Yes. President Obama was convinced by women. One of those women just happens to be the Secretary of State and the other just happens to be Ambassador to the United Nations. If these positions had been held by men he probably would have been convinced by them too.

No country, and this is just my opinion, should just sit back and watch thousands of innocent people killed because they disagree with the leadership. I understand that this country is suffering from war fatigue, but we supported George W Bush and we will support this President as well.

Campaigning is much different than actually doing the job. So candidates should exercise control when they're making promises about what they will or will not do, once in office. Because irregardless of what people constantly say about "having enough experience". NO ONE HAS ENOUGH EXPERIENCE TO BE PRESIDENT. That's one of those jobs where all Presidents get "on-the-job-training".

As far as our military is concerned, let's not forget that our military is all voluntary. Everyone in our military has volunteered to be there - they weren't drafted. And though we support them 100%, THEY CHOSE TO BE WHERE THEY ARE.

"Political Correctness" gave us:

Barak Obama, President
Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State
Samantha Powers, White House adviser
Susan Rice,United, Nations Ambassador
Gary Locke, Ambassador to China

Just to name a few.

"Political correctness" leads to incompetency,stupidity, chaos.

I personally knew Maj. General Woodard, as she was our "wing queen" at my assignment, at MacDill and she was one of the greatest Wing Commanders that has been through there. She is polite, generous, graceful, stoic, personable to name a few and led our unit to be one that is held in high regard and the one to beat. I cannot say enough great things about this lady and that she has mine, as well as I am sure all the folks from MacDill, full support. Maybe if more men were influenced by women-politics wouldn't be so corrupt and biased!

Clearly political correctness left some people entitled to an opinion. If you don't like the hand dealt their are other countries you can call home.

You have a great response and a great point. We voluntarily served and put our lives on the line so that others have the freedom of speech, at minimum. Thank you for your support! I love your point of view! KUDOS! Someone smart actually said something great on here!

that other world leaders were led by Men into doing this? Or could it be that the women in those positions are widely regarded to be at the top of their fields and did the same thing a Male would have done in their job. The fact they have different genitalia doesn't really mean much.

Tyrtaios wonders if Obama has experience cleaning up after people.

One word: BUSH! BUSH! BUSH!

Sorry that's 3 words.

Otter, her rise to the position is probably just the natural course in the evolution of events as opposed to anything along the lines of political correctness.

Gee, did I really come-off as being snarky? Me, who hasn’t seen his checkbook since he got married to a women who slept with a dagger under her pillow as a young girl?

You don't put someone of a Combat Air Campaign that has no time in doing anything related to combat, if it was resupply, rescue, etc...I would agree but it is not and the timing is a bit much for me. Would you put a Supply General in charge of Infanty before an Invasion?

Well in all fairness Otter, remember the old saw that amateurs talk of tactics, which CENTCOM has plenty of to oversee the implementation design of professionals that speak of logistics, which would seem to be in the resume of our femme fatale commander.

A good Infantry Officer at the Flag Rank is trained in Logistics and would access a LOGISITCS expert, it would not happen the other way around but nice try old chap ;)

She has had the role since last year, so it is not that she was dropped into the role, but that the mission was dropped on her.

Fair enough point to a point, Combat Air Missions go on in that area all the time, we almost had NEOs in Sudan, Ivory Coast and her appointment I am sure was influenced by her gender since it has been a "goal" of all the service heads, except the Marines, to promote more women. Also, when one past President, Clintion, insituted the 12-12-5 rule for how people were promoted in the Officer Rank and included gender in it. That was 12% had to be Hispanic, 12% had to be Black, 5% Asian-Pacific Islanders and at one point half of the "goals" were to be allotted to women based on their proportion in that Branch. The Academies have goals set aside for women in jobs, it goes on and on. I don't find much irony in it and to be honest, I think a woman could run an Air Campaign with what we have coming up in the services now but I imagine she was the most Senior Female who could take that position over at that time and the fact that she was female was a huge reason she was picked.

