Want your combat team to have an edge? Add women.

When Michael Coren unloaded the contents of his mesozoic mind regarding the death of armoured corps trooper Karine Blais he unleashed a flood of criticism aimed at his sexist take on Blais' combat death. Worse though, Coren dismissed Blais' service in a frontline combat arms unit as "dressed up as a soldier" and then went on to insult every serving female by stating, "... there are few if any women who have the skills required to serve as a front-line combat trooper."

Coming from someone who possesses no combat training at all, it was viewed by any informed person as an incredibly stupid statement. It also isn't true, and the US Army and US Marine Corps are finding that women serving in combat positions are not only just as capable as men, but have frontline skills unique to their gender.

In both Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. Army and Marines found it useful to send a female soldier along on raids, as it was less disruptive to have a woman search the female civilians. There was no shortage of volunteers for this duty. The marines, as is their custom, saw more opportunities in this. Thus the marines began sending a team of women on such missions.

The US Marine Lioness teams were established to facilitate searches of women and children during security operations in Iraq, but it turns out the teams of 3 to 5 female marines have other significant results.

Iraqi women were surprised, and often awed, when they encountered these female soldiers and marines. The awe often turned into cooperation.

That, however, isn't as significant as this.

The marines also noticed that the female troops were better at picking up useful information in general.

[...]

Iraqi men were also intimidated by female soldiers and marines. In the macho Arab world, an assertive female with an assault rifle is sort of a man's worst nightmare. So many otherwise reticent Iraqi men, opened up to the female troops, and provided information. Women also had an easier time detecting a lie.

So, the question from across the room is, "That's a no-brainer. What took them so long?"

Indeed. What is taking them so long? U.S. law still prohibits women from serving in the true combat arms occupations. Infantry, artillery and armour remain male-only military trades.

In Canada, as in many countries, however, no such restriction exists. Women can and do serve in any occupation offered by the Canadian Forces. Further, they do it well and with as much skill and dedication as any man. And there are times when women simply do the job better.

In the aftermath of the brutal Liberian civil war, India sent an all-female peacekeeping contingent. The success of their mission has brought a request from the UN to member states to increase their contingents of female soldiers in both peacekeeping and peace enforcement missions. Currently, of 90,000 personnel on UN police and military missions only 8 percent of police and 2 percent of the military are female.

The Corens of this world, having never served period, much less with women in a combat unit, don't get it. In Afghanistan, Iraq and the multitude of conflict areas of the world the combat involves insurgency and guerilla warfare. There is no head to head fight between massive organized forces. In such asymetrical warfare you take every advantage you can get. Intelligence has to be gathered, filtered and analyzed rapidly and effectively. Putting women into combat teams gives those teams an edge they would otherwise not have.

And my own experience serving with women in a combat unit is that they can handle themselves and the job extremely well. The only difficulty they endured was within the unit from males unable to accept the presence of women and who were willing to expend energy attempting to sabotage what they (those few men) viewed as some sort of social experiment. Some of them shrunk into their shells when, after an opposed boarding of a suspicious Honduran merchant ship, the boarding party returned cheering on a female leading seaman who had taken down two opposing sailors, with her feet, before the rest of the team could get to her.

The honest truth is, the gender of a soldier, sailor, marine or aircrew is meaningless as long as the task is being accomplished and the mission is going forward. Whether its putting ordnance on target, pacifying a village or gathering intelligence, the requirement is dedicated, focussed and properly trained people.

The US Army and Marine Corps are figuring that out, finally. The Corens of this world never will.


Hat tip deBeauxOs

This is becoming a habit

Another US submarine had a prang in the Strait of Hormuz. I believe this puts us at number three.

A nuclear-powered submarine, the USS Hartford, and amphibious transporter the USS New Orleans collided early on Friday, the US Navy Fifth Fleet said.

The incident is being investigated and damage to both ships is being evaluated, a navy statement said.

The New Orleans' fuel tank was ruptured in the crash, causing a spill of 25,000 gallons (90,000 litres) of diesel.

No injuries were reported aboard the New Orleans, according to the statement from the Fifth Fleet, which is based in Bahrain.

The US military said there was some damage to the USS Hartford's sail, the tower structure on the top of the submarine.

Which would suggest the Hartford was dived.

In January 2007, USS Newport News had a top to bottom collision with a merchant ship in the same place. In September 2005 USS Philadelphia had a surface collison with a merchant ship making the fact that Philadelphia was a submarine somewhat irrelevant since she was on the surface.

But, once again, it seems like there is a lack understanding for the conditions in the Strait of Hormuz.

It's simply not an easy place to maneuver. It's tight. Sometimes it's busy. And for a submarine it's more than a little bit of challenge.

The bottom topography of the Strait is less than favourable and there are two factors which, if ignored, can wreak havoc with a passage plan:

1. There is a weird counter-flow current through the Strait. If you're, say, deep (that's a relative term considering the position of the bottom), and you come up to periscope depth you can be in for a nasty surprize. If at depth you were making perhaps 12 knots over the ground and then surfaced to periscope depth you would find yourself going much faster as the current changed direction. If you were unaware of this it might make for a early arrival under a surface contact which you had plotted much farther away. Not a good thing.

2. Over the years there has been reported a significant"salinty lense" in the Strait of Hormuz. It's temporary but any submarine which encountered it would experience an unanticipated and unwelcome boost in buoyancy. That can ruin your whole day.

In any case, Hartford was obviously rolled onto her side with 15 people injured.