Sign in to wowOwow

Enter the email address that you used when registering at wowOwow.
The password field is case sensitive. Click here if you have forgotten your password.

Please register for wowOwow

Newsletter subscriptions
Sign up to receive wowOwow's weekly newsletter and get our best picks delivered right to your inbox. Our newsletter content is hand-picked by the wowOwow editorial team and provides the top features, news, and commentary from our site. Subscribing to our newsletter is free and safe. We will never share your email or other information with a third-party without your direct consent.
By registering, you indicate that you have read and agree
with our privacy policy and terms of service.

Question of the Day | 08/23/2009 11:00 pm

Do you think ground combat positions in the armed forces should be open to women?

A recent story in The New York Times about the rise of women in ground combat left us thinking about women in the line of fire. Join Candice Bergen, Liz Smith, Joan Ganz Cooney and Mary Wells in the conversation


© Shutterstock
Mary Wells

Mary Wells | 08/23/2009 11:00 pm

Mary Wells on Women in Combat

Women are now boxing in Olympics matches, entering high-risk mountain bike competitions, blowing themselves up because of religious convictions. They are running large companies. One almost became president of the United States and is the secretary of state, dealing in high-risk areas much of the time. Angela Merkel is the German chancellor in a difficult economic time. I am against war and combat in general, although I understand the simplicity of that thinking, but as they exist, if a woman chooses a combat position in the armed forces, why not find the best possible place for her abilities?


Liz Smith

Liz Smith | 08/23/2009 11:00 pm

Liz Smith Says Women Are Physically and Mentally Prepared for Combat

I think women have already been metaphorically in combat since God created the first woman! Women have always struggled for existence and then for position and then the right to do anything they damned pleased or were physically and mentally prepared for. Of course, women should be admitted to all aspects of military service if they want to serve and let the chips fall where they may.

Candice Bergen

Candice Bergen | 08/23/2009 11:00 pm

Candice Bergen and the Concept of War

I saw those pieces in the Times and was very impressed by the level of competence and commitment shown by women. Especially when you think of 10, 20 years ago and how it was an insurmountable challenge for them to perform and be successfully integrated with men in the armed forces and in battle. And since our whole concept of war is completely transformed — it seems more and more realistic. There are very few incidents of rape. They should decline. Most of the objections have been removed. Not to mention, with a volunteer army, we are in desperate need of recruits.

Marlo Thomas

Marlo Thomas | 08/23/2009 11:00 pm

Marlo Thomas: The Answer Is Always 'Yes'

Let’s cut to the chase: Any question that begins, "Should women be allowed to" should immediately be answered with "Yes." Do we ever hear debates about whether a man should be allowed to do something? The more specific answer to today’s question is, "Of course." From what I’ve read, there has never been a study that indicated that properly trained women are any less qualified for combat positions than men. As in all things, the choice should be the woman’s.
Joan Ganz Cooney

Joan Ganz Cooney | 08/24/2009 12:00 am

Joan Ganz Cooney on One of the Great Scandals of Our Democracy

Of course ground combat should be open to women and, for heaven’s sake, when are we going to insist that includes openly gay people? The idea that the armed services are closed to openly gay MEN (forget for the moment women) is one of the great scandals of our democracy.

171 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

Eldebbo C

Dona, your last phrase "but I especially enjoy my right as a Citizen of this Wonderful Country to use my Right to Free Speech" Apparently, like most of the above you don’t understand that if we didn’t fight for our rights as a free country, the communist would take us over like they have been trying to do for years and you wouldn’t have the freedom of speech that you do now. Most people say war is senseless and uncalled for. Has everybody already forgotten about 911? Are we not supposed to fight back?

I agree that this war has gone on way too long, and it is time to pull out. But, I do agree with it being necessary.  

By Eldebbo C on 08/24/2009 8:17 am
Kashmir ____

Um…this is 2009.  Communism ceased to be a threat about 20 years ago when the Berlin Wall fell.

9/11 was caused by henchmen of Osama Ben Laden, not a specific country.  Afghanistan might have been necessary but Iraq was a put-up job.  We never had any business going into the Middle East and we should beat a hasty retreat out of there.

Before you get all tense, my dad was career military.  I grew up military.  My BIL is military.  I heard once that when you put women in combat, war becomes an ugly thing.  I was nine years old at the time and I remember thinking that killing people was ugly regardless of them being boys or girls.