Don't you bet on that assumption Otter. No offense to a distant past infantry background CENTCOM, but against sage advice he allowed the USS COLE into port in Yemen, due to his perception that he saw it as the best choice presented as a refueling location. Anybody familiar with the region would have told you there were safer refueling locations in the region, and the risk outweighed the convenience.

Besides, years ago, I knew a lieutenant that came by my location and told me he had underestimated the amount of chow we’d need, and didn’t have enough C’s for us, but did mention he had plenty of heat tabs. The lieutenant went on to become a full colonel and commanded in Desert Storm.

You are confusing what should be the ideal and what you think my view if of the Flag Officers, you are a bit off. I think it is pretty well known I have little faith in our Flags or their ability to be leaders and practical over being political and value their careers over all else. Just because I doubt a Supply Gen would ever lead an Infantry Invasion it did not mean I totally trust that same Infantry/Armor/Arty Gen to make the right calls. The days of Pattons and other leaders are long gone, I think the Atlantic Article from last month hit the nail on the head as to why those days are gone.

Logistics and its planning mindset is formulated long before anyone achieves a standard on their sedan Otter. You will note the SecDef finally got fed-up with the jock side of the house and appointed a trash hauler as chief-of-staff of the Air Force.

Incidentally, two things here: Alexander of Macedonia found that his logisticians were a sour lot all the time, surmising their outlook was because they knew it was them he’d have put to death first if his battle went askew. Secondly, is my tax money paying for you to fool around on the blog today instead of training? Ok, fair enough, since you’re helping to keep Social Security stable, and thus me flush with cash. . . .logistics, no?

Outstanding point - and anyhow, what exactly did the fighter mafia do that was so great?

Gates putting the guy who was head of Air Transport Command (or whatever the proper name is these days) was a real message.

Wonder if those C-130 drivers who supplied Khe Sanh every day saw any combat? Or the guys who flew the Hump in the Big One?

Ty,
One, yes, we are wasting time today, a training block got canked for the week, money related actually, funny you took that up. ;)
Two, as for Logistics, your ignoring the point. Supply folks do not plan combat ops, they are consulted with ideas, they give advice and tell you if it is a go or no go logistically and then they work to that end. Saying she is a logistics god is a bit a much and thinking that politics are not playing a part is not the reality and you know it.

J,
Planning a resupply mission or evac is far different than air to air, bombing runs, etc...you are also not paying attention to the main point, try reading the post in sequence and then argue the point, you are a bit out of context on what we are talking about right now. He is making the implication that her position was not political and I am making that I am sure it was influenced by it, then read the other posts and take it all into account.

Both Tyrta and ESIII seem to believe all the good officers are gone. I've had plenty of issues with the Flags in these botched battles but the fact of the matter is that the next batches coming up will probably rival their historic peers - assuming they survive that long.

You'd think with all the STABOPs emphasis we had in the 90s that our Generals would have pulled off these COIN based ops. But nope. But the LTs and CPTs of today are doing a super job in a land of uncertainty.

My group of MAJs, LTCs and COLs is probably a mixed bag. Too many old lessons badly learned, but there's plenty of talent too.

Back on topic, I've said it before, I'll say it again. Women are already in combat roles - we're just neglecting to notice. (My S2 and one of our HMMWV gunners were both women, and they outperformed many of their peers).

I would worry based on experience whether this AF general is up to the task, but let's all remember also that she's been handled a shit sandwich to eat. An ambiguous mission with unclear goals. Mission, Task and Purpose. Commander's Intent. I don't know what those are, let's hope she does.

"Both Tyrta and ESIII seem to believe all the good officers are gone. I've had plenty of issues with the Flags in these botched battles but the fact of the matter is that the next batches coming up will probably rival their historic peers - assuming they survive that long."-
That is the problem, the ones we have mostly are subpar and the ones who are good are being chased out. 60% of 03s from West Point are leaving. 40% of NSW O4s are leaving. Sorry brother, no faith in the future until massive changes are done in how and who we promote.

"You'd think with all the STABOPs emphasis we had in the 90s that our Generals would have pulled off these COIN based ops. But nope. But the LTs and CPTs of today are doing a super job in a land of uncertainty."
Agree, we have a lot of great 02-04's but they are not staying, I really think the Atlantic hit it on the head as to why.

