WASHINGTON (AP) — The Pentagon is lifting its ban on women serving in combat, opening hundreds of thousands of front-line positions and potentially elite commando jobs after generations of limits on their service, defense officials said Wednesday.
The changes, set to be announced Thursday by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, will not happen overnight. The services must now develop plans for allowing women to seek the combat positions, a senior military official said. Some jobs may open as soon as this year, while assessments for others, such as special operations forces, including Navy SEALS and the Army's Delta Force, may take longer. The services also will have until January 2016 to make a case to that some positions should remain closed to women.
The groundbreaking move recommended by the Joint Chiefs of Staff overturns a 1994 rule prohibiting women from being assigned to smaller ground combat units.
Officials briefed The Associated Press on condition of anonymity so they could speak ahead of the official announcement.
There long has been opposition to putting women in combat, based on questions of whether they have the necessary strength and stamina for certain jobs, or whether their presence might hurt unit cohesion.
But as news of Panetta's expected order got out, members of Congress, including the Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., announced their support.
"It reflects the reality of 21st century military operations," Levin said.
Panetta's move comes in his final weeks as Pentagon chief and just days after President Barack Obama's inaugural speech in which he spoke passionately about equal rights for all. The new order expands the department's action of nearly a year ago to open about 14,500 combat positions to women, nearly all of them in the Army. Panetta's decision could open more than 230,000 jobs, many in Army and Marine infantry units, to women.
In addition to questions of strength and performance, there also have been suggestions that the American public would not tolerate large numbers of women being killed in war.
Under the 1994 Pentagon policy, women were prohibited from being assigned to ground combat units below the brigade level. A brigade is roughly 3,500 troops split into several battalions of about 800 soldiers each. Historically, brigades were based farther from the front lines and they often included top command and support staff.
The necessities of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, however, propelled women into jobs as medics, military police and intelligence officers that were sometimes attached — but not formally assigned — to battalions. So while a woman couldn't be assigned as an infantryman in a battalion going out on patrol, she could fly the helicopter supporting the unit, or move in to provide medical aid if troops were injured.
And these conflicts, where battlefield lines are blurred and insurgents can lurk around every corner, have made it almost impossible to keep women clear of combat.
Still, as recent surveys and experiences have shown, it will not be an easy transition. When the Marine Corps sought women to go through its tough infantry course last year, two volunteered and both failed to complete the course. And there may not be a wide clamoring from women for the more intense, dangerous and difficult jobs — including some infantry and commando positions.
In the Navy, however, women have begun moving into the submarine force, with several officers already beginning to serve.
Two lawsuits were filed last year challenging the Pentagon's ban on women serving in combat, adding pressure on officials to overturn the policy. And the military services have been studying the issue and surveying their forces to determine how it may affect performance and morale.
The Joint Chiefs have been meeting regularly on the matter and they unanimously agreed to send the recommendation to Panetta earlier this month.
A senior military official familiar with the discussions said the chiefs concluded this was an opportunity to maximize women's service in the military. The official said the chiefs of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps laid out three main principles to guide them as they move through the process:
— That they were obligated to maintain America's effective fighting force.
— That they would set up a process that would give all service members, men and women alike, the best chance to succeed.
—That they would preserve military readiness.
Part of the process, the official said, would allow time to get female service members in leadership and officer positions in some of the more difficult job classifications in order to help pave the way for female enlisted troops.
Women comprise about 14 percent of the 1.4 million active military personnel. More than 280,000 women have been sent to Iraq, Afghanistan or to jobs in neighboring nations in support of the wars. Of the more than 6,600 who have been killed, 152 have been women.
The senior military official said the military chiefs must report back to Panetta with their initial implementation plans by May 15.
Changing the rules for a potential future draft would be a difficult proposition. The Supreme Court has ruled that because the Selective Service Act is aimed at creating a list of men who could be drafted for combat — and women are not in combat jobs — American women aren't required to register upon turning 18 as all males are.
If combat jobs open to women, Congress would have to decide what to do about that law.
___
AP National Security Writer Robert Burns contributed to this report.
I wonder if they'll raise the physical standards for women wanting to pursue a combat MOS? If I remember correctly, I think the women who volunteered for the Marine Infantry Officer Course had to pass the male version of the test, and I know that the Marines are changing the women's PFT to include pull-ups by 2014 (right now women do the flexed arm hang instead of pull-ups), although they won't have to do as many as men do to get a maximum score.
I'm not against women in combat roles, but I do think that men and women in those roles should be held to the same standards.
I agree with Hordini. I've posted in previous threads on this that the only way to do this is to have the exact same test be applied regardless of sex, and have the test accurately reflect the challenges that role is likely to experience. Yes, that means that in some elite roles, a larger percentage of women will wash out, but it's possible for a fair and reasonably test to generate sexist-appearing results without actually being sexist - that's just how biology works. The reasons this has never worked previously is because of a leadership failure in Congress, leaning on the pentagon to juke the stats.
My opinion... have no problem with women in combat, with one condition... That condition, is that they meet all extant standards, and that includes the unspoken standards that go with it. That means, the same lack of privacy, the harsh conditions, the exposure, the danger, etc...
The Air Force has had women serving in all of it's combat AFSC's (not including SpecOps) for a while now. Granted, ground based combat isn't our specialty, so it's a bit differant.
Basic combat jobs like I've got no problem with. SpecOp roles I feel that they should still be restricted.
I'm against women in combat roles personally, for several reasons including morale of both the unit and the homefront as female prisoners are rather will sapping on the propaganda front. Remember Jessica Lynch who got captured in Iraq? That whole thing was a PR fiasco....
Also I have this article too that I posted in the Marine Officer womens test thread.
Spoiler:
'You hear about slack discipline in mixed sex units because members are devoting too much attention to the opposite sex'. Author of 'Co-ed Combat' talks to Kate Fillion about why all women in the U.S. military should be out of Iraq
KATE FILLION | November 8, 2007 |
A: There clearly is at least an incipient movement, you see it in much of the press, where there have been a lot of stories about how women in Iraq are basically doing the same things as men and how the services there, particularly the army, are chafing under the restrictions of the prohibition on [female participation in] ground combat. Survey numbers show that about 10 per cent of military women say they themselves would be willing to volunteer for combat, but larger numbers say that women who want to should have the option.
Q: What would be wrong with letting that 10 per cent volunteer?
A: The argument that's made frequently is that combat is no longer a test of brawn but of brains, so while it's true that men are stronger than women, it doesn't matter. But strength still matters! In the infantry, the typical soldier is carrying at a minimum 60 lb., and a lot are carrying 75 to 100 lb. That's a very heavy load, and it's not just that you have to carry it across the street, you have to carry it for miles, then have sufficient energy reserves to dig into what might be very hard ground, and then do what you went there for: engage in a fight with the enemy. Strength matters even on warships. You might have a job — cook, say, or radioman — that doesn't require much strength when things are operating normally, but if the ship gets hit by a missile, suddenly everybody's job is damage control. When a U.S. ship hit an Iranian mine in the Persian Gulf in 1988 and almost sank, the captain ordered the magazine emptied of ammunition so it didn't blow up the ship, and the shells were 50 lb. apiece. Twenty per cent of the ship's crew was in a bucket brigade, passing these shells down the line. When bad things happen you often do need strength. Let's say you're a pilot whose airplane is attacked by hostile fire. One 220-lb. pilot who was in that position said it took every ounce of strength he had to keep the airplane steady. And he was a big, beefy guy.
Q: Is there any other reason women shouldn't be flying combat aircraft?
A: Well, the possibility of being a POW, which raises special problems. Once captured, female prisoners face a substantial risk of rape, and that's something that, for the most part, men don't face.
Q: If a woman is willing to take that risk, shouldn't she be allowed to?
A: The thing is, it doesn't just affect her. The captors may very well also have male prisoners, and can use the abuse or threats of abuse of female prisoners as a means of extracting information or other kinds of co-operation from male prisoners. We know from the air force training that even in simulations, men are much more distressed by abuse of their female comrades than their male comrades. You don't want to give the enemy an extra tool. Another issue is the effect on national morale when females are taken prisoner. The Jessica Lynch example showed pretty clearly that it's perceived as a greater blow to the nation when females are captured — and we see now how public perceptions of how we're doing and the costs we're paying affect the resolve to continue a conflict.
Q: You say we're not getting the full picture of women's military performance in Iraq. What information is being withheld?
A: The mainstream press in general seems favourably disposed toward the service of women, so we get stories only of their good performance, we don't hear about their bad performance. But you do hear anecdotal reports, not so much about women's performance under fire as much as about slack discipline in the mixed sex support units, because the members are often devoting too much of their attention to the opposite sex. There's too much monkey business.
Q: I was surprised that a central command officer told you no one is collecting information about the number of soldiers who get pregnant in Iraq.
A: I cannot believe the U.S. military is so unconcerned with the causes of personnel loss that they aren't keeping track, but releasing it is another matter. They don't see any advantage in saying that even a small number of women are leaving because of pregnancy. A statistic that you see frequently is that at any one time, about 10 per cent of the women serving in the military — not just in Iraq, but in every part of the military — are pregnant. So far, 155,000 women have served in Iraq and Afghanistan altogether, so I'd guess that hundreds, and likely more, have become pregnant and returned home, or weren't able to deploy in the first place because they were pregnant.
Q: Aside from the risk of pregnancy, what are some of the other issues in mixed sex units?
Q: A lot of the arguments you're making are the same ones that have been made about gays in the military: the negative effects on unit cohesion, the introduction of sexual tension, the perception of weakness.
A: It's a somewhat different issue, but not entirely. And in the U.S. Army [unlike the Canadian military], the rule is that homosexuals cannot serve. A lot of people don't understand that "don't ask, don't tell" is a Department of Defense enforcement regulation of a federal statute, which says essentially that those who engage in or desire to engage in homosexual activities are not eligible to serve in the armed forces.
Q: Do you think there are any other fields where full integration of women is a bad idea, or are you solely opposed to it in the military?
A: I've studied occupational segregation in the civilian world, and I think psychological and physical differences are a substantial cause of what we see in terms of the glass ceiling and gender gap. Even in the absence of discrimination, you would still see substantial differences in the way men and women sort themselves out in the workplace. But the thing about the military is, one, the challenges are so intense in combat, and two, the consequences of doing poorly, and the national security consequences also, are so potentially serious. Another thing is that while there are individual requirements such as strength, which is relatively easily measured, a lot of the psychological attributes that go into being an effective combat soldier are not so easy to measure. One recurrent theme of combat behaviour literature is that it's always a surprise who ends up doing well.