By Kashmir ____ on 08/24/2009 10:57 am
Eldebbo C
I consider Osama Ben Laden a Communist. Along with Saddam Hussein. I have heard people say he wasn’t a threat to our country, I disagree.
By Eldebbo C on 08/24/2009 3:58 pm
R.J.B. Reed
I get the feeling that to you, Communist = bad guy.  Neither Bin Laden nor Hussein meets the definition of what a communist is, especially given their religous viewpoints….. 
By R.J.B. Reed on 08/24/2009 6:19 pm
Eldebbo C

Communism (from Latin: communis = "common") is a family of economic and political ideas and social movements related to the establishment of an egalitarian, classless, or stateless society based on common ownership and control of the means of production and property in general, as well as the name given to such a society.[1][2][3] The term "Communism", usually spelled with the capital letter C, is however often used to refer to a form of government in which the state operates under a one-party system and declares allegiance to Marxism-Leninism or a derivative thereof, even if the party does not actually claim that the society has already reached communism.

Notice the blue words in this defination. Especially the last sentence. To me, it means a government run by one person, like the Taliban which is run by Bin Laden. I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t want to see our country run that way.

By Eldebbo C on 08/24/2009 6:52 pm
MT C-Douglas
Someone needs to stay of Wikipedia. The Taliban isn’t a country. Bin Laden doesn’t run them. Communists does not equal any bad guy that you want to call communist. You make your argument weak by not knowing or understanding the rhetoric you are spouting.
By MT C-Douglas on 08/24/2009 7:44 pm
R.J.B. Reed

One party does not equal one person.  A government run by one person can be a dictatorship, a theocracy, a monarchy, etc.  But, communism is not this.  Not only that, but neither Bin Laden nor Hussein subscribed to the Marxism.  Now, I would agree that I would not want our country run by a dictator.  But, words have meaning and it is important when it comes to a political system to be absolutely clear.  One of the issues we face here in America is the idea that socialism = communism = evil automatically.  So, many useful programs are simply shouted down by people screaming about socialism and its ills, regardless of whether the program is socialist in nature or whether socialism is inherently bad.

I am of the opinion that no pure economic or government system works well.  It is always best to mix and match to get a proper balance of power.

By R.J.B. Reed on 08/24/2009 9:48 pm
DeBúrca obj
There is absolutely nothing about the Iraq War, for instance, that has anything to do with our freedom of speech or any other rights we have in this country.
By DeBúrca obj on 08/24/2009 12:31 pm
Eldebbo C

Maybe this war wasn’t to protect our freedom, but we have had plenty of past wars just for that specific reason. Think about this - what has changed in this country since 911? Airlines had to turn up security, we are no longer aloud to go with passengers to the boarding gates to see them off, we are restricted on things we can carry on planes, all suspicious looking people are interrogated, and some people probably don’t even fly anymore because of it. To me that is taking away from our freedom.

By Eldebbo C on 08/24/2009 3:33 pm
R.J.B. Reed

I’m not sure what point you are trying to make here.  I would agree that we’ve lost a lot of freedoms since 9-11 due the Patriot Act and its ilk.  Realistically the increased inconvenience of flying really pales in comparison.  However, this lost freedom is not the fault of Bin Laden, and it especially wasn’t the fault of Hussein.

We didn’t listen to Ben Franklin and gave up our liberty out of fear…..

By R.J.B. Reed on 08/24/2009 6:23 pm
Eldebbo C
How can you say this lost freedom is not the fault of Bin Laden? He took responsibility for the planes flying into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.
By Eldebbo C on 08/24/2009 6:45 pm
R.J.B. Reed
Yes.  And then *WE* decided to respond by removing people’s freedoms with the mistaken idea that it would make us secure.  We could have thumbed our noses at him and continued to live life in our free American way, but people were so ridiculously scared about being killed by terrorists and we signed a large portion of our rights away.  The chances of us ever getting them back are slim.  Government only ever grows….
By R.J.B. Reed on 08/24/2009 9:41 pm
Lila Kuh
Agreed.  And you know why the chance of us getting back any kind of normalcy is slim… at least for a couple of decades?  No politician wants to take the chance on saying, "This is ridiculous, just stop with these draconian measures" and THEN have something happen.  Oh, the lawsuits!  Oh, the cries of "This is his fault for not protecting us!"  Too many Americans want "freedom" but without any risk or responsibility falling on us.  We should all just wear government-mandated bubble wrap.
By Lila Kuh on 08/25/2009 12:29 pm
Frannie Em

Dona

I just can’t imagine anyone saying that you don’t love your country.  I have read you a lot and you may disagree with some of the things our country has done, I would never call you unpatriotic.  You are right, free speech is your right and no one can take it away from you.  Keep speaking. 

