The EFCP (Evaluation of Female Combat Personnel) Program

[waiting4something]

I think women being accepted into combat roles is right around the corner in the U.S.A. The Marines have something called female engagement teams that go out on patrols. I guess this evolution is just natural. Like with females becoming police officers. They can do stuff to the bad girls us guys can't.

[Mohoender]

Sorry I might be a little off-topic

Women issues have come up regularly and I realize while I was reading you that in T2K the situation could be very different from one beliigerent to the other.

Women would be rarely accepted into combat position in Western Armies. Not at all in the German Army, I doubt it for UK and France (at the time) but may be more involved in Scandinavian countries (I leave that to our well involved scandinavian friends). A major exception could be Turkey which was the first country to have had a women fighter pilot.

Fully accepted in the IDF, Middle-East could be interesting depending on the country and leader. Libya could accept them but I doubt that it will be the case in most other countries. Polisario and touaregs will fully use them.

Fully accepted among most Warsaw Pact/Eastern European countries (especially Soviet Union) as tank/vehicle crews, pilots, snipers, air defense, partisans, artillery and machinegun crews (much like in WW2).

Probably well involved in chinese/Asian militias.

Just some thoughts

[helbent4]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

Not at all in the German Army.

Just some thoughts

Mohender.

You should call the Bundeswehr right now and tell them they can not have women in combat roles like they have been allowing since 2001! I'm sure they will be very embarrassed to find out they've been doing it all wrong. For the purpose of T2K, it's probably close enough to allow in the alternative timeline, especially given Germany's problems, but it's a matter of opinion.

Besides, this is all very much besides the point. This thread is about an article relates specifically about the US Army, which will allow women in combat positions in T2K, whether anyone likes it or not. The attempt is to find a rationale and flesh it out.

Your points are well taken. That said, there is a whole other thread for general opinions about women in combat.

Tony

[Tegyrius]

The Committee on Women in NATO Forces used to publish an annual report on gender integration in each member nation's military. The most recent I could find with a quick Google search (caffeine hasn't taken hold yet) was 2004's:

http://www.nato.int/ims/2004/win/03-index.htm

It looks like that working group may have been replaced by the NATO Committee on Gender Perspectives:

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_50327.htm

Yes, I know the thread's specific to American forces, but looking at some of our NATO partners might provide some insight into how such integration would proceed here if sufficient political pressure mandated it.

- C.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by helbent4

Mohender.

You should call the Bundeswehr right now and tell them they can not have women in combat roles like they have been allowing since 2001!

Tony

I was only talking of T2K, at least 10 years before that date. By 1989-1991, few western armies had fully cross the line and in the middle of the war, I doubt that they would cross it (It seems that outside Scandinavia, Canada is a serious exception). If you play v.1, it's even less plausible.

IMO most fighting women would be in that position because they were there to fill in the depleted ranks. You could have had some women in combat at the time of T2K but not that many.

The reason, I have Warsaw Pact or IDF acting the other way is simply because they had done so in the past.

One last thing, about Germany, it seems that they effectively think that it is a bad idea. They indeed allowed women into combat role after 2001 but only after a ruling by the European Court of Justice. Not really a voluntary posture.

And this idea doesn't reflect my opinion on women capabilities.

[Mohoender]

Thanks Tegiryus

Very interesting, didn't know about this.

[helbent4]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

And this idea doesn't reflect my opinion on women capabilities.

Mohoender,

Agreed, and please accept my apologies for any sarcasm. It was meant somewhat in jest, but we must be careful about opening any cans of worms, too.

As for Germany, in either the v1 or v2 timeline they started the European phase of the war in 1996 for what are nationalist reasons. It's not hard to see that at that time a similar court judgment could have been handed down a few years early during the time of patriotic fervor, nationalist feeling and the buildup to war.

At any rate, let's not lose focus here on the EFCP:

(Continued.)

The EFCP was successful enough that similar programs were adopted in West Germany/the newly unified FRG (depending on the timeline) and other NATO allies.

The EFCP was not without its problems. The reality of combat in the front lines meant that the program couldn't always be adequately monitored, even when there were resources to do so. Such radical-seeming changes went against centuries of US military tradition and a highly masculine sub-culture, although most objections were overcome in through by simple necessity. Some elements never did accept the change wholeheartedly, and concerns over issues like reverse-discrimination and the lowering of crucial standards could not always be dismissed out of hand. Nevertheless, it can't be ignored that the inclusion of women in universal service (the draft) and on the front lines through the EFCP provided a much-needed boost to critical personnel at a crucial time.

More seriously, it could be argued that the same alteration (some might say lowering) of accepted standards allowed less-desirable elements into the US military. The greater inclusion of women into the military and further into front-line combat collided with the influx of a core hardened criminal element that had been accepted into military service for one reason or another.

It is impossible to determine statistics but it's possible that as many as 20-25% or more of inductees in 1997 and after in the US military had some kind of criminal record, up to and including felony convictions such as theft, violent assault, drug charges, even murder and sexual assault. Gang membership in the military far exceeded that of the general population. The means to conduct extensive background checks on recruits simply no longer existed in most areas, and what capacity to do so was overwhelmed after the adoption of universal compulsory military service.