Q: By the same token, could you not argue that women could surprise you?
A: I have no doubt that there are a few women who possess the requisite strength and personality profile to be individually effective soldiers.
Q: What's the personality profile, exactly?
A: Fairly high risk preference, less fearful of things than other people, more physically aggressive and dominant than people in general, higher pain tolerance, less empathic than people in general — you've got to be able to detach yourself from the fact that the person whose head you're about to blow off is another human being with a family, and having killed, you need to be able to deal with it without excessive guilt. I don't think there are very many women with that profile, but it's not just about individual traits, it's about how groups interact. It's a truism that individuals don't fight wars, groups do. You fight as a unit. Can a mixed sex group be as cohesive? What is the effect of the kind of sexual competition that always goes on in groups of people in their prime mating years? Another issue related to cohesion is trust: combat soldiers have to be able to trust that their comrades have their back, they have to have confidence in their leaders and a willingness to follow them. The traits men identify in effective fighters tend to be very stereotypically masculine: courage, physical strength, leadership. In dangerous situations, women don't trigger that kind of trust in men.
Q: What if she's holding a powerful weapon and is higher-ranked?
A: These preferences exist to a large extent independent of what created them in our psyche. In ancient times, when everyone agrees that warfare was a matter of brawn, women would not have been effective fighters. In our evolutionary past, the selection of comrades for fighting and other dangerous activities would have had substantial fitness consequences, in the sense that if you trusted the wrong person, you died. So that would have created a substantial pressure for men to respond, on an intuitive rather than cognitive level, to a man who possessed the traits associated with being an effective fighter and hunter.
Q: So this lack of trust men have can't be overturned by new evidence?
A: The decision to trust is what psychologists call fast and shallow; we don't write down pros and cons, it's a gut-level judgment and it's very difficult to change on the basis of cognitive input. It's like trying to tell somebody who's afraid of snakes that you don't have to be afraid, they're not poisonous. The person says, "Okay, fine, but get them away from me."
Q: In Iraq, and increasingly in Afghanistan, there's no such thing as a 100 per cent combat-free zone. So is your position that no women at all should be sent to either country, even in support positions?
A: I think that to the extent that all of Iraq is a war zone and all of the personnel serving there are subject to combat risks, then my argument would be yes, women should be excluded.
Q: In which case they'll never rise to the top ranks of the military.
A: If you look at promotion statistics [in the U.S.], women are often promoted at a disproportionately high rate.
Q: Only in the past 20 or 30 years.
A: Forty years ago, the U.S. military was capped at two per cent female, so yes. Only in 1976 were the service academies opened to women. But over the last 20 years, even with the combat exclusion, women tended to do reasonably well, overall, in terms of promotion. But clearly, a woman's probability of rising to the very top echelons of the military is very slight as long as women are excluded from combat.
Q: In the U.S., the military has traditionally provided a socio-economic ladder out of poverty. If women were barred even from support positions in Iraq, that ladder wouldn't be as available for women as men.
A: Actually, the military might accept more women into training than it currently does. The percentage of female enlistees has gone down since 2000, and one interpretation is that women don't want to be exposed to combat risks, as they are in Iraq. If you're joining the military looking for a job or training, rather than looking to fight, the prospect of getting blown up is a disincentive.
Wait, the non-veteran, lawyer turned law professor and author of "Co-ed Combat: The New Evidence That Women Shouldn't Fight the Nation's Wars" gave an interview when the book was released, supporting the idea that women shouldn't serve in combat? Unexpected.
Ouze wrote: Wait, the non-veteran, lawyer turned law professor and author of "Co-ed Combat: The New Evidence That Women Shouldn't Fight the Nation's Wars" gave an interview when the book was released, supporting the idea that women shouldn't serve in combat? Unexpected.
My anecdotal personal experience suggests it would be a mixed bag.
I mean, I'm not saying you've got to have been a veteran to know what you're talking about per se, but this guy kind of already had an agenda he was pushing. Maybe not... maybe not a guy who came at this from an unbiased viewpoint.
Besides, aren't they all pretty much a mixed bag at this point? Physical fitness wise.
Wait, the non-veteran, lawyer turned law professor and author of "Co-ed Combat: The New Evidence That Women Shouldn't Fight the Nation's Wars" gave an interview when the book was released, supporting the idea that women shouldn't serve in combat? Unexpected.
Yes he gave an interview that supported his views from his book, that doesn't mean that the interview should be ignored, he's already done the research within his book.
Also as a non-veteran I think he would be better to examine some aspects of women in the military than a veteran would. For example, the effect that women POW's have on the nation's populace and an outside look at their reaction.
Then again, would you want a veteran to head up the anti women in the military front anyways? He would simply be labelled old school sexist military man and ignored for being a stereotype.
Personally, I wouldn't want women in the military at all, except perhaps in the intelligence gathering and analysis, or jobs that kept them in country instead of in deployment. There are good arguments against sending females oversees on combat missions. (and by combat missions I mean even in a logistical or support role)
This same issue comes up repeatedly and every time it does, the answer is always the same. Women should absolutely be allowed in combat roles, as long as they can maintain the same physical standards as men.
rubiksnoob wrote: This same issue comes up repeatedly and every time it does, the answer is always the same. Women should absolutely be allowed in combat roles, as long as they can maintain the same physical standards as men.
You really think the instructors are going to start slugging women at SERE? I don't.
While it certainly makes me feel old (and very prude like!)---and I appreciate the fact much worse is a Google away---AND I appreciate it was put in a Spoiler---this is a family/work friendly site---and some that open such a spoiler or click on a quoted section might find that a bit strong. Thanks
What if they menstruated all over some important battle plans?
Spoiler:
rubiksnoob wrote: This same issue comes up repeatedly and every time it does, the answer is always the same. Women should absolutely be allowed in combat roles, as long as they can maintain the same physical standards as men.
This is the only sensible answer to this question, IMHO. If they can meet the standards, let them fight.
As a lot of people say everytime this comes up... if they can meet the standards and they want to fight, let them fight.
That said... only two weapon volunteered for the Marine infantry course which indicates that they were probably among the most likely to pass the course. And they both dropped out, so I kind of suspect we won't see a whole lot of women applying and qualifying for front line service. But still, this does recognise that support roles are increasingly active in combat and that means women are already exposed to hostile actions.
Ratbarf wrote: I'm against women in combat roles personally, for several reasons including morale of both the unit and the homefront as female prisoners are rather will sapping on the propaganda front. Remember Jessica Lynch who got captured in Iraq? That whole thing was a PR fiasco....
The only reason it was a PR fiasco was because the Pentagon initial press releases were, well, rather fanciful. When people believed that female soldier had bravely fought but been captured when her convoy was ambushed, and then been rescued in spec ops raid against a defended hospital... then it was PR gold. When it came out that the daring raid was actually against a hospital that the Iraqi military had already abandoned, and when Lynch stated the early reports of her supposed heroic defence were utter nonsense then it became a PR fiasco.
I'm non military myself, so my opinion is not based on any experience, but I don't think it's wrong that women should have combat roles, just so long as they come up to the standards required for that role. No way should the safety of other unit/squad members be put in danger by a soldier not up to the standards required, be that male or female.
My one concern would be what would happen to a female captured by the enemy, especially, lets say, an insurgent / non regular force - I hope I don't have to draw diagrams here, but surely the R word is something that has to be considered.
I'm probably going to be hammered for this opinion but here goes. I graduated from Airborne school and Ranger School. I served at Ft Bragg in the 325th AIR. I want to specify I have not fought in the wars. I don't think it's a good idea for women to serve in combat. We can talk about standards but the reality is the standards will not be the same. One cannot prevent the natural interactions between men and women from happening. That will cause problems as well. Having been at Bragg I interacted with other non infantry units which had female soldiers so I saw it. Right or wrong, good or bad, the infantry is a boys club. It's like a high school. God bless these brave women who want to serve America, there are too few of us these days who are willing to be selfless. But I don't think the infantry is the place.
Jayce_The_Ace wrote: I'm non military myself, so my opinion is not based on any experience, but I don't think it's wrong that women should have combat roles, just so long as they come up to the standards required for that role. No way should the safety of other unit/squad members be put in danger by a soldier not up to the standards required, be that male or female.
My one concern would be what would happen to a female captured by the enemy, especially, lets say, an insurgent / non regular force - I hope I don't have to draw diagrams here, but surely the R word is something that has to be considered.
If rape were a consideration in terms of exposing women to front line duty, then we would have to rethink the entire notion of women serving in any branch of the military--as in our current war footing---it appears to be far more likely they will be raped by a fellow soldier/comrade than be caught behind enemy lines;
Of course, not to mention sodomy and sexual deviance to prisoners is not limited by gender. The Stanford Prison experiment (along with abu Ghraib--which it is very spooky how much the earlier experiment mirrored the Graib incident)---have both shown for sexual torture, all you need is sleep deprivation, lower educated individuals and a 'loose' administrative policy on what questioning should consist of. Zimbardo wrote a great book, that while it did not focus on the Stanford Prison Experiment or his helping in defense of the Graib personnel--illustrates that sexual torture might be as natural to us in certain settings as breathing (regardless of gender);
I think, provided they are able to physically and mentally perform the role in which they are trying to obtain, why not? Will there be uncomfortable moments/situations--not unlike any combination of a previously segregated group? Sure--I think, as a species, we can grow past that. At least--I hope!
AgeOfEgos wrote: I think, provided they are able to physically and mentally perform the role in which they are trying to obtain, why not? Will there be uncomfortable moments/situations--not unlike any combination of a previously segregated group? Sure--I think, as a species, we can grow past that. At least--I hope!
AgeOfEgos wrote: I think, provided they are able to physically and mentally perform the role in which they are trying to obtain, why not? Will there be uncomfortable moments/situations--not unlike any combination of a previously segregated group? Sure--I think, as a species, we can grow past that. At least--I hope!
I'd like to point out that the issue isn't so much on being able to fight or not. It's about getting promotions. Because of women not being able to be in combat groups meant they could not get certain promotions. For years they were denied promotions because of it.