I do not want our country to be the police of the world.  Is that our biggest export now?  Sometimes I wonder about that. Since our manufacturing base has diminished over the last  40 years, and most everything we innovate or design ends up being manufactured by some other country, what do we have to offer the next generation in the way of jobs?  

While trying to get my son out of the army I learned that 15,000 young men and women signed up for the military in July. That is probably why the unemployment numbers went down or held their own.  So what are we becoming as a nation?  

I have to disagree with one point that you made, we do go into other countries and volunteer and serve to help make those countries better.  I got an email the other day from a daughter of one of my friends, who is in Africa working with the local tribes.  She is not alone, there are many there with her.  The group has been going for a long time and improving the lives of many.   The U.S. effort against HIV in Africa has made us heroes to many over there.  The USS Comfort, a medical ship, goes all over the world and the doctors perform surgeries and dispense medical care to those that can’t get it or can’t afford it.  They vaccinate and increase longevity for children in poverty stricken areas.  There is much much more.  The US pays about 25% of the UN’s price tag - yet they constantly vote against us, but we continue to contribute.

But, I am with you, I would rather they send medicine and aid instead of guns and tanks. 

By Frannie Em on 08/24/2009 1:13 pm
phyllis Doyle Pepe

Dona: Someone who loves their country like you do should criticize that country, for that is the truest example of love––wanting it to be the best it can be, and working to make it so. Below some snippets on war:

The Barbary Wars provided the first occasion on which the U.S. government attempted to overthrow a foreign government, the regime of Yusuf Karamanli in Tripoli; it did  not succeed.

 

America’s victory in the Spanish-American War, was, in Roosevelt’s words, the “first great triumph in what will be a world movement.” For well over a generation before that “splendid little war,” as John Jay famously called it, the U.S. had acquired no foreign lands. The sinking of the battleship Maine in Havana harbor on Feb.15,1898, finally forced the reluctant McKinley to declare war on Spain for the liberation of Cuba, giving the U.S. Navy a chance to show off its newly acquired power.

 

The Contras in Nicaragua carried out, with funding from Washington, some of the most egregious human rights violations in Central America, yet were lauded as “freedom fighters.”  Jonas Savimbi, the rebel leader the U.S. backed in Angola’s civil war, murdered and tortured with a barbarity that far outstripped the Taliban. The rebellion Savbimbi began in 1975 resulted in more than 500,000 dead. Reagan called Savimbi the Abraham Lincoln of Angola. …The mayhem and blood-letting we backed in Angola were copied in many parts of Africa, including Zaire and Liberia.

 

When Oliver Wendell Holmes was ninety-one he tried to read a poem he liked about the Civil War to Marion Frankfurter (Felix’s wife) but broke down in tears before he could finish it. They were not tears for the war. They were tears for what the war had destroyed. Holmes had grown up in a highly cultivated, homogeneous world, a world of which he was, in many ways, the consummate product: idealistic, artistic, and socially committed. And then he had watched that world bleed to death at Fredericksburg and Antietam, in a war that learning and brilliance had been powerless to prevent. When he returned from that war Boston had changed and so he American life. Holmes, too, had changed but never forgot what he had lost: “After the Civil War the world never seemed quite right.”

 

The Vietnam War: Notes taken from Barbara Tuchman’s  The March of Folly

: )1945-46 In Embryo

Ignorance was not a factor in the American endeavor in Vietnam pursued through five successive presidencies, although it became an excuse….The folly consisted not in pursuit of a goal in ignorance of the obstacles but in persistence in the pursuit despite accumulating evidence that the goal was unattainable, and the effect disproportionate to the American interest and eventually damaging to American society, reputation and disposable power in the world.

   The question raised is why did the policy-makers close their minds to the evidence and its implications? This is the classic symptom of folly: refusal to draw conclusions from the evidence, addiction to the counter-productive. The “why” of this refusal and this addiction may disclose itself in the course of retracing the tale of American policy making in Vietnam.

 


 

By phyllis Doyle Pepe on 08/24/2009 5:18 pm