[ Click here to read full Article ]

 

[machina]

Well i don't think the ADF would lower the physical rec. for joining from what they have now. To join the army, no matter what position you chose, everyone must complete 15 push ups, 45 sit ups and a shuttle run to the level of 7.5. To join the RAN and RAAF this is the same except you only have to run to a level of 6.5 . I couldn't see the army lowering this just so women could take up field positions.

PFA for the Army:

Male Requirement: Push-Up: 15, Sit-Up: 45, Shuttle Run: 7.5.
Female Requirement: Push-Up: 8, Sit-Up: 45, Shuttle Run: 7.5.

That's beside the point though, as people in combat roles should have much better fitness than the minimums for the PFA.

 

[Dryotriorchis]

Fair to send women to frontline? I say if they want to be there, let them. I pity the fool who is in the way of an angry woman, I have scars from where I have been scratched my a girl, though I do suppose there is kinda a big difference. Have any tests been done to see if women are (not to put down women) capable in combat situations mentally? Part of the ADF recruitment is an interview with a phyc. But I don’t think that’s enough to test to see if someone (male or female) could handle o intense situation like that without braking down, and I don’t suppose your really could test that outside of a combat scenario? A lot of this seems to be coming down to what people are calling the governments recruiting crisis, how exactly is the government hindering, or at least, not helping with gaining more recruits? Tv Adds seem to run pretty consist throughout the day on Tv on all channels as well in some papers, are they just setting their standards high or what?

PFA for the Army:

Male Requirement: Push-Up: 15, Sit-Up: 45, Shuttle Run: 7.5.
Female Requirement: Push-Up: 8, Sit-Up: 45, Shuttle Run: 7.5.

That's beside the point though, as people in combat roles should have much better fitness than the minimums for the PFA.

I didn't realise women had to do less, well in the event that aloud into combat roles I suppose they would be made to do the same as men for the PFA. As well as this though that’s just pre entry fitness levels, do pass basics you must have a far higher level I believe.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I didn't realise women had to do less, well in the event that aloud into combat roles I suppose they would be made to do the same as men for the PFA. As well as this though that’s just pre entry fitness levels, do pass basics you must have a far higher level I believe.

The AIRN requirements for women in the ADF with respect to required fitness standards are significantly lower than those requirement for men. IMO, the fitness standars should not be lowered due to a perceived need for "equality".

They have been significantly lowered in recent years anyway in my opinion and cannot be allowed to suffer any further simply so that women can "pass". The performance of Australian infantry on operations in the past has been built on excellent physical effort and physical fitness standards. There can be no compromise on this in my view as it's the soldiers on the ground (be they women or men) who will suffer, not the bleeding hearts who "need" this change.

If women can meet the standards required for men, though I have no problem with them serving in arms corps units. Though I don't know why they'd want to. It's hardly glamorous...

 

[Supe]

The AIRN requirements for women in the ADF with respect to required fitness standards are significantly lower than those requirement for men. IMO, the fitness standars should not be lowered due to a perceived need for "equality".

They have been significantly lowered in recent years anyway in my opinion and cannot be allowed to suffer any further simply so that women can "pass". The performance of Australian infantry on operations in the past has been built on excellent physical effort and physical fitness standards. There can be no compromise on this in my view as it's the soldiers on the ground (be they women or men) who will suffer, not the bleeding hearts who "need" this change.

I agree. There should be no compromise on fitness standards. I do think the ground has shifted away from the 'need' though. As always it should be on merit and based on ability, not because it's felt that women should be more representitive of the wider population or an ideological position. Courage is not confined to one gender, but by and large, men will continue to be suited for certain roles that most women will not.

If women can meet the standards required for men, though I have no problem with them serving in arms corps units. Though I don't know why they'd want to. It's hardly glamorous...

Probably for the same reason you joined AD. Adventure, challenge, being part of something 'bigger' than yourself, mateship, opportunity, a sense of duty etc. Take your pick.

 

[Stryker001]

I don't see need for the change, its not going to solve the manpowers problems that are surrounded with recruiting in the long term. It should be remembered that in operations like Afghanistan and Iraq there are basically no frontlines or sketchy at best.