AgeOfEgos wrote: I think, provided they are able to physically and mentally perform the role in which they are trying to obtain, why not? Will there be uncomfortable moments/situations--not unlike any combination of a previously segregated group? Sure--I think, as a species, we can grow past that. At least--I hope!
Most cannot.
And this is based on?
Off the top of my head, I can't think of a single woman in my unit who can meet the minimum standards of the male physical fitness test.
AgeOfEgos wrote: I think, provided they are able to physically and mentally perform the role in which they are trying to obtain, why not? Will there be uncomfortable moments/situations--not unlike any combination of a previously segregated group? Sure--I think, as a species, we can grow past that. At least--I hope!
Most cannot.
In that case, sounds like the best course of action is to make the tests available to everyone and judge each on their ability to pass qualifying tests...rather than excluding or including an entire population based on their gender (Including the ones that can seemingly pass the test based on your "Most cannot" assumption)?
CDK wrote: I'd like to point out that the issue isn't so much on being able to fight or not. It's about getting promotions. Because of women not being able to be in combat groups meant they could not get certain promotions. For years they were denied promotions because of it.
Really? Would you like to explain that one, taking into account that competion for enlisted promotion is within MOS, (a mechanic does not compete with an infantryman) and for officers it is within branch and groupings based on function (a guy in the Operations career field doesn't compete against those in Operational Support).
You COULD state that some specific job positions are harder to get without being combat arms (for example a Division Commander), BUT males not in combat arms are also not competitive for those jobs. One of my wife's female friends is an assistant division commander right now by the way. She is an aviator, which is considered combat arms. Females can also be engineers, air defense artillery, and filed artillery which are all combat arms.
So which promotions are females NOT currently able to get?
This pass a qualifying test business seems to be considered a good measure of fitness. It isn't. Being able to meet the minimum on a PT test just means you can meet a minimum. There is far more required to being in a combat unit. The ability to walk 12 or more miles at a time with 100lbs of gear. Staying awake for, literally, days with little food. These are just a couple. Just because you can do a few push ups and sit ups in 2 mins doesn't mean you can do that. And to anyone who thinks male soldiers are allowed to skate on the minimum, they aren't. At least not a Bragg.
AgeOfEgos wrote: I think, provided they are able to physically and mentally perform the role in which they are trying to obtain, why not? Will there be uncomfortable moments/situations--not unlike any combination of a previously segregated group? Sure--I think, as a species, we can grow past that. At least--I hope!
Most cannot.
And this is based on?
Experience, for one.
Why would we have separate physical fitness standards if the majority of females were able to hit the male ones?
I have no doubt there are some women on this earth who could make it through, for example, SFAS or BUD/S. Considering most men cannot, they would be exceptions rather than the rule, and I'm not entirely sure what they'd bring to the table to begin with.
Even looking at just standard 11B stuff, it's not exactly a walk in the park.
CDK wrote:I'd like to point out that the issue isn't so much on being able to fight or not. It's about getting promotions. Because of women not being able to be in combat groups meant they could not get certain promotions. For years they were denied promotions because of it.
Actually there is an over representation of women in the officer corps of the military based on overall percentage of females vs percentage of commisioned females. This is somewhat due to affirmative action, as the military academies are required (in Canada, and I would assume the states as well) to have 15% women while women make up less than 15% of total operational strength.
40kFSU wrote:I'm probably going to be hammered for this opinion but here goes. I graduated from Airborne school and Ranger School. I served at Ft Bragg in the 325th AIR. I want to specify I have not fought in the wars. I don't think it's a good idea for women to serve in combat. We can talk about standards but the reality is the standards will not be the same. One cannot prevent the natural interactions between men and women from happening. That will cause problems as well. Having been at Bragg I interacted with other non infantry units which had female soldiers so I saw it. Right or wrong, good or bad, the infantry is a boys club. It's like a high school. God bless these brave women who want to serve America, there are too few of us these days who are willing to be selfless. But I don't think the infantry is the place.
This is one of the larger issues actually. Mixed sex units have lower discipline across the bar due to fraternization between the sexes. Also, the American military's expenditure on maternity leave from women getting pregnant while deployed is suspected to be rather high, as the number of women who conceive during a tour is beleived to be upwards of several thousand. Don't have that problem with males.
AgeOfEgos wrote:
Jayce_The_Ace wrote: I'm non military myself, so my opinion is not based on any experience, but I don't think it's wrong that women should have combat roles, just so long as they come up to the standards required for that role. No way should the safety of other unit/squad members be put in danger by a soldier not up to the standards required, be that male or female.
My one concern would be what would happen to a female captured by the enemy, especially, lets say, an insurgent / non regular force - I hope I don't have to draw diagrams here, but surely the R word is something that has to be considered.
If rape were a consideration in terms of exposing women to front line duty, then we would have to rethink the entire notion of women serving in any branch of the military--as in our current war footing---it appears to be far more likely they will be raped by a fellow soldier/comrade than be caught behind enemy lines;
Of course, not to mention sodomy and sexual deviance to prisoners is not limited by gender. The Stanford Prison experiment (along with abu Ghraib--which it is very spooky how much the earlier experiment mirrored the Graib incident)---have both shown for sexual torture, all you need is sleep deprivation, lower educated individuals and a 'loose' administrative policy on what questioning should consist of. Zimbardo wrote a great book, that while it did not focus on the Stanford Prison Experiment or his helping in defense of the Graib personnel--illustrates that sexual torture might be as natural to us in certain settings as breathing (regardless of gender);
I think, provided they are able to physically and mentally perform the role in which they are trying to obtain, why not? Will there be uncomfortable moments/situations--not unlike any combination of a previously segregated group? Sure--I think, as a species, we can grow past that. At least--I hope!
The reason for barring them entry is that even if they can physically and mentally perform the role their presence hampers the ability of their comrades in arms to complete their duties to optimal efficiency. See the part where mixed sex units have lower discipline and the propensity for females to become pregnant while on duty.
On an interesting side note about he Abu Ghraib/Stanford prison experiment, if memory serves one of the participants in the Stanford experiment, a guard to be exact, was actually one of the guards in the Abu Ghraib prison during those periods of illicit going-ons.
We had ONE combat unit that allowed women in the IDF, and it was for a very specific reason. It didn't effect the quality (i.e., standards) of the rest of the military because it was confined to this unit. They handle some really cool operations, but they are placed in that role for a specific reason. Opening all units to females is going to be a cluster feth of epic proportions. And, by the way, this unit has lower physical requirements (health profile) requirements than any other combat infantry unit, for men AND women. In other words - they reduced the standards of the UNIT, not the GENDER. This makes operational sense. Why? Because the operational requirements fit the unit, NOT the gender.
Unless there is some specific reason why women should be allowed in certain combat units, this is a disaster on all levels waiting to happen.
The reason for barring them entry is that even if they can physically and mentally perform the role their presence hampers the ability of their comrades in arms to complete their duties to optimal efficiency. See the part where mixed sex units have lower discipline and the propensity for females to become pregnant while on duty.
On an interesting side note about he Abu Ghraib/Stanford prison experiment, if memory serves one of the participants in the Stanford experiment, a guard to be exact, was actually one of the guards in the Abu Ghraib prison during those periods of illicit going-ons.
I imagine similar arguments were made to mixed race units back in the day--which like then, this is likely due to the growing pains of a formerly segregated population being introduced into a population where sexual harassment (at least according to the above referenced studies) is back about 20 years.
That is interesting if true about prison experiment guard---although I would find it hard to believe, as the prison experiment was in the very early 70's and included young college males.
In the British army women find them selves in combat frequently. Female medics go out with infantry patrols, female dog handlers search for IEDs, Female ATOs disarm those IEDS etc
Provided that the standards for female soldiers are exactly the same as those for their male counterparts there isn't much of an issue aside from the propaganda value if they are captured. To be honest though women are already in situations where they can be captured or killed, I knew 2 women who have been killed on OPs.
At the end of the day there is no valid reason why women can't serve with teeth arms. The truth is though that they will always be the minority simply because most women will not be able to consitently meet the physical standards required.
CDK wrote: I'd like to point out that the issue isn't so much on being able to fight or not. It's about getting promotions. Because of women not being able to be in combat groups meant they could not get certain promotions. For years they were denied promotions because of it.
Really? Would you like to explain that one, taking into account that competion for enlisted promotion is within MOS, (a mechanic does not compete with an infantryman) and for officers it is within branch and groupings based on function (a guy in the Operations career field doesn't compete against those in Operational Support).
You COULD state that some specific job positions are harder to get without being combat arms (for example a Division Commander), BUT males not in combat arms are also not competitive for those jobs. One of my wife's female friends is an assistant division commander right now by the way. She is an aviator, which is considered combat arms. Females can also be engineers, air defense artillery, and filed artillery which are all combat arms.
So which promotions are females NOT currently able to get?
I Don't really know to be honest. I just heard a piece on the radio about this issue. Some women complained that they could not get the promotion because combat was not open to them. It just made me think that there's more to it that just being able to fight or not. Some issues are not so black and white.
I doubt it's gonna be an issue cause I doubt the ladies are gonna be trying out in droves for the infantry.
From my personal experience managing a 1000 Marine HQ unit's training including physical standards, we had maybe one female that I'd put against the basic male physical fitness test with confidence.
I'll also say that mixed gender units directly screw with unit discipline and over all effectiveness. Dating and sex alone *facepalm* so many NJPs and so much butthurt flying around the barracks.
I'll also say that mixed gender units directly screw with unit discipline and over all effectiveness. Dating and sex alone *facepalm* so many NJPs and so much butthurt flying around the barracks.
Not my experience at all and I have served all my time in mixed units. There are some issues of course but they are minor for the most part.
I'll also say that mixed gender units directly screw with unit discipline and over all effectiveness. Dating and sex alone *facepalm* so many NJPs and so much butthurt flying around the barracks.
Not my experience at all and I have served all my time in mixed units. There are some issues of course but they are minor for the most part.
From the perspective of someone in a fully integrated branch of the US military, yeah I've seen it cause lots of problems with unit cohesion. I've seen spouses abusing their powers to help others (such as a PTL ensuring his hugely overweight wife continually passing), I've seen drama of relationships falling apart affecting the whole unit. I've seen leave games played, where other people get screwed out of their leave because of "couples" messing around with their leave. All in all, in-shop relationships have done nothing but create problems for everyone else. I've seen this in EVERY unit I've been assigned to.