"My group of MAJs, LTCs and COLs is probably a mixed bag. Too many old lessons badly learned, but there's plenty of talent too."
-Sorry Hunter, a lot of good 04's but most of the 05's to 06's are Company Men, ie; Career oriented, they are already in for life and they want to make 06 or G1.

"Back on topic, I've said it before, I'll say it again. Women are already in combat roles - we're just neglecting to notice. (My S2 and one of our HMMWV gunners were both women, and they outperformed many of their peers)."-
Totally disagree, four tours now Hunter and all at the sharp end, sorry, not the things I see and just because a person gets shot at it does not mean they should be allowed into Infantry or SOF, anyone can get shot at. Moving to contact with 50 lbs of kit on and doing so over harsh terrain and for long periods is a bit different than riding in a convoy and getting shot at. Not the same. You can read my lower posts as to the faith I have that our system will uphold standards.

"I would worry based on experience whether this AF general is up to the task, "-
This was actually a central point that a lot of folks, in their "outrage" skiped over. Women have not been in the Combat Air Arms for that long and I know how our system works at that level, so I question that politics were not a motive for her move to that spot.

"but let's all remember also that she's been handled a shit sandwich to eat. An ambiguous mission with unclear goals. Mission, Task and Purpose. Commander's Intent. I don't know what those are, let's hope she does."-Totally and absolutly agree.

For the Blog record Hunter, I do not think all good officers are gone - you're still around ain't you? Perhaps more likely it is my writing style that conveys such, which has been going down hill steadily since I discovered khat and now lead the local afternoon gatherings to chew and chat about all matters great and small, which I have broken with tradition and invited women to attend.

Let's see wasn't U.S. Grant a Quartermaster officer in the Mexican War? Things worked out pretty good in the Civil War if I recall.
A brillant, innovative logistics approach won the Vicksburg campaign, a pretty good logistics based approach lifted the siege of Chattanooga, and crossing the James River to occupy Peterburg right in front of Lee on mobile pontoon bridges covered by Navy guns.
Oh, I forgot to mention that all of Grant's campaigns were also joint. Porter brought the ironclads and Grant the troops. Great friends and great thinkers.
Maybe having a "supply general" is the way the go!

..to say it's nice to see Eric back, fully refreshed and in fine form ;)

It's hard not to find a GO who isn't there because of political skills. You can find plenty who have political skills but minimal technical skills/knowledge, but truly rare are the ones with the flip side of that combination. Good when you end up working for the ones who have both but they are rare too, but not as rare as the apolitical expert as GO.
They say that at that level you need to be a manager of people, but to get there what you really need to be is a manager of your career.

Zapata,
That is not the way SUPPLY guys work anymore, they are not line Officers and if a Line guy gets stuck with SUPPO, it is not a good thing. Plus, not really the point of the that thread line with Ty.

Kaykuri,
Thanks! Always a pleasure ;)

Eric makes a good point, that although women can fly combat missions now, they certainly couldn't in the past. Nonetheless, General Woodward has over 3,800 flying hours and has commanded at wing level and even given advice to the Secretary of Defense. She is more than qualified, and I think the reason we don't hear much of it yet is because this has all happened so fast. When the dust settles, the morning shows will come calling.

Just to set the record straight, she is NOT a Supply officer. She is a Pilot. In the Air Force, there are separate AFSCs (MOS) that designate Supply and Logistics officers. And being a pilot, though a trash hauler, she is "qualified" to be in charge of flying operations.

While I am all for women in Support and Medical Units they do not belong in the Units they are pushing them into, ie; Ground Combat and do not often belong in the Fleet. I have no doubt that a woman can be brave but genders are not social constructs and we are not bolts that can be changed. As for women coming into the Military, the "goal" (read it as quota) is 15% at recruiting offices with the Navy's pushing a new "goal" of 20% via the CNO. I am all for service by anyone but not for quotas and not for lowering standards and the lack of political courage that almost ALL of our Flags show in this area.

If you're against quotas and lowering standards then what you're saying is that if the person can meet the standard and do the job then they should be allowed to do it ? 100% all male for certain MOSes IS a quota

And certain positions.