I feel that the Australian public are not ready to see footage of captured service women in the hands of insurgents. I would stick with the current model of service for women members of the ADF.

However I assume the powers that be know best.

 

[knightrider4]

Everyone remember somalia I wouldn't want to be a women and be captured by these lulu's.

 

[Stryker001]

Yeah Knightrider4 and we know the end result of that event. A similar occurrence happening to female ADF members would either result in a misunderstood war by the public becoming an unpopular war with the public, or could result in an increased committment.

Either way such an event would be exploited by insurgents via the media as has been occuring.

The only way the coalition of the willing will not be able to stay the course is if we lose public support in the war on terror and our fine people who choose to serve their country.

To combat the insurgents abroad and terrorist cells at home we need to retain public support, as this is going to be a long term committment to put these extremists down. This war will be fought and won in the world of smoke and mirrors, make no mistakes about that.
Time will tell.

 

[Snayke]

I'm unsure about this, but both Koreas women military personnel have a very strong reputation as fighters, supposedly. I'm unsure of this, but I vaguely remember something like this on the news a while back. Could somebody fill in the gaps?

 

[Lonewolf]

there was an article in newsweek or Times written by a US female soldier in the iraq war which says that she is against women serving in the combat role espiacially in infantry, it was because, she could not keep up with the "men" on a force march they were forced to slow down and help her carry some of her stuff, which caused them to be late. In a combat enviroment that is not acceptable.

You cannot have double standards for phisicle fitness, it will result in situations as above.

 

[WAR]

Actually, apart from the fitness debate, there is one important aspect, which is of "Mental Bloc". We are living in a male-dominated world. We have a particular and specific mindset regarding women, which is shared by the majority of men.

The point is that there must be an equal oppurtunity for all, regardless of the gender issue. The issue of female casuality may be a political problem for the respective governments. But the fact is that when you decide to opt for a profession in Armed Forces, then these aspects of war/ death/ casualities are part and parcel of the package.

By virtue of the fact that men are physically stronger than women, does not necessarily put a ban on women recruitment. After all there are so many positions where you don't need to fight physically. Such as electronic warfare, medical and health services, administration, supply etc.

To quote a example of Pakistan. We have a lot of women serving in the Armed Forces. Even now, the women are recruited in PAF Academy Risalpur for General Duty Pilot (GDP) category, which mean that they would be flying fighter aircrafts including F16s. Though a lot of time taken by the concerned people to allow them, as a matter of policy.

Coming back to the fitness debate. I think, to begin with, there is no harm in lowering the standards. This can be gradually upgraded with the passage of time.

 

[Dr Phobus]

Interesting topic this, with the small sizes of armed forces i feel its not as if we NEED women in combat units. I am a professional psycholgist women are not as aggressive, endure less combat like stress, really do not have a killer like instinct men do, nor do they fall into hierachies as well, and of course are not as phyisical.

Saying that, I can nto no reason why women can not serve in combat support roles, inlcudes SAM/artillary/AFV etc. I just feel infantry like roles are not a good idea, moreover, its more a distraction for the men and the issue of sex occuring between troopers WILL occur.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Interesting topic this, with the small sizes of armed forces i feel its not as if we NEED women in combat units. I am a professional psycholgist women are not as aggressive, endure less combat like stress, really do not have a killer like instinct men do, nor do they fall into hierachies as well, and of course are not as phyisical.

Saying that, I can nto no reason why women can not serve in combat support roles, inlcudes SAM/artillary/AFV etc. I just feel infantry like roles are not a good idea, moreover, its more a distraction for the men and the issue of sex occuring between troopers WILL occur.

Yes it will, but I'm more in favour of this argument being argued on realities. Women are not (in general) as physically capable as men. As such there is no need, as you rightly suggested for them to perform infantry or special forces roles.

I'd even argue that they shouldn't perform artillery roles either, again because of the physical effort involved in artillery work.

If you want to see what goes into completing a fire mission, you can view a video here: (http://www.defence.gov.au/army/8_12mdm/images%5CGun.mpg)

Beware, it's a fairly large file...

 

[Dr Phobus]

I also agree with no women in combat units like artillery, there is just no need. Now there are plently of roles women can do in the military. Of course can one extend this argument to figther pilots ?