Thank god the Army or at least Ft Hood has kicked integration into awesome mode. There are two stairwells in the barracks I'm in. One is marked females only the other males, the stoats have a camera, as do all the doors that lead to female rooms. Fraternization is strictly prohibited between males and females and after hours a young soldier on CQ has to let you into the stairwell with a key. If this is what integration has led to since I got out, you can fething keep it.
From the perspective of someone in a fully integrated branch of the US military, yeah I've seen it cause lots of problems with unit cohesion. I've seen spouses abusing their powers to help others (such as a PTL ensuring his hugely overweight wife continually passing), I've seen drama of relationships falling apart affecting the whole unit. I've seen leave games played, where other people get screwed out of their leave because of "couples" messing around with their leave. All in all, in-shop relationships have done nothing but create problems for everyone else. I've seen this in EVERY unit I've been assigned to.
From the perspective of someone in a fully integrated branch of the US military, yeah I've seen it cause lots of problems with unit cohesion. I've seen spouses abusing their powers to help others (such as a PTL ensuring his hugely overweight wife continually passing), I've seen drama of relationships falling apart affecting the whole unit. I've seen leave games played, where other people get screwed out of their leave because of "couples" messing around with their leave. All in all, in-shop relationships have done nothing but create problems for everyone else. I've seen this in EVERY unit I've been assigned to.
We must have much more disciplined soldiers then.
We can get into a pissing match about this, but I'm going to avoid that and just operate off the thought that your experience with the matter is limited, or you just didn't pay attention to the affects of having fellow soldiers in relationships with each other, and the impacts to the unit.
I'd love for you to share some of the pro's that can come of it. Especially in relationship to a combat environment.
I'd love for you to share some of the pro's that can come of it. Especially in relationship to a combat environment.
Perhaps it is your own experience that is lacking.
Here is a shattering thought, don't deploy couples together or post them into the same chain of command. If a relationship forms on deployment they form but the exact same thing can happen with homosexual soldiers.
I'd love for you to share some of the pro's that can come of it. Especially in relationship to a combat environment.
Perhaps it is your own experience that is lacking.
Here is a shattering thought, don't deploy couples together or post them into the same chain of command. If a relationship forms on deployment they form but the exact same thing can happen with homosexual soldiers.
My experience is through multiple units ranging from the 8 man units, to 150 man units, from a Flight (Platoon) to MAJCOM HQ across 11 years of service.
None of that at all addresses the concern of couples in the same unit, which was being discussed.
Well my experience is similar, 3 major units and a deployed hospital. All of which were mixed (in fact a couple were heavily weighted towards women). I can only think of one issue and that involved an affair within the chain of command.
Sensible management will, and does, significantly reduce any likely problems.
The reason for barring them entry is that even if they can physically and mentally perform the role their presence hampers the ability of their comrades in arms to complete their duties to optimal efficiency. See the part where mixed sex units have lower discipline and the propensity for females to become pregnant while on duty.
On an interesting side note about he Abu Ghraib/Stanford prison experiment, if memory serves one of the participants in the Stanford experiment, a guard to be exact, was actually one of the guards in the Abu Ghraib prison during those periods of illicit going-ons.
I imagine similar arguments were made to mixed race units back in the day--which like then, this is likely due to the growing pains of a formerly segregated population being introduced into a population where sexual harassment (at least according to the above referenced studies) is back about 20 years.
That is interesting if true about prison experiment guard---although I would find it hard to believe, as the prison experiment was in the very early 70's and included young college males.
There is a large difference between the integration of coloureds and females. Tensions between mixed ethnicities, while possibly disruptive at first, can be socialized away. You can't socialize away a guys drive to be horny, and the only way to get rid of it is castrate him either physically or chemically.
Secondly, there are only two pros for having women in the military; greater manpower pool, and political correctness propaganda. If the greater manpower pool is needed severely enough then let women into non combat non in theater roles so that they can free up men to go fight/be deployed in theater. Those are the only pros out of an idea that has a significant number of cons some of which are important to a military's ability to do it's job with greatest efficiency and cohesion possible.
I saw the Abu Ghraib/Stanford thing in a doc on the Stanford experiment. The last 8 minutes or so went over how fethed up it was that one of the prison guards ended up doing this in real life even after having gone through it in the experiment when he was a young adult. (I think he was 50ish during the abu ghraib thing.)
I heard a really interesting interview about this on the way home, with a member of the legal team representing one of the soldier's currently taking the government to court over it's current policies about women in the army.
The lady didn't expect many women could meet the current standards of front line infantry units. Nor did she believe that standards should be lowered so that women could qualify. The point to her case, and to these reforms, was that presently women in support roles are already exposed to combat. And many of the existing support roles, namely engineers and combat medics, are already exposed to combat. And so commanding officers, when they set up operating units, either attach women specialists and break the 1994 restriction against women in front line roles, or send out men who may be less qualified or already overworked due to other commitments.
The point, basically, is to recognise that women exposed to front line combat is already happening, and to bring some sanity into that.
This whole thread, myself included earlier on, missed the point of these reforms entirely, and lurched off in to debating about women in front line something that isn't happening.
sebster wrote: I heard a really interesting interview about this on the way home, with a member of the legal team representing one of the soldier's currently taking the government to court over it's current policies about women in the army.
The lady didn't expect many women could meet the current standards of front line infantry units. Nor did she believe that standards should be lowered so that women could qualify. The point to her case, and to these reforms, was that presently women in support roles are already exposed to combat. And many of the existing support roles, namely engineers and combat medics, are already exposed to combat. And so commanding officers, when they set up operating units, either attach women specialists and break the 1994 restriction against women in front line roles, or send out men who may be less qualified or already overworked due to other commitments.
The point, basically, is to recognise that women exposed to front line combat is already happening, and to bring some sanity into that.
This whole thread, myself included earlier on, missed the point of these reforms entirely, and lurched off in to debating about women in front line something that isn't happening.
I'll buy that... I did some google-fu just now and there are military blogs that are stating this...
I don't think there are many people who don't recognize that women have been in combat. There are plenty of women who have received combat action ribbons, combat action badges, and awards for valor in combat.
Canada had something of an "Oh my gosh!" moment when Cpt Goddard was killed, the first Canadian women to be killed in combat.
But then again, Canada has no restrictions whatsoever on what roles women can take in the military, as long as they can do their 3 knee pushups they're in!
Hordini wrote: I don't think there are many people who don't recognize that women have been in combat. There are plenty of women who have received combat action ribbons, combat action badges, and awards for valor in combat.
Yeah it's a good thing we will always have someone to look at when we talk about women in combat.
Hordini wrote: I don't think there are many people who don't recognize that women have been in combat. There are plenty of women who have received combat action ribbons, combat action badges, and awards for valor in combat.
Yeah it's a good thing we will always have someone to look at when we talk about women in combat.
We learned about her in Marine Corps boot camp. It was explained in detail that if one of us pulled a "Lynch" by being an incompetent moron who can't even maintain one's weapon and know how to fight back against an enemy attack except by curling up in a truck and crying, that our DIs would pray to the gods of battle and Chesty Puller that we were beheaded on camera quickly so lives weren't risked attempting to rescue our useless hides.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: We learned about her in Marine Corps boot camp. It was explained in detail that if one of us pulled a "Lynch" by being an incompetent moron who can't even maintain one's weapon and know how to fight back against an enemy attack except by curling up in a truck and crying, that our DIs would pray to the gods of battle and Chesty Puller that we were beheaded on camera quickly so lives weren't risked attempting to rescue our useless hides.
Marine DIs still use Chesty Puller references? I find that pretty great.
Hordini wrote: I don't think there are many people who don't recognize that women have been in combat. There are plenty of women who have received combat action ribbons, combat action badges, and awards for valor in combat.
Yeah, it's widely recognised that women have and will continue to be in combat. That's why this isn't about that at all.
It's about the idea that there's a law on the books saying 'don't put women in front line combat units' that's looking increasingly out of date because the formal divide between front line and support units is largely theoretical in an assymetric war. Not only because there's no real front line, but also because many missions undertaken require the use of support troops. Which leads to the haziness of trying to figure out if its legal to attach a female to a mission.
I mean, if the best qualified medic on duty is a woman, is it okay to send her in on a helicopter to pull wounded out of a situation? What if the unit on the ground is still under fire? What if they expect they might come under fire again?
Best to just drop that entirely bad piece of law, and let commanders deploy their troops according to the needs of the situation.
I'm amazed that mixed genders can work together in any job in the world, but as soon as you give them a gun they start fething each other because they can't control themselves?
Get real...
Every job I have ever worked has rules and regulations about couples being in a supervisory position over one another.
d-usa wrote: I'm amazed that mixed genders can work together in any job in the world, but as soon as you give them a gun they start fething each other because they can't control themselves?
Get real...
Every job I have ever worked has rules and regulations about couples being in a supervisory position over one another.
How many of those jobs involved putting you on a boat for six months and preventing you from getting off?
d-usa wrote: I'm amazed that mixed genders can work together in any job in the world, but as soon as you give them a gun they start fething each other because they can't control themselves?
Get real...
Every job I have ever worked has rules and regulations about couples being in a supervisory position over one another.
How many of those jobs involved putting you on a boat for six months and preventing you from getting off?
I've yet to meet a soldier that doesn't get off, even if the sign in the shower says it's prohibited.
d-usa wrote: I've yet to meet a soldier that doesn't get off, even if the sign in the shower says it's prohibited.
Cute. My point was more that combat arms jobs in the military tend to be a bit less like the 9 to 5 of an office than corporate opinion around here apparently thinks.
Beyond the fraternization issue, though, is the simple readiness issue. I'll say it again: if women could reliably make male physical fitness standards, we wouldn't have lowered standards for women in the first place.
d-usa wrote: I've yet to meet a soldier that doesn't get off, even if the sign in the shower says it's prohibited.
Cute. My point was more that combat arms jobs in the military tend to be a bit less like the 9 to 5 of an office than corporate opinion around here apparently thinks.
Yet many armed forces, and jobs where you spend entire days and/or weeks together, have managed without turning into sudden orgies.
Beyond the fraternization issue, though, is the simple readiness issue. I'll say it again: if women could reliably make male physical fitness standards, we wouldn't have lowered standards for women in the first place.
I can see having lower standards if they were for jobs where lower standards are accpetable, but then they should be lower for the men in the same position as well. I agree with the whole "let them be equal if they pass equal tests" part though.