Here, I do not feel like writing it all out again so I will just cut and paste the studies, if you would like I can also cut and paste problems with pregnancies, PTSD, etc...all recent, I am happy to do so. Hope you can argue the point with logic, most just go on an on about "opportunity" or it is "thier right!", hope that is not you and we can have a debate.

As for combat MOS, No, they cannot and should not and here is why:

In the end, women do not belong in ground combat, they are more of a liability than an asset, this is always ignored when it is discussed in the Media, in Congress or on here. Below is some good info for you that I have cut and pasted from my previous answers on the same topic.

From the report of the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces dated November 15, 1992, it states in part:

The average female Army recruit is 4.8 inches shorter, 31.7 pounds lighter, has 37.4 fewer pounds of muscle, and 5.7 more pounds of fat than the average male recruit. She has only 55 percent of the upper-body strength and 72 percent of the lower-body strength.

An Army study done in 1988 found that women are more than twice as likely to suffer leg injuries and nearly five times as likely to suffer fractures as men.

Further, the Commission heard an abundance of expert testimony including:
- women's aerobic capacity is significantly lower, meaning they cannot carry as much as far as fast as men, and they are more susceptible to fatigue.
- in terms of physical capability, the upper five percent of women are at the level of the male median. The average 20-to-30 year-old woman has the same aerobic capacity as a 50 year-old man.

After a study was conducted at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, one expert testified that:
- using the standard Army Physical Fitness Test, the upper quintile (top 20%) of women at West point achieved scores on the test equivalent to the bottom quintile (bottom 20%) of men.
- only 21 women out of the initial 623 (3.4%) achieved a score equal to the male mean score of 260.
- on the push-up test, only 7% of women can meet a score of 60, while 78% of men exceed it.
- adopting a male standard of fitness at West Point would mean 70% of the women he studied would be separated as failures at the end of their junior year, only 3% would be eligible for the Recondo badge, and not one would receive the Army Physical Fitness badge.

Also, recent studies indicate women are more at risk to getting PTSD, as documented from Iraq and Afghanistan, women who were never in direct combat but whose camps were shelled were more likely to develop PTSD than there male counter-parts. You can also look up the US Navy SPARTAN study, women were asked to complete a lot of the Damage Control Tasks that are mandatory on a ship. They performed in a rather terrible manner at the start. The women were then put on a 6 month weight training program and asked to do the test again. A lot of the test are obsolete since the P-250 pump is no longer in use but the one that will never go out is the two man litter carry up and down the ladder on a ship. None of the women passed getting the wounded man up the ladder and <2% passed going down ( a lot easier I might add). What did the Navy do in regard to this result? They changed the standard to a four man litter carry. Ever been on a ship? Good luck with 4 people fitting on that ladder! lol!
The myth that they are currently egaged in combat drives me up a wall a bit, riding in a HUMMER after the target is cleared is not going head to head. Don't ignore the truth because it does not fit your premise, I have no doubt that women can be just as brave as a man but it does me no good when she cannot get me back to my helo, hummer or foxhole because she is to weak. It does me no good when she cannot hump the same weight I can for as long as I can because she is physically unable to do so. It does me no good when she is injured more easily than a man, etc..etc...do not look at this as a right, you need to look at this as a National Security Issue, do you really want the weakest person doing that job? Do not fall for the myth that if we have the same standards for all that it will be ok then, the standards will be dropped so low that someone in a wheel chair could pass them due to politics, look at the SPARTAN Study! lol! They would rather risk peoples lives than hold a standard and stick there necks out and risk there careers! (They being the Officer Corps). If you are honest in your assessment, you would say that while women may be ok to be pilots, they have no place in areas of ground combat and/or even on ships in many instances due to physical differences, a different hard wiring (being more and more proven every year) and common sense. Women and Men are not social constructs to interchange and war is not meant for a social science lab.

