I ran across this little gem of an observation at the AGCA show when I was skimming through LTC Dave Grossman's book, On Killing:
Women have almost always fought side by side with men in guerrilla or revolutionary wars and there isn't any evidence they are significantly worse at killing people -- which may or may not be comforting, depending on whether you see war as a male problem or a human one. -- Gwynne Dyer.
1 comment:
Women in irregular combat perform well, because there are none of the political and societal constraints and bullshit like when they are done up for regular combat roles. All the nonsense associated with their entering regular ranks is a lock for failure, before it even starts. When a man shows up, it's understood, that he is there seriously to do the job, and no one thinks anything about it.In irregular combat, there usually is no time to quibble or bullshit about any social ramifications, and manpower will be short anyway. If women learned not to make a big deal about their moving into regular combat roles, and at the same time, men didn't go all nuts when it happened, it would probably work. Most MEN are not suited for the infantry, I know, I once had the job of getting men there and ready. It's no picnic. True, most women aren't either. What's needed are people who are both physically, and MENTALLY fit. By the time irregular warfare is mandated, both the men and the women have their heads wrapped around the idea enough to clear the mental hurdles, and the physical ones take care of themselves. I've personally seen, and trained women who can cut it in combat, and I have no doubts of their abilities. But just like if at the CIA, some one, man or woman, showed up, and said, " I'm a man/woman, and I'm here to be a spy", they would summarily be tossed out, anyone that shows up for the grim business of warfare, regular or irregular, and says,"I'm a man/woman, and I'm here to be a soldier", has already written their ticket to somewhere else.
Post a Comment