Seaward wrote: How many of those jobs involved putting you on a boat for six months and preventing you from getting off?
What the hell? Women have been serving on naval boats since the 70s. They've been on combat boats, except submarines, since the early 90s.
What decade are you posting from?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: Beyond the fraternization issue, though, is the simple readiness issue. I'll say it again: if women could reliably make male physical fitness standards, we wouldn't have lowered standards for women in the first place.
Please just read the thread. You'll learn all kinds of things.
You'd learn that standards aren't being lowered for women through this. You'd learn any women who isn't capable of meeting the requirements of frontline troops... will still be denied the right to serve. You'd learn this is about recognising that the women who already meet the requirements for their particular specialisations will no longer have an arbitrary 'cannot be assigned to missions supporting front line units' that don't apply to men in the same specialisations as themselves.
sebster wrote: What the hell? Women have been serving on naval boats since the 70s. They've been on combat boats, except submarines, since the early 90s.
What decade are you posting from?
The decade where trains get pulled in the fo'c'sle.
Please just read the thread. You'll learn all kinds of things.
You'd learn that standards aren't being lowered for women through this. You'd learn any women who isn't capable of meeting the requirements of frontline troops... will still be denied the right to serve. You'd learn this is about recognising that the women who already meet the requirements for their particular specialisations will no longer have an arbitrary 'cannot be assigned to missions supporting front line units' that don't apply to men in the same specialisations as themselves.
What on earth are you talking about, sebster? Women are assigned to front line units all the time.
Exactly how many guys with direct US military experience do you need in this thread telling you that most women are not going to be able to meet the necessary physical requirements for your average combat arms MOS?
AustonT wrote: Yeah it's a good thing we will always have someone to look at when we talk about women in combat.
The Captain who got that convoy lost and then ambushed was a man. Clearly, by this logic, men have no place in combat roles. Certainly, no man was every captured by the enemy.
We're really painting an entire gender with a PR fiasco brush drummed up by the Pentagon, to which Lynch had absolutely no knowledge or control?
KalashnikovMarine wrote: We learned about her in Marine Corps boot camp. It was explained in detail that if one of us pulled a "Lynch" by being an incompetent moron who can't even maintain one's weapon and know how to fight back against an enemy attack except by curling up in a truck and crying, that our DIs would pray to the gods of battle and Chesty Puller that we were beheaded on camera quickly so lives weren't risked attempting to rescue our useless hides.
Marine DIs still use Chesty Puller references? I find that pretty great.
Dude do Christians still talk about Jesus? Seriously if a day went by in the Marine Corps where I didn't hear Chesty Puller's name used at least once I was either slumming it at a Navy command, or I was on crew rest and asleep all day.
Hordini wrote: I don't think there are many people who don't recognize that women have been in combat. There are plenty of women who have received combat action ribbons, combat action badges, and awards for valor in combat.
Yeah it's a good thing we will always have someone to look at when we talk about women in combat.
The bottom line is they were very poorly trained, and VERY poorly led. It had nothing to do with the sex of the troopers involved. I've got some personal insight into it I'll share over a cold beer.
I suggest a better picture is this one:
Her last name is Hester if you can't make it out. Look up her story. It is a sin that Hollywood didn't grab that story and run with it.
I will say that this new policy as is, is not a bad thing and in fact is good. It will be used as a first step in an attempt to integrate females into combat arms (infantry and armor specifically). I believe that with all my heart. I also believe that is not a good move. It has nothing to do with unit cohesion. It takes time and effort but trust me, combat arms NCOs and officers will do what they are told and will ensure the troops do too. It has more to do with cost/benefit. I can get into it but it will go way off topic.
AustonT wrote: Hooray for lowered standards! Delta here I come. I had dreamed this day would come.
I've got destroyed knees, a nice old man gut, and now a man papoose to carry TBone in if needed. But I'm a badass veteran at shooting spitwads. Am I qualified?
Thinking back at some of my former chicka girlfriends, yea, you wouldn't want to be on the business end of that.
d-usa wrote:I'm amazed that mixed genders can work together in any job in the world, but as soon as you give them a gun they start fething each other because they can't control themselves?
Get real...
Every job I have ever worked has rules and regulations about couples being in a supervisory position over one another.
I think perhaps you are overestimating the maturity level of the average fighting man and woman.
Hordini wrote: I don't think there are many people who don't recognize that women have been in combat. There are plenty of women who have received combat action ribbons, combat action badges, and awards for valor in combat.
Yeah it's a good thing we will always have someone to look at when we talk about women in combat.
The bottom line is they were very poorly trained, and VERY poorly led. It had nothing to do with the sex of the troopers involved. I've got some personal insight into it I'll share over a cold beer.
I suggest a better picture is this one:
Her last name is Hester if you can't make it out. Look up her story. It is a sin that Hollywood didn't grab that story and run with it.
I will say that this new policy as is, is not a bad thing and in fact is good. It will be used as a first step in an attempt to integrate females into combat arms (infantry and armor specifically). I believe that with all my heart. I also believe that is not a good move. It has nothing to do with unit cohesion. It takes time and effort but trust me, combat arms NCOs and officers will do what they are told and will ensure the troops do too. It has more to do with cost/benefit. I can get into it but it will go way off topic.
In case you hadn't noticed Jake I'm taking this thread less than seriously. The sad reality is that SGT Hester is just another in a long line of brave soldiers that will be remembered by a plaque in a DFAC or a sandwich board at an obstacle course, but PFC Lynch will live in infamy forever.
What on earth are you talking about, sebster? Women are assigned to front line units all the time.
That's right, they are, despite the 1994 law banning it. Which is the whole point of this reform, and something I've now explained three times, and twice now just for your sake..
In all seriousness are you okay? Like, I know we butt heads a lot but it seems like in the last few threads you really just haven't been keeping up with the most basic parts of the conversation. For you to miss the most basic, starting point in this thread, I mean that isn't good. I'm not trying to score points on you here or anything, if you say something I'll lay off.
Exactly how many guys with direct US military experience do you need in this thread telling you that most women are not going to be able to meet the necessary physical requirements for your average combat arms MOS?
None, given I said the same thing in my first post. I latter posted that this is not about lowering standards so women qualify for front line combat units, butabout making sense of the women already qualified in their specialties.
If you'd read and comprehended any of that then you would not have asked that question. But you asked it, so it really does seem like what I've posted in this thread just hasn't sunk in at all. Seriously, are you okay?
sebster wrote: That's right, they are, despite the 1994 law banning it. Which is the whole point of this reform, and something I've now explained three times, and twice now just for your sake..
I'd go back and have someone explain it to you, then, before you start trying to explain it to someone else. The ban on combat arms postings doesn't conflict with the fact that a lot of women find themselves involved in combat in our various two-way ranges, many of them, it must be said, with distinction.
None, given I said the same thing in my first post. I latter posted that this is not about lowering standards so women qualify for front line combat units, butabout making sense of the women already qualified in their specialties.
But none of them are currently in a 'combat' MOS, so why would we need to open those up in order for them to "make sense" in their current career track?
AustonT wrote: In case you hadn't noticed Jake I'm taking this thread less than seriously. The sad reality is that SGT Hester is just another in a long line of brave soldiers that will be remembered by a plaque in a DFAC or a sandwich board at an obstacle course, but PFC Lynch will live in infamy forever.
Yeah, I think I missed the subtlety there. I'd not heard of Sgt. Hester previously, making the point doubly true I suppose.
Ouze wrote: The Captain who got that convoy lost and then ambushed was a man. Clearly, by this logic, men have no place in combat roles. Certainly, no man was every captured by the enemy.
That was a pretty bad example to use there to anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of the two cases involved.
I recieved this today and thought I would share it.
My take on the latest decision by SECDEF and JCS on allowing women into Combat Arms specialties…BLUF….will be a disaster for our military….allow me to expand:
#1. This is an open letter to my former students (hundreds of US Army Officers), friends currently in service or retired and civilian relations and friends….
1a. my bone fides….I spent over 20 years in military service, both US Navy and US Army, in both Combat Arms and Combat Service units…and then 10 years training students to become US Army Officers….so I do have some knowledge and definitely a “dog in this hunt”….
1b. I welcome comments from my friends and former students, however, I caution my active duty friends that this decision has been made, so be cautious about what you write….there are always a few BF’s out there who may try to use your comments against you
2. Folks, first let me say that many of the women I’ve served with and trained are some of the best soldiers this country has produced. I have little doubt that my daughter could serve honorably as an officer in in our Armed Forces. I also recognize that many of our female soldiers are involved in combat actions, and perform courageously. But there is a huge difference between being a troop in a convoy or FOB and a combat rifleman on patrol.
3. Less than 1% of our citizens serve or have served in our Armed Forces. Let me put it bluntly, women will die exponentially if they are placed within Army combat arms units. We are just begging for trouble with this new law. Civilians see our actions on TV and think that we are like SWAT units on steroids. SWAT units don’t spend months out in a Combat Outpost (COP) without toilet facilities. Imagine your daughter or sister assigned to a unit that is required to spend several months out in the bush without separate sleeping or restroom facilities? When US civilians welcome Bisexual bathrooms then I believe that we may be closer to being ready for this change.
4. I believe that it will also result in more sexual harassment issues and/or complaints…also how do we replace a female soldier in a COP who happens to get pregnant on the line?
5. I could probably embrace this more if the Army Standards for men and women were the same. I just administered (probably) my 120th Army Physical Fitness test today…..in order to pass a woman needs to complete 19 pushups versus a male’s 42, and a two mile run by a woman is successful at just under 19 minutes, while her male counterpart has to beat her by 3 minutes. There are other physical standards required by Combat Arms units. IF the requirements were the same and are not watered down, I would feel more comfortable supporting this move. Unfortunately, I don’t think that that action meets with this Administration’s desires or end-state. “The Incredibles” anybody?
6. I expect that some combat positions, especially in our sister services could open up without reducing combat readiness. Perhaps piloting an F-16 or being in charge of a naval gunnery section would work. Even an Apache gunner in the Army could be female without impacting Readiness. Alas, I believe that a lot of reasoned, considered and accurate suggestions will be waived away with the political correctness wand wielded by our current government.
In that case I say sorry, and FIDO. I welcome any feedback from you guys and gals in the field.