The system is so fair that only one woman has been in command of a combat arms brigade in combat. Yah, the military is sure doing a great job of putting women in combat leadership positions. The system is still not fair for women, and you are living in a hole if you think it is. In the words of Heidi Brown -- no female division commanders, no female corps commanders, never a femaile chief of staff of the Army, vice chief of the Army, or chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It is getting better -- and seeing things like a female JFACC is certainly promising.
One of the guys from my Air Force basic training said "I doubted your physical capability becasue you are a girl, but heck I'd go to combat and crawl through a foxhole with you anytime." I said, "I don't plan on crawling through foxholes anytime soon, this is the Air Force, I'll be sitting in my blues flying a desk." He had this notion that the military was a completely physical entity of men that live in foxholes. Yah, and to a certain extent it is. And, to be honest a lot of women are out performing men in that regard. The other big part of this is mental, and you dont' have to be a combat fighter-pilot (we've got female versions of those by the way) to be the 17th AF Commander. By the way, in theater men, women, contractors and all sorts of other people are in the mix on combat missions...in COIN its not just an infantry platoon running around and living out of a foxhole. Some areas yes, but a lot of areas, No.

First, you are not ourperfoming men in ANY of those regards as far as the physical parts in a Fox Hole, I keep hearing about it but never see it, odd.
Second, COIN-you play a valuable role in it but going into a Village and doing a MEDCAP, Building, etc...after it has been secured and maybe getting an IED or some gun play on the way out or in does not constitute being in Direct Combat.
Third, read the above post.
Fourth, hope I have time to answer all the emotional and passion based arguments I am sure to see after my last post ;)

Should have said in Three that it does not justify allowing women into Direct Combat.

I ran the bridge training sites at Fort Leonard Wood for two years.
This included the time when the soldiers we were training "went female"
One day the post CSM showed up on the site where we built Bailey and Medium Girder Bridges.
The post CG had heard a rumer that we were pulling the females out of the crews and making them "safety officers."
What the CSM found was that ALL the soldiers that were there to build the bridges were put in formation and organized according to height.
Crews were then selected with their backs to my training NCOs.
That was the best "gender neutral" way we could come up with.
Gender in the crews DID NOT MATTER Some of those pieces weighed over 600 pounds. The post CSM was satisfied.
Did some of soldiers have a problem pulling their weight? absolutely. That was handled as a training and a soldier issue for my NCOs to handle, not a gender issue.
I was told later that some officer classes had made the females "safety officers". That was a leadership issue, not a gender issue
If the Navy changed their standards for the litter carry that sounds like a leadership issue, not a gender issue.
I agree, if the sailor can't do the job they don't belong on the ship.
Of course they could fall back on the ole "adapt and overcome" thing.

If female soldiers are sent down roads or into positions "after they are cleared" again that is a leadership issue, not a gender issue.
It is my understanding that "driving a hummer" on a road in Afganastan, was not exactly safe or noncombat.

From Depatment of Veterain Affairs:
"Women are more than twice as likely to develop PTSD than men (10% for women and 4% for men). There are a few reasons women might get PTSD more than men:
?Women are more likely to experience sexual assault
?Sexual assault is more likely to cause PTSD than many other events
?Women may be more likely to blame themselves for trauma experiences than men
Currently, about 15% of all military personnel in Iraq are women. Although men are more likely to experience combat, a growing number of women are now being exposed to combat. Women in the military are at higher risk for exposure to sexual harassment or sexual assault than men. Future studies are needed to better understand the effects of women's exposure to both combat and sexual assault."
So, combat nor the way women "are wired" are the primary reasons women have more PTSD

If being able to drag your wounded butt, or mine, out of a foxhole is part of the standards that all combat arms soldiers have to meet and a percentage, above acceptable statistics, of females that join the military can't do it then good point.
If it is not part of the standards that all combat arms soldiers most meet then why bring it up or the standards are wrong which again is a leadership issue.

Having said all this, it is my understanding that the weight of the gear they are having some patrols carry these days is insane.

