Does the jihadi it lands upon care what the gender was of the gunner that fired it?
A long article in the Washington Post Magazine today about women in combat, and what it all means. Very 1990’s.
Profiled is Marine Captain Katie Horner, AH-1 Super Cobra pilot and veteran of two pumps to Iraq. Asked about whether she felt any remorse at gunning down insurgents who had fired on Marine patrol on the ground, Capt Horner replies:
“My feeling is, they started it. They could have chosen to have gone about their day. But instead they shot at Marines.”
Ooh-rah.
“But instead they shot at Marines.”
I’ve found that taking part in that sort of action is not conducive to having a long life expectancy.
Yeah, decent article, but I thought this had all been pretty much settled a while ago. Dredged up names like Bob Stumpf and Kara Hultgren, for me.
For me, this issue was easy. I once came off a 31 day sub cruise (read: “underwater, sexually-frustrated, frat party”) and was dragging my knuckles on the ground like a caveman. Next summer, cruised on a flat top that always had fresh coffee, cookies, and even potted plants in the ready room. Yep, female Coffee mess O and SuppO. Good pilot, too.
Parade magazine in the paper today had a story about and Army CPT UH-60 pilot, and sportin’ a combat action badge. Something about taking exception to ground fire and letting the mini-guns “talk back.”
She also was in the first all female UH-60 mission, too.
They’re soldiers – end of debate.
Great article. I recall in the 70s one of the most vitriolic and emotional arguments leveled against the Equal Rights Amendment was that women would be “allowed” to participate in combat operations. Nonetheless it seems that sexism (as evidenced by the person yelling at Capt. Horner) is perceived as less evil than racism. I doubt that “gentleman” would carry on so if the pilot had been male and of any color, creed or ethnicity. All I can say is that the women I served with were as competent in their jobs, and generally better shots than the men–and just as competitive.
With all due respect, the Captain is not a woman…she’s a Marine. There’s a difference.
With all due respect Byron… just what might that difference be ? …you shamless panderer. Best
C’mon Snake, give the boy a break. The Marine Corps has been….slow….in integrating women into the culture. First BAMs and then WMs. Always a separate classification. We came slowly to the 21st Century but have arrived with the rest of the gear at last. Although we train women to be riflemen, we still don’t have women and men complete basic training together, unlike our Big Brother. So pehaps that’s the difference our friend speaks of.
Or maybe our Leaders have figured a way during OCS or the Basic School, or Recruit Training to strip away part of the X chromosome but leave the anatomy the same? Who knows?
OAM
I recently read a book, the title of which escapes me at the moment, that pretty thoroughly debunked Marshall’s “study” that suggested that only 10% of American ground troops in WWII fired their weapons.
That could explain the difference between the WWII study and the Viet Nam study – Marshall was, by all accounts, very touchy about having his “research” and “findings” challenged.
Airplanes and helicopters don’t really care about the sex of a person flying them. They only care about being flown well. As a helicopter pilot (slicks, guns, and scouts) with almost three years and 2400 hours of combat flying in Vietnam, about two years as a gunnery instructor at Ft. Rucker, and an Infantry officer I think I have a little perspective on the situation.
I knew on my first opposed CA in RVN that I did not want to sit there and be a target for the next 358 days. As soon as I could I went to guns. Other pilots did not want to take the responsibility for killing people. As long as standards are consistent and met it is attitude that makes you a gun pilot. I saw this in Vietnam and in training. It has nothing to do with courage or sex, just attitude.
Hehe, Snake…way too funny.
OaM, I admint I might have over reacted to Byrons comment # 6 but I my defense we all come at things from our own persepective. I remember well the late forties and early fiftes… well before TV …before a lot of what we take for normal today existed… President Truman’s mortorcade passing through our little suburb during the 1952 election effort….I was ten and my whole school all turned out…the teachers distain for the then lame duck habidashier(sp) evident to even the dullest amoung us…I know I’m rambling …but things were different. Women served, of course, but never in combat… it was the way it was and should always be but of of course that’s not how it turned out… and I’m still having trouble with it. Best
PS, Agree co-ed BCT is a bummer
Unfortunately, there are still some things that aren’t equal. Women, for example, can get out of a deployment simply by getting pregnant.
While most men are reluctant to, say, break an arm or a leg to avoid a 6-8 month cruise (although it’s certainly not unheard of), it’s much less difficult for a woman to avoid one. If you’ve read the first chapter of Rhythms, talking about the port and starboard watch rotations, that was me. Fully 20% (8 of the 40) women on my amphib suddenly became pregnant within the three months before my last deployment. One of those 8 happened to be the third person in my watch rotation, leaving me “6-and-6″ for an entire cruise. That meant every night from 2345 until 0645 I was on watch, followed by breakfast, quarters, try to get my scheduled work in my shop done, and eat lunch, before I went back on from 1145 to 1745. From 1745-2345 I got to eat, shower, and sleep. For six months.
I disagree with putting someone in a position from with they can so easily back out, to the detriment of the others in that position. You’re supposed to be able to count on the people you serve with, and I learned that I could not count on a full 20% of one group of those people.