Hooah
I do not support this. If they go through with it, there will be a negative impact on the combat effectiveness of any given unit. Guaranteed, especially in infantry. I have all respect for female service members, but due to everything already discussed, it would be a mistake.
The following measures MAY reduce that impact on combat effectiveness:
1) Females must meet same exact standards, to include the ability to conduct long movements with heavy combat loads (can be in excess of 100 lbs), be able to execute all battle drills while tired, and deal with sleep deprivation while pulling security after long marches and maneuvers.
2) Total, 100%, zero tolerance policy on relationships or flirting between troops within the same unit. Probably for troops in the same unit at least 4 echelons removed (no relationships within the same company level in most cases). No relationships period while deployed overseas.
3) Women need to adjust to the mores and values of the unit they are going to. I know it sounds silly, but I would argue they need to have the same haircuts as well to assist in unit cohesion.
They can’t get this straight in support units yet, never mind combat arms.
If the services decide to reduce standards to accommodate women in combat arms units, it will have a HUGE impact when we fight the next conflict on a level with Vietnam or the Korean War.
On an episode of Cops, they had a heavy set guy claim a .22 pistol round bounced off is leg, and an officer on the scene confirmed he had seen that before. Must have been a ricochet or a very weird vector.
I'm glad that's changing, though. Other than the fact that I think they should obviously meet the same requirements that exist for men at the moment, I disagree with nearly every goofy reason that's been put forth that claims that women shouldn't be allowed "in combat".
They were never claiming that women don't see combat. Plenty of women have been awarded combat action ribbons/badges and awards for valor.
What they were doing is not allowing women to have military occupational specialties that were considered "combat arms" (usually things like infantry, armor, artillery, etc.), and they also were not assigning women to combat arms units below brigade level. Nobody was ever pretending that women didn't actually see combat.
I'm glad that's changing, though. Other than the fact that I think they should obviously meet the same requirements that exist for men at the moment, I disagree with nearly every goofy reason that's been put forth that claims that women shouldn't be allowed "in combat".
Yeah, because creating and then awarding out a new award recognizing combat action (CAB or Combat Action Badge) for non-infantry troops and awarding that to females (and males) for combat action meant they were ignoring that those individuals participated in combat. Not to mention awards for valor in combat given to females (like SGT Hester shown previously).
At least attempt to make your points based on facts.
Dude, no one is being nasty and you don't have to know everything a serviceman knows. If you had read the rest of the thread, you would already know that the Pentagon was never trying to hide that women have been in combat overseas and many have received recognition for it. Several of us have mentioned it several times in this thread.
I find the statements about "everyone acknowledges women have been in combat." statements laughable. I have known a few women who were disability injured in combat, fire fights, etc.
Everytime they go to the VA for an appointment, they get the same "are you waiting for your husband?" attitude and looks of disbelief and denial of medical care for what could not possibly have been a combat related injury because "women are not allowed in combat".
Seems to me some very open acknowledgement of "yes women see combat." is the least they can do.
Shadowseer_Kim wrote: I find the statements about "everyone acknowledges women have been in combat." statements laughable. I have known a few women who were disability injured in combat, fire fights, etc.
Everytime they go to the VA for an appointment, they get the same "are you waiting for your husband?" attitude and looks of disbelief and denial of medical care for what could not possibly have been a combat related injury because "women are not allowed in combat".
Seems to me some very open acknowledgement of "yes women see combat." is the least they can do.
I suspect there is more to those stories than we're getting.
Shadowseer_Kim wrote: I find the statements about "everyone acknowledges women have been in combat." statements laughable. I have known a few women who were disability injured in combat, fire fights, etc.
Everytime they go to the VA for an appointment, they get the same "are you waiting for your husband?" attitude and looks of disbelief and denial of medical care for what could not possibly have been a combat related injury because "women are not allowed in combat".
Seems to me some very open acknowledgement of "yes women see combat." is the least they can do.
Women make up about 15% of the active duty force. Unlike males (who tend to have a distinct haircut and other traits), when out of uniform they look strangely like female civilians as they wear makeup and let their hair down. When you add in the small percent relative to males, and the fact that out of uniform they are not evidently soldiers, it happens. Heck, in my personal life when my wife and I are out someplace often I get mistaken for the active duty person and she the spouse though at this point the opposite is true (we were both active duty the first 10 years we were married). I still keep a military haircut and am in somewhat decent shape, and she has long hair and is very pretty.
In short, being mistaken for the wife of a trooper is NO indication that anyone doesn't acknowledge women have been and are in combat.
Honestly, unless you work at a large VA I am VERY surprised you claim to know "a few women who were disability injured in combat, fire fights, etc. " The percentage of women wounded, like the percentage of women in the military, is pretty low. For a civilian to know "a few women who were disability injured in combat, fire fights, etc" is very surprising to me. According to this NYT editorial, about 800 women have been wounded out of the 1.4 million active duty troops... http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/04/opinion/women-in-combat.html?_r=0 Pretty impressive if you know a few of those 800.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I was REALLY hoping we wouldn't see this, and frankly surprised to see it so soon.
GEN Dempsey, Chairman JCS wrote:
He added: “Importantly, though, if we do decide that a particular standard is so high that a woman couldn't make it, the burden is now on the service to come back and explain to the secretary, why is it that high? Does it really have to be that high? With the direct combat exclusion provision in place, we never had to have that conversation.”
Ok, I have been reading tweets, many say that they do not want women in combat. Especially if they ar mother. I agree that women should be held to the same standard as men when it comes to fitness.
But why would people not want to see mother in combat, but not fathers. what is the difference?
Seaward wrote: That's all great until some forward-thinking feminists decide that not enough women are making the cut and start demanding lowered standards.
Pretty much the reason the military shouldn't be an EOE, and yet is.
They could have at least waited until the end of FY 13 to see how Ranger School went, even with them hand holding the females through I'm sure it will be illuminating to see how females do in RTB.
Some perspective from a friend of mine, her credentials are a Marine Corps sergeant, two combat tours and a CAR (Combat Action Ribbon)
The military isn't an occupation where standards should be altered to "fit" genders for "gender equality" (Or really, "equal gender representation" is what they're trying to go for). The fact of the matter is this occupation is hard on the body as it is on the mind. If a female has the capability to preform at the same level as their male counter part, by all means we can use another body in combat.
But this isn't a sales gig where a male and a female are competing to get above a quota - they're hacking 80+ pounds of gear on 12 hour patrols while taking fire and maneuvering through urban environments.
It's bad enough we have lower physical standards for the females that "make them equal" to their male counter parts for career advancement. A 300 point female fitness test is NOT equal to a 300 point male fitness. If we want to be equal we need to compete at the same level and stop worrying about a quota to keep females in the military. We should only have the ones that are actually qualified for the job in.
I know many female Fire Fighters that would never dream of arguing for lower standards for themselves because their occupation REQUIRES their standards across the gender board. Bunker pants & O2 tanks weigh the same for both genders, just like my flak jacket, rifle & pack weigh the same for both genders. Don't turn the military in to a social experiment for the sake of "gender equality", we're going to waste a lot of tax payers money physically and mentally breaking a lot of females trying to train them for this and let me tell ya from experience- the VA's women's health care system is desperately lacking, so be prepared to see even more vets that can't get help because this wasn't thought all the way through.
We need to stop this worry of whether a female can "advance her career". Who gives a crap about the "career", we need mission accomplishment. THAT is the purpose of a military.
And some more excellent points on the subject from another female Marine, it is worth pointing out that our females get that extra month of basic infantry training we all do in addition to the three months of fairly tough boot camp, so if anyone's got the girl power required for infantry posting I'd be putting female leathernecks to the front of the line. I can also vouch personally for the gal I quoted above. She's got a hell of a right hook and is a crack shot with a rifle.
http://www.westernjournalism.com/the-problems-of-women-in-combat-from-a-female-combat-vet/
Fallujah Iraq Dec 8 2004 1 The Problems of Women in Combat From a Female Combat Vet
It’s not all about qualification. I’m speaking as a female Marine Iraq war vet who did serve in the combat zone doing entry checkpoint duty in Fallujah, and we worked with the grunts daily for that time. All the branches still have different standards for females and males. Why? Because most women wouldn’t even qualify to be in the military if they didn’t have separate standards. Men and women are different, but those pushing women into combat don’t want to admit that truth. They huff and puff about how women can do whatever men can do, but it just ain’t so. We’re built differently, and it doesn’t matter that one particular woman could best one particular man. The best woman is still no match for the best man, and most of the men she’d be fireman-carrying off the battlefield will be at least 100 lbs heavier than her with their gear on.
Women are often great shooters but can’t run in 50-80 lbs of gear as long, hard, or fast as men. Military training is hard enough on men’s bodies; it’s harder on women’s. And until women stop menstruating, there will always be an uphill battle for staying level and strong at all times. No one wants to talk about the fact that in the days before a woman’s cycle, she loses half her strength, to say nothing of the emotional ups and downs that affect judgment. And how would you like fighting through PMS symptoms while clearing a town or going through a firefight? Then there are the logistics of making all the accommodations for women in the field, from stopping the convoy to pee or because her cycle started to stripping down to get hosed off after having to go into combat with full MOP gear when there’s a biological threat.
This is to say nothing of unit cohesion, which is imperative and paramount, especially in the combat fields. When preparing for battle, the last thing on your mind should be sex; but you put men and women in close quarters together, and human nature is what it is (this is also why the repeal of DADT is so damaging). It doesn’t matter what the rules are. The Navy proved that when they started allowing women on ship. What happened? They were having sex and getting pregnant, ruining unit cohesion (not to mention derailing the operations because they’d have to change course to get them off ship.)
When I deployed, we’d hardly been in the country a few weeks before one of our females had to be sent home because she’d gotten pregnant (nice waste of training, not to mention taxpayer money that paid for it). That’s your military readiness? Our enemies are laughing – “Thanks for giving us another vulnerability, USA!”
Then there are relationships. Whether it’s a consensual relationship, unwanted advances, or sexual assault, they all destroy unit cohesion. No one is talking about the physical and emotional stuff that goes along with men and women together. A good relationship can foment jealousy and the perception of favoritism. A relationship goes sour, and suddenly one loses faith in the very person who may need to drag one off the field of battle. A sexual assault happens, and a woman not only loses faith in her fellows, but may fear them. A vindictive man paints a woman as easy, and she loses the respect of her peers. A vindictive woman wants to destroy a man’s career with a false accusation (yes, folks, this happens too); and it’s poison to the unit. All this happens before the fighting even begins.