I ran the bridge training sites at Fort Leonard Wood for two years.
This included the time when the soldiers we were training "went female"
One day the post CSM showed up on the site where we built Bailey and Medium Girder Bridges.
The post CG had heard a rumer that we were pulling the females out of the crews and making them "safety officers."
What the CSM found was that ALL the soldiers that were there to build the bridges were put in formation and organized according to height.
Crews were then selected with their backs to my training NCOs.
That was the best "gender neutral" way we could come up with.
Gender in the crews DID NOT MATTER Some of those pieces weighed over 600 pounds. The post CSM was satisfied.
Did some of soldiers have a problem pulling their weight? absolutely. That was handled as a training and a soldier issue for my NCOs to handle, not a gender issue.
I was told later that some officer classes had made the females "safety officers". That was a leadership issue, not a gender issue
If the Navy changed their standards for the litter carry that sounds like a leadership issue, not a gender issue.
I agree, if the sailor can't do the job they don't belong on the ship.
Of course they could fall back on the ole "adapt and overcome" thing.

If female soldiers are sent down roads or into positions "after they are cleared" again that is a leadership issue, not a gender issue.
It is my understanding that "driving a hummer" on a road in Afganastan, was not exactly safe or noncombat.

From Depatment of Veterain Affairs:
"Women are more than twice as likely to develop PTSD than men (10% for women and 4% for men). There are a few reasons women might get PTSD more than men:
?Women are more likely to experience sexual assault
?Sexual assault is more likely to cause PTSD than many other events
?Women may be more likely to blame themselves for trauma experiences than men
Currently, about 15% of all military personnel in Iraq are women. Although men are more likely to experience combat, a growing number of women are now being exposed to combat. Women in the military are at higher risk for exposure to sexual harassment or sexual assault than men. Future studies are needed to better understand the effects of women's exposure to both combat and sexual assault."
So, combat nor the way women "are wired" are the primary reasons women have more PTSD

If being able to drag your wounded butt, or mine, out of a foxhole is part of the standards that all combat arms soldiers have to meet and a percentage, above acceptable statistics, of females that join the military can't do it then good point.
If it is not part of the standards that all combat arms soldiers most meet then why bring it up or the standards are wrong which again is a leadership issue.

Having said all this, it is my understanding that the weight of the gear they are having some patrols carry these days is insane.

Did I hit the button twice? Sorry about that

"I ran the bridge training sites at Fort Leonard Wood for two years. This included the time when the soldiers we were training "went female" One day the post CSM showed up on the site where we built Bailey and Medium Girder Bridges. The post CG had heard a rumer that we were pulling the females out of the crews and making them "safety officers." What the CSM found was that ALL the soldiers that were there to build the bridges were put in formation and organized according to height. Crews were then selected with their backs to my training NCOs.
That was the best "gender neutral" way we could come up with.-
One, how is this relevant to a ground pounder, hand to hand (happens all the time folks, enter a bldg sometime) and being able to do the job of direct combat? You also say you picked people in a gender neutral way, you can tell a woman from a man 99% of the time when there backs are turned towards you, that is just a PC move by your CSM or whoever came up with that idea so they look like they are making the effort to embrace diversity, seen it to many times.

"Gender in the crews DID NOT MATTER Some of those pieces weighed over 600 pounds. The post CSM was satisfied. Did some of soldiers have a problem pulling their weight? absolutely. That was handled as a training and a soldier issue for my NCOs to handle, not a gender issue."-

So, some had problems pulling their weight? Hmm...How is leadership going to magically change evolution and grant females more upper and lower body strength and increased VO2 max? Saying it is a leadership and training problem is like wishing it away, the leadership and training problem is in addressing the issues that either
A.) A single HIGH standard for physical jobs should be implemented and enforced
or
B.) That there are serious issues with females in traditional military roles

"I was told later that some officer classes had made the females "safety officers". That was a leadership issue, not a gender issue."-

No, it is a practial use of the tools you have, if I have a lot of men who are physically stronger and the task calls for physical strength I am going to use my men. I think what is a leadership issue is the people that are too PC and scared not to use women for fear of getting in trouble and perhaps a low mark on their "Diversity" block on their FITREPs.