Further, a considerable portion of the corrections population was conscripted into military service, and not without a certain kind of logic. Namely, there was little means or political will to continue feeding them. Letting criminals fulfill their debt to society by serving in uniform has a long historical precedent. While many acquitted themselves admirably (so to speak), others did not and criminal activity such as drug trafficking, black market activity and arms dealing flourished despite increasingly harsh measures. The relaxation of supervision and eventual breakdown in morale and disciple put the large influx of female conscripts squarely on a collision course with various former and current criminal elements, especially those with a history of violence or sexual assault against women. Interestingly, women serving in combat units through the EFCP experienced lower level of sexual harassment and sexual assault (rape), but few were completely immune.

Eventually, many criminal-soldiers (from almost all nations) put their training and weapons to personal and illegal use, commonly forming the core of the gangs that were called "Marauders" during the Twilight War. In the USA, a few that chose to remain in military service during the latter stages of the war sided with the federal government but many remained chose to back MILGOV for different reasons, mainly due to a lack of loyalty to civil society in general.

Tony

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by helbent4

As for Germany, in either the v1 or v2 timeline they started the European phase of the war in 1997 for what are nationalist reasons.

Note that in 2.2 Germany crossed the Polish border on the 27th of July 1996.
The remainder of Nato weren't drawn in until approximately late November 1996.

[helbent4]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Note that in 2.2 Germany crossed the Polish border on the 27th of July 1996.
The remainder of Nato weren't drawn in until approximately late November 1996.

Leg,

Epic fail!

What's a year more or less, Mr. Smarty-Pants?

Corrected.

Tony

[Adm.Lee]

Originally Posted by helbent4

The greater inclusion of women into the military and further into front-line combat collided with the influx of a core hardened criminal element that had been accepted into military service for one reason or another.

It is impossible to determine statistics but it's possible that as many as 20-25% or more of inductees in 1997 and after in the US military had some kind of criminal record, up to and including felony convictions such as theft, violent assault, drug charges, even murder and sexual assault. ...

... The relaxation of supervision and eventual breakdown in morale and disciple put the large influx of female conscripts squarely on a collision course with various former and current criminal elements, especially those with a history of violence or sexual assault against women. Interestingly, women serving in combat units through the EFCP experienced lower level of sexual harassment and sexual assault (rape), but few were completely immune.

Just my opinion, but this last sentence sounds really optimistic to me, given the previous statements. I can see higher levels of harassment and assault across the board. Further, I can then see a lot of revenge violence by friends/allies/NCOs against the assaulters. If gangs are involved, the potential for a spiral of violence within units seems staggering. Admittedly, it might stabilize by 2000(2013, whatever your timeline) as the offenders are driven out one way or another, but until then, I think you've got the potential to really rip units apart. (I feel so glad I'm not a company or battalion commander in this environment!)

To drag the real world into this, I think in the last 1-2 years, two soldiers and/or Marines have been convicted of murdering fellow (female) soldiers/Marines. Those were at Stateside bases (one was at Lejeune, but the woman was from near here, so it got local news coverage), I can only imagine what it might look like overseas, with everyone armed and twitchy from combat stress.

Sort of returning to the Program, I remember reading something that said that women, when introduced to a previously-all-male environment, tended to keep quiet or act much like the guys. Until the number of women in the group rose above 3. Then, with some sort of "critical mass," they started to assert themselves more, no longer being alone. I should think an important component of this working might be to try to assign women together as much as possible. Safety in numbers, and all that.

[helbent4]

Originally Posted by Adm.Lee

Just my opinion, but this last sentence sounds really optimistic to me, given the previous statements. I can see higher levels of harassment and assault across the board. Further, I can then see a lot of revenge violence by friends/allies/NCOs against the assaulters. If gangs are involved, the potential for a spiral of violence within units seems staggering. Admittedly, it might stabilize by 2000(2013, whatever your timeline) as the offenders are driven out one way or another, but until then, I think you've got the potential to really rip units apart. (I feel so glad I'm not a company or battalion commander in this environment!)

Adm.,

Hey, I'm just pulling this out of my ass!

What little I've read about women in the CF in combat roles (armoured recce, infantry, etc.) suggests that sexual assault is far more likely to occur in rear or base areas, or back home in Canada. I would guess the reason is that even with the EFCP, women would be relatively rarest in the front lines. There is simply more opportunity where there are more women. Plus, on the front lines there is less chance for privacy and frankly, you simply have a lot more to worry about than sex! further, if it's true that criminal elements will tend to be kept from the front lines they will be concentrated in the rear areas. Consensual sex, like sexual assault, requires opportunity as well as privacy. Therefore you'd see it happening in the rear areas (no pun intended) as well.

Tony

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by helbent4

Mohoender,

Agreed, and please accept my apologies for any sarcasm. It was meant somewhat in jest, but we must be careful about opening any cans of worms, too.

As for Germany, in either the v1 or v2 timeline they started the European phase of the war in 1996 for what are nationalist reasons. It's not hard to see that at that time a similar court judgment could have been handed down a few years early during the time of patriotic fervor, nationalist feeling and the buildup to war.

No problem and good point.