Yes, it is surprising that out of only 800 or so wounded females from 10 years of war that you know 3, especially if you only know soldiers from one state's NG and are not even in the unit. Add in that the National Guard over all (all states) has taken about only 1/5 of the total wounded from both and it is even more surprising. That 1/5th is mostly Iraq. Afghanistan is about 10% NG casualties.
Seaward wrote: I'd go back and have someone explain it to you, then, before you start trying to explain it to someone else. The ban on combat arms postings doesn't conflict with the fact that a lot of women find themselves involved in combat in our various two-way ranges, many of them, it must be said, with distinction.
That's right, they are facing combat. Which is why it makes sense to take away the law saying they're not supposed to be in combat. How are you not getting this?
But none of them are currently in a 'combat' MOS, so why would we need to open those up in order for them to "make sense" in their current career track?
If they're good enough, they can be. Likely few, or none, will be, so nothing will change.
Except that a stupid law on the books saying 'don't put women into combat' will go away. And that will be good, because it will allow commanders to attach the most appropriate specialist to a unit, without any concern about possible repercussions from a badly outdated 1994 law.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: That's all great until some forward-thinking feminists decide that not enough women are making the cut and start demanding lowered standards.
This 'we must resist this reform because at some point down the line someone could insist on something stupid' is getting to be a really boring line of debate.
Debate this reform, as it exists today. If that stupid reform ever comes along... then debate than then.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Every drunk suicidal patient that I run into was special forces.
On any wargaming board about 2/3 of the posters are active or retired soldiers.
Seaward wrote: I'd go back and have someone explain it to you, then, before you start trying to explain it to someone else. The ban on combat arms postings doesn't conflict with the fact that a lot of women find themselves involved in combat in our various two-way ranges, many of them, it must be said, with distinction.
That's right, they are facing combat. Which is why it makes sense to take away the law saying they're not supposed to be in combat. How are you not getting this?
Nothing in the law stops them from being in combat! They just can't enlist in the freaking infantry or try out for special forces. How are you not getting that? If the law prevented them from being in combat they wouldn't be deployed in the first place.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Every drunk suicidal patient that I run into was special forces.
On any wargaming board about 2/3 of the posters are active or retired soldiers.
I find a lot of soldiers of various stripes enjoy wargaming and other nerdy pursuits. I know we're all supposed to be mouth breathing robots who live only to kill and all but really we're regular folks just like you who live only to kill.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I find a lot of soldiers of various stripes enjoy wargaming and other nerdy pursuits. I know we're all supposed to be mouth breathing robots who live only to kill and all but really we're regular folks just like you who live only to kill.
This one guy I know played a lot of M:TG, 40k and, somehow, the Sailor Moon CCG with a lot of other Marines while he was enlisted.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I find a lot of soldiers of various stripes enjoy wargaming and other nerdy pursuits. I know we're all supposed to be mouth breathing robots who live only to kill and all but really we're regular folks just like you who live only to kill.
This one guy I know played a lot of M:TG, 40k and, somehow, the Sailor Moon CCG with a lot of other Marines while he was enlisted.
...huh, I mean my barracks had a D&D sit in table with pre built chars ready to go every weekend and stuff like that, but the Sailor Moon CCG I would not have called.
Ahtman wrote: Just out of curiosity, about how much of the population do you think considers our soldiers "mouth breathing robots who only live to kill"?
Sure you see the occasionally get a pacifist hippy, but the vast majority don't have that attitude.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I find a lot of soldiers of various stripes enjoy wargaming and other nerdy pursuits. I know we're all supposed to be mouth breathing robots who live only to kill and all but really we're regular folks just like you who live only to kill.
This one guy I know played a lot of M:TG, 40k and, somehow, the Sailor Moon CCG with a lot of other Marines while he was enlisted.
...huh, I mean my barracks had a D&D sit in table with pre built chars ready to go every weekend and stuff like that, but the Sailor Moon CCG I would not have called.
Apparently it was being given away, and the field can be very boring.
Ahtman wrote: Just out of curiosity, about how much of the population do you think considers our soldiers "mouth breathing robots who only live to kill"?
Sure you see the occasionally get a pacifist hippy, but the vast majority don't have that attitude.
sar·casm
/ˈsärˌkazəm/
Noun
The use of irony to mock or convey contempt.
I have been spit on, called a baby killer, etc, but I don't think many people hold that thought or opinion. Even amongst the filthy hippies.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I find a lot of soldiers of various stripes enjoy wargaming and other nerdy pursuits. I know we're all supposed to be mouth breathing robots who live only to kill and all but really we're regular folks just like you who live only to kill.
This one guy I know played a lot of M:TG, 40k and, somehow, the Sailor Moon CCG with a lot of other Marines while he was enlisted.
...huh, I mean my barracks had a D&D sit in table with pre built chars ready to go every weekend and stuff like that, but the Sailor Moon CCG I would not have called.
Apparently it was being given away, and the field can be very boring.
I've never been /that/ bored in the field, and I made a checkers set of of rocks while I was at MCAS Yuma at one point.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Nothing in the law stops them from being in combat! They just can't enlist in the freaking infantry or try out for special forces. How are you not getting that? If the law prevented them from being in combat they wouldn't be deployed in the first place.
And to go through this one more fething time... the rule as written is a nonsense. It prevents women being attached to front line military units, even though many of the people attached to those units aren't front line infantry but various kinds of support, medics etc... who come from units in which women can serve. Right now the rule as written means these women, even if they are the best qualified for the role, cannot be attached. Meanwhile they can complete building sweeps and other actual stuff with guns and bad guys, they just can't sit in a helicopter and move out to the front line to provide first aid.
When you get a law like that that simply doesn't make sense in the modern environment, you change it. It's just that fething simple really.
I find a lot of soldiers of various stripes enjoy wargaming and other nerdy pursuits. I know we're all supposed to be mouth breathing robots who live only to kill and all but really we're regular folks just like you who live only to kill.
What the hell are you on about? Who said anything living only to kill? Why would robots breath at all? You talk the language of the crazy hobo, and I do not.
And yeah, the military in general is probably pretty strongly correlated with nerdy pursuits, and with wargaming especially. But you know what else is correlated with nerdy pursuits and wargames? Being a fat guy living in his parent's basement. And yet I've met maybe two people in my whole time on wargaming threads who said they were fat guys who lived in their parent's basement... but every other nerd is a current or former soldier.
It's almost as if... some people on the internet liked to tell stories about themselves.
And to go through this one more fething time... the rule as written is a nonsense. It prevents women being attached to front line military units, even though many of the people attached to those units aren't front line infantry but various kinds of support, medics etc... who come from units in which women can serve. Right now the rule as written means these women, even if they are the best qualified for the role, cannot be attached. Meanwhile they can complete building sweeps and other actual stuff with guns and bad guys, they just can't sit in a helicopter and move out to the front line to provide first aid.
When you get a law like that that simply doesn't make sense in the modern environment, you change it. It's just that fething simple really.
Wrong, it prevents them from being assigned. And there IS a difference. They have been being attached regularly, and that isn't new.
Service members are eligible to be assigned to all positions for which they are qualified, except that women shall be excluded from assignment to units below the brigade level whose primary mission is to engage in direct combat on the ground.
Ahtman wrote: Just out of curiosity, about how much of the population do you think considers our soldiers "mouth breathing robots who only live to kill"?
Sure you see the occasionally get a pacifist hippy, but the vast majority don't have that attitude.
sebster wrote: And to go through this one more fething time... the rule as written is a nonsense. It prevents women being attached to front line military units, even though many of the people attached to those units aren't front line infantry but various kinds of support, medics etc... who come from units in which women can serve. Right now the rule as written means these women, even if they are the best qualified for the role, cannot be attached. Meanwhile they can complete building sweeps and other actual stuff with guns and bad guys, they just can't sit in a helicopter and move out to the front line to provide first aid.
Medics are organic to the combat arms battalion and lower. Which means they are not attached, they are assigned and form a part of unit organization. FM 3-21.20 identifies the Mdeical Platoon as an organizational element subordinate to Headquarters and Headquarters Company in the light infantry battalion. The Supply SGT, Armorer, and NBC NCO at the Infantry Company. Are other non-infantry MOS' assigned organically to the Infantry Battalion. Medics, supply, and NBC are all female dense MOS'. The infantry brigade can supplement the medical and logistical readiness of its infantry battalions with a Health Services Battalion or a Forward Support Battalion but these elements do not fall under the provisions of the DGCAR.
Army G1 sums up the policy change:
Army G1 wrote:At present, DoD’s Direct Combat Assignment Rule (DGCAR) policy states that women service members can be assigned to all positions for which they are qualified, except within units below the brigade level whose primary mission is to engage in direct combat on the ground. The Army co-location assignment restriction further states that women can serve in any officer or enlisted specialty or position, except in those specialties, positions or units (battalion size or smaller) which are assigned a routine mission to engage in direct combat, or which collocate routinely with units assigned a direct combat mission.
The exception to DGCAR effectively opens approximately 755 Army positions across nine Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs) to women. The Army will begin an assessment period of the exception to policy on 14 May 12; Soldiers will have received orders to the participating units and will report on that day. All women Soldiers assigned will be company grade officers in the grade of 2LT-CPT or noncommissioned officers in the grade of E5-E7. The goal is to assign 35 Women Soldiers to these positions per each BCT. (For more details on participating BCTs and open MOSs, reference the Q&A section of this PAG.)
I find a lot of soldiers of various stripes enjoy wargaming and other nerdy pursuits. I know we're all supposed to be mouth breathing robots who live only to kill and all but really we're regular folks just like you who live only to kill.
What the hell are you on about? Who said anything living only to kill? Why would robots breath at all? You talk the language of the crazy hobo, and I do not.
And yeah, the military in general is probably pretty strongly correlated with nerdy pursuits, and with wargaming especially. But you know what else is correlated with nerdy pursuits and wargames? Being a fat guy living in his parent's basement. And yet I've met maybe two people in my whole time on wargaming threads who said they were fat guys who lived in their parent's basement... but every other nerd is a current or former soldier.
It's almost as if... some people on the internet liked to tell stories about themselves.[/quote
sar·casm /ˈsärˌkazəm/ Noun The use of irony to mock or convey contempt.