"If the Navy changed their standards for the litter carry that sounds like a leadership issue, not a gender issue. I agree, if the sailor can't do the job they don't belong on the ship.
Of course they could fall back on the ole "adapt and overcome" thing."-

One, that is not going to happen, Leadership in all the branches are pretty paranoid on this and your post actually goes to prove my point. Our Leadership will do what it always does, cover their careers first and worry about the mission second. The Politics will always come first and the Navy and the West Point study are just examples of this.

"If female soldiers are sent down roads or into positions "after they are cleared" again that is a leadership issue, not a gender issue."-

Yup, it is and those women will still be sent down the road, thinking they won't is not supported by past practices of the US Military.

"It is my understanding that "driving a hummer" on a road in Afganastan, was not exactly safe or noncombat."-

It is my understanding that "driving a hummer" does not justify being allowed into the Combat Arms and is hardly the same as humping 20+K with full kit and then engaging with the enemy in fire and movement. It is my understanding that "driving a hummer" is not the same as making entry into a building and getting into a tussle with the occupant is not the same? Etc...etc...
They should get credit for their mission and many do via what I have considered inflated awards but the Army is notorious for that so that is not on them, but it does not mean they are somehow in direct combat.

"From Depatment of Veterain Affairs:
"Women are more than twice as likely to develop PTSD than men (10% for women and 4% for men). There are a few reasons women might get PTSD more than men:
?Women are more likely to experience sexual assault
?Sexual assault is more likely to cause PTSD than many other events
?Women may be more likely to blame themselves for trauma experiences than men
Currently, about 15% of all military personnel in Iraq are women. Although men are more likely to experience combat, a growing number of women are now being exposed to combat. Women in the military are at higher risk for exposure to sexual harassment or sexual assault than men. Future studies are needed to better understand the effects of women's exposure to both combat and sexual assault."" So, combat nor the way women "are wired" are the primary reasons women have more PTSD"-

Actually, no, there have been dozens of studies, some I have posted on this blog before in reply to Hunter and the studies were done by various groups that suggest that is actually more likely due to the chemical make ups in a female body vs a mans, that is one theory, others are out there too but the common thread is genetic. Men and women are not the same. As for the hard wiring, actually that is being proven more and more all the time. Women use more of their brain for languages and hence tend to be better at verbal and other communication skills, men for spatial thinking, etc....they tested men and women while watching blood flow in their brains to see how it was used, pretty fascinating stuff actually. Even our brains are hard wired differently. Women tend to excel physically in hand-eye co-ordination and hence could well be better pilots than the average man but that is due to hard wiring not a gender construct. A lot of this stuff is not hard to look up and I will post the PTSD studies again on here in a different spot, not much room on here.

"If being able to drag your wounded butt, or mine, out of a foxhole is part of the standards that all combat arms soldiers have to meet and a percentage, above acceptable statistics, of females that join the military can't do it then good point. If it is not part of the standards that all combat arms soldiers most meet then why bring it up or the standards are wrong which again is a leadership issue."-

It will never happen, they will never meet the same standards and if they do come up with a standard it will be so low that they will pass it but it will be a joke, look at the examples of West Point and the Navy Study, they did not meet the standards so they lowered them.

"Having said all this, it is my understanding that the weight of the gear they are having some patrols carry these days is insane.'-

If you are doing a multi-day or multi-week patrol you will have a ton of kit, that is what happens and that is a reality, you living out of that bag in a combat zone. As for basic day to day, the load is still heavy and women (99.%) do not have the physical or cardio strength to match a man.

Look, as I said in a previous post, no doubt a woman can be just as brave or give a 100% effort but if it is not up to snuff then I am dead or wounded or worse, that is just the reality of it. Your post actually goes to prove my point about leadership as well. Your CSM was so afraid of being looked at for not treating women fairly that he put thier backs to people so that somehow that was gender neutral, as if you cannot tell who is a woman or man. You guys then did not use your resources to the best of your ability due to gender discrimination fears, men are stronger physically, use them if you are good leader and the task calls for it, that would be a good leadership move.

If you are in the Military then you know that assigning political motivations to moves is the reality and the norm, the very system of how our Officers are promoted to that level is political. To say anything else ignores the reality of how the Military really works, we say we are a meritocracy but in reality there are what we call "goals" for how we promote people, it happens on the enlisted side too.

