12 Comments

• 

  SushiSake3 at 02:36 PM JST - 25th June

  Straight up and down - good news!

  For readers' interested in gaining further information, there is a full article in today's Daily Yomiuri.

  Thank you.

• 

  SushiSake3 at 02:38 PM JST - 25th June

  SushiSake3, thank you for your kindness and courtesy in telling Japan Today readers where to find additional information about the above story.

  Have a good day.

• 

  timorborder at 03:02 PM JST - 25th June

  Aren't senior members of the US military supposed to have their tickets punched (combat experience)?

• 

  japanyesterday at 03:28 PM JST - 25th June

  you know the right people, you can get anywhere.

• 

  SushiSake3 at 03:31 PM JST - 25th June

  timorborder, Lt Gen Ann Dunwoody is responsible for logistics and weapons acquisition.

  She doesn't need combat experience to purchase and allocate weaponry or food, as she reportedly does very well.

• 

  niku at 03:59 PM JST - 25th June

  This is great news for all women out there in the armed forces. And it only took 33 years!!

• 

  rtrhead1 at 04:14 PM JST - 25th June

  timorborder, do you understand how the US military is structered? Why would the top officers in the our military need to be only from one of those 3 (or any of the combat jobs) only, when they make up what, 30% of the military?

• 

  VoXman at 02:31 AM JST - 26th June

  Aren't senior members of the US military supposed to have their tickets punched (combat experience)?

  Timor- you'd think so. No 4 star in the Navy lacks sea time or Command of a ship experience. You'd think the Army would be the same. But in today's mil, women have been allowed to advance to higher ranks by competing with each other rather than with men. So this Gen never had to compete for rank against a fighting General.

• 

  VoXman at 02:34 AM JST - 26th June

  SushiSake3 all persons in uniform have the potential of being forced to fight. So her lack of combat experience given all the women who've died in Iraq, smacks of avoiding combat rather than embracing it as all personnel should do, especially if they plan to lead others.

• 

  Taka313 at 06:51 AM JST - 26th June

  VoXman, She is in logistics. Logisticians aren't really combatants. Think about it: who manages the supply lines if they die in combat and what happens to the supply lines without logisticians?

  Taka

• 

  SushiSake3 at 11:13 AM JST - 26th June

  Taka - "what happens to the supply lines without logisticians?"

  The Starbucks and Burger King just doesn't get through to the front lines - that's what happens :-)

• 

  timorborder at 11:39 AM JST - 26th June

  Great little discussion here.
  Firstly, in response to RTR, I would assume that as with most military forces, the US Army is divided into combat and supporting arms. Those at the pointy end would include the INFANTRY (I am an ex-infantry officer), the armor, the artillery, the combat engineers, etc. The supporting arms would be everybody from the lawyers to the ordinance crowd.
  Anyway, I have some questions for you all. At what rank in the US Army are officers seperated from their corps of origin (armor, infantry, etc). In the commonwealth, this generally occurs when you make Brigadier. Secondly, why is it necessary for somebody in a specialized support role (ordinance) to have 4 stars? To give you an example, once an infantry officer goes beyond a certain rank, those in power like them to undertake more generalist training (coordination with other arms, planning major exercises with multiple inputs, etc). Those that don't stuff up at this level are then sent to staff college (or war college, etc) and given stars. I would assume that such people would go up the command structure, however, I don't really understand why it is necessary for a specialist (with a narrow job spectrum) to go so far up the command structure?

Register or login to add a comment!