If the JFACC was appointed for PC reasons, then I'd say we got pretty darn lucky, because the air campaign has been about as perfect as can be:
-in a matter of a couple of days a plan to establish a no-fly and no-move zone was designed, operationalized, and implemented, and included massively complex integration and a coalition btw US and multiple different European allies.
-in a manner of less than 24 hours the 2nd largest AA system in the region was practically destroyed with no friendly casualties and little to no collateral damage.
-a fairly large ground force of multiple types of armor in close proximity to civilian populations was also almost completely destroyed around the major rebel stronghold of Bengazi, and most other areas except Musrata (sp?), thus saving the rebels from a major crackdown that would have likely resulted in massive civilian casualties, also with little to no collateral damage.

How can you get better than that?! Yes, our tech superiority is largely to play here, but that still doesn't account for the massive complexity, and competing chains of command from differing nationalities. I think more likely it's pretty solid leadership here, and what you're implying is nonsense.

I hope I am wrong but I doubt it, if you honestly think that we have incredible leaders who are tactical and logistic experts who lead and not manage who are less concerned with PC and other politics than getting the job done then you are not looking. But hey, I hope I am wrong, I really do. I do not think that a woman would not be capable of doing this job, just not enough development yet in the ranks since women have been allowed into the combat ranks is all and hence why I question this, you combine that with policies that direct women and others to be promoted and that base them on race and gender, tell me I should not be suspect?

If she was smart, she would have relied on her staff, composed of experienced combat pilots as well as staff specialists. They would have drawn up the plans and recommended them to her. She just had to ask some intelligent questions and sign off. Does she have a Chief of Staff? Would be very curious to know the background of that person.

If the air campaign was having major difficulties: civilian collateral damage that likely shouldn't have happened, US or Coalition planes being shot down because of lack of complete adequate preparation of the battlefield first (i.e. taking out the AA sites), continued bombing of civilians by arty or tanks... then, yes questioning a commander's judgement would be warranted and it might be warranted to question if this was an appointment on "PC" grounds. But all signs are that an extremely complicated and dangerous mission, with mirky political and final results, has been implemented in an extremely short period of time with about as perfect a results as can be expected (hopefully that stays that way, knock on wood, but it is war...).

In my time in the military I have had plenty of criticism (at least privately) of my leadership, but that was based on their job performance and how well they led us in accomplishing our mission. To question somebody on any other grounds, especially when all facts show the opposite, is unethical.

Who is questioning the G2's Judgement? Have not seen that posted yet, did I miss something or are you too busy being upset to see that I do not question her Judgement directly? I do however have very little faith in our system and how our people make Flag, how this administration and past administrations promote people. Politics is the key at that level, I hope she does what F2 says, "she would have relied on her staff, composed of experienced combat pilots as well as staff specialists. They would have drawn up the plans and recommended them to her. She just had to ask some intelligent questions and sign off. Does she have a Chief of Staff? Would be very curious to know the background of that person.", I know she got put in the spot by someone else and had, as Hunter said, a certain type of sandwich shoved down her throat but I also know that the current military culture is HIGHLY PC and has always been ruled by politics at that level since as long as I have been alive. To say that questioning such a system that allows good leaders to be trounced out for nothing more than PC silliness and promotes people based on quotas, sorry, "goals", is somehow unethical, well, that sounds like a company man or woman towing the company line and defending a system that is both broken and dangerous.

Hear, hear!
A. Any flag officer commander has a staff composed of highly experienced officers with a wide base of specialties so she should be able to task them to review the war plans mandated by Goldwater-Nichols and recommend which plan (or plans) to run with.
B. This is why we write war plans, so we can react on short notice; pull the basic plan out, fine-tune as needed for specific circumstances and, since no plan survives first contact, be ready to adjust fire.
C. Am willing to bet her staff is getting "help," likely more than they want or need, from USAFE and the Pentagon, (USAF, Joint Staff and OSD); we can only hope those efforts are coordinated. :^(

As for the political shenanigans of who will run the no-fly zone, thats what we get for letting France back in on the military side of NATO...