And yeah, the military in general is probably pretty strongly correlated with nerdy pursuits, and with wargaming especially. But you know what else is correlated with nerdy pursuits and wargames? Being a fat guy living in his parent's basement. And yet I've met maybe two people in my whole time on wargaming threads who said they were fat guys who lived in their parent's basement... but every other nerd is a current or former soldier.
Hey, I'm a fat bearded nerd who, while I don't live in my parents basement, does not go outside if there isn't a direct reason to. The fact that many people would be proud of their military service and not proud of their manchild status would seem to be the reason for your perceptions.
sar·casm
/ˈsärˌkazəm/
Noun
The use of irony to mock or convey contempt.
failure
fail·ure
[feyl-yer]
noun
1. an act or instance of failing or proving unsuccessful; lack of success: His attempt at sarcasm over the internet was a failure.
You might also want to look at Poe's Law when considering taking ridiculious positions without going to greater lengths to indicate that you are indeed joking.
It doesn't come across as sarcasm for two reasons:
1. Sarcasm can be very difficult to pull of in a text based medium. A great deal of the conveyance of sarcasm comes from non-verbal language and tone.
2. It sounds like a position, attitude, and argument you would make. It is less likely you would make a joke about it, so it is more believable that you would hold that belief than to joke about it.
sar·casm
/ˈsärˌkazəm/
Noun
The use of irony to mock or convey contempt.
failure
fail·ure
[feyl-yer]
noun
1. an act or instance of failing or proving unsuccessful; lack of success: His attempt at sarcasm over the internet was a failure.
You might also want to look at Poe's Law when considering taking ridiculous positions without going to greater lengths to indicate that you are indeed joking.
It doesn't come across as sarcasm for two reasons:
1. Sarcasm can be very difficult to pull of in a text based medium. A great deal of the conveyance of sarcasm comes from non-verbal language and tone.
2. It sounds like a position, attitude, and argument you would make. It is less likely you would make a joke about it, so it is more believable that you would hold that belief than to joke about it.
I'll make sure to apply tags in the future to wildly outlandish statements that wouldn't be held seriously by anyone just for people who struggle with such things like you. Don't worry Ahtman. One day you'll get what everyone's laughing about.
And if you're actually applying number two to me, that you think I'd actually think something like that, you clearly don't read my posts very much. Or anyone on Dakka's for that matter because I can't think of a single poster who'd argue the position that the majority of civilians think the military is a bunch of unthinking murder machines. Thus why it's a joke, because in it's most basic form it's exaggerated to the point of lunacy. As to going to greater lengths to indicate I'm not serious a string of words like "mouth breathing robots who live only to kill" is hard to take greater lengths beyond. Maybe if I'd added "jack booted baby killers" in there some where.
sar·casm
/ˈsärˌkazəm/
Noun
The use of irony to mock or convey contempt.
failure
fail·ure
[feyl-yer]
noun
1. an act or instance of failing or proving unsuccessful; lack of success: His attempt at sarcasm over the internet was a failure.
You might also want to look at Poe's Law when considering taking ridiculous positions without going to greater lengths to indicate that you are indeed joking.
It doesn't come across as sarcasm for two reasons:
1. Sarcasm can be very difficult to pull of in a text based medium. A great deal of the conveyance of sarcasm comes from non-verbal language and tone.
2. It sounds like a position, attitude, and argument you would make. It is less likely you would make a joke about it, so it is more believable that you would hold that belief than to joke about it.
I'll make sure to apply tags in the future to wildly outlandish statements that wouldn't be held seriously by anyone just for people who struggle with such things like you. Don't worry Ahtman. One day you'll get what everyone's laughing about.
Except no offense but I don't find you to be that funny in comparison to other posters on this board so I'm not sure even the laughing statement is true, unless I'm the odd one out and everyone else thinks you're some kind of comedic genius.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I'll make sure to apply tags in the future to wildly outlandish statements that wouldn't be held seriously by anyone
You don't have to go far to find service members with a "you are either a soldier or you aren't mentality", and you can find about 500 books on the subject as well. Saying no one has the attitude is either incredibly naive or delusional. Cops run into the same problem.
Ahtman wrote: You don't have to go far to find service members with a "you are either a soldier or you aren't mentality", and you can find about 500 books on the subject as well. Saying no one has the attitude is either incredibly naive or delusional. Cops run into the same problem.
As would accountants, I imagine. After all, you either are or you are not an accountant. I'm not really aware of any non-binary states of being.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I'll make sure to apply tags in the future to wildly outlandish statements that wouldn't be held seriously by anyone
You don't have to go far to find service members with a "you are either a soldier or you aren't mentality", and you can find about 500 books on the subject as well. Saying no one has the attitude is either incredibly naive or delusional. Cops run into the same problem.
Service Before Self is one of our Core Values in the Air Force. It means that you are an Airman before anything else. I find that a lot of our problems in the Air Force are brought about by people who forget that, or never learned it in the first place.
That being said, I have no idea how it relates to what he posted, and yes, it obviously was sarcasm.
djones520 wrote: That being said, I have no idea how it relates to what he posted
You don't understand about how pointing out that a well known sociological and psycholical event in which soldiers begin to think anyone who isn't a soldier is against them relates to why KM's statement may not be taken as sarcasm?
djones520 wrote: That being said, I have no idea how it relates to what he posted
You don't understand about how pointing out that a well known sociological and psycholical event in which soldiers begin to think anyone who isn't a soldier is against them relates to why KM's statement may not be taken as sarcasm?
In that context I see it now, I was looking at it from a differant point of view, which related more towards what I posted in how we look at ourselves.
Ahtman wrote: Not really. That is ok, a statement this ridiculous shows you don't grasp the fundamentals of what is being discussed.
It appears to be a bunch of dudes with absolutely no frame of reference attempting to tell current and prior service members about the military.
Your "no one really understands but us" actually strengthens the argument. You would understand that if you understood the basic concept, which, you obliviously don't. It is actually a serious problem that can cause all sorts of distress and issues for servicemen. It also ignores that a lot of the research was/is done by *gasp* servicemen and women.
Ahtman wrote: Your "no one really understands but us" actually strengthens the argument. You would understand that if you understood the basic concept, which, you obliviously don't. It is actually a serious problem that can cause all sorts of distress and issues for servicemen. It also ignores that a lot of the research was/is done by *gasp* servicemen and women.
Sorry. I'm afraid I'm going to have to insist that most civilians do not understand the military better than members of the military.
Ahtman wrote: Your "no one really understands but us" actually strengthens the argument. You would understand that if you understood the basic concept, which, you obliviously don't. It is actually a serious problem that can cause all sorts of distress and issues for servicemen. It also ignores that a lot of the research was/is done by *gasp* servicemen and women.
Sorry. I'm afraid I'm going to have to insist that most civilians do not understand the military better than members of the military.
There's a certain element that rings true in the concept tha civilians don't really understand military life. It leaves out the part where a large amount of former service members ARE civilians, first term turnover is more common than reenlistment, and retirees trough age or medical. It's a but like saying you can't really understand what it's like to be homeless until you've been homeless. You can conceptualize sure, but the gap between reality and concept is pretty wide.
It's not to say civilians don't understand the life and pressures involved, it's more to say its unlikely. Rather than creating an us them mentality, it should be used to point out a cultural: subcultural divide that is both real and pronounced.
AustonT wrote: It's not to say civilians don't understand the life and pressures involved, it's more to say its unlikely. Rather than creating an us them mentality, it should be used to point out a cultural: subcultural divide that is both real and pronounced.
and such a divide is also potentially dangerous/unhealthy for our society.
AustonT wrote: It's not to say civilians don't understand the life and pressures involved, it's more to say its unlikely. Rather than creating an us them mentality, it should be used to point out a cultural: subcultural divide that is both real and pronounced.
and such a divide is also potentially dangerous/unhealthy for our society.
Monster Rain wrote: Possibly it's that the people he's specifically referring to in this context don't seem to know what they are talking about.
I don't often agree with Seaward, but I think he's spot on here.
Okay, so specific people (Ahtman?) can't judge because they haven't been part of the group, but some other people who aren't here can make the judgement even if they haven't been [part of the group he is defending? Is that the jist of it?
AustonT wrote: It's not to say civilians don't understand the life and pressures involved, it's more to say its unlikely. Rather than creating an us them mentality, it should be used to point out a cultural: subcultural divide that is both real and pronounced.
and such a divide is also potentially dangerous/unhealthy for our society.
Care to tease out that thought?
I will try, but I will admit it is only a half-baked feeling. Vast oversimplification ahead! Let's say you have group A, who has a monopoly on force, and group B who has only token force. Do you want Group A to get to a point where they can no longer relate to the Group B and feel that Group B is in fact a seperate entity than group A? What can Group A ever do to stop Group B from doing whatever the heck it wants? The system only works if Group A and Group B feel like they are part of the same "whole". If they feel disconnect from each other, why stay as one "whole"?
AustonT wrote: It's not to say civilians don't understand the life and pressures involved, it's more to say its unlikely. Rather than creating an us them mentality, it should be used to point out a cultural: subcultural divide that is both real and pronounced.
and such a divide is also potentially dangerous/unhealthy for our society.
I'd like to hear more about this.
Monster Rain wrote: Possibly it's that the people he's specifically referring to in this context don't seem to know what they are talking about.
I don't often agree with Seaward, but I think he's spot on here.
Yep. I don't honestly see the issue with the "You either are a soldier or you aren't a soldier" mentality. Nor do I see my quip as an extension of that mentality. Because you either served or you're some unprintable civilian. You either know, or you have at best second hand knowledge and probably more like third or forth hand.
Meanwhile my sarcastic remark was taking to the extreme the common CIVILIAN mentality that we give up our individuality upon entering the service, or that we're all just a bunch of rednecks.
I actually just had a conversation with a civilian who was upset about how "exclusionary" the Marine Corps is. We have special greetings for each other and groups to meet with other Marines, presumably we have a secret handshake, etc. I still fail to see how being exclusionary is a bad thing, we don't disbar any one from membership by color, creed or sex, you want to learn the hand shake visit your local recruiter and pay your "club dues"
AustonT wrote: It's not to say civilians don't understand the life and pressures involved, it's more to say its unlikely. Rather than creating an us them mentality, it should be used to point out a cultural: subcultural divide that is both real and pronounced.
and such a divide is also potentially dangerous/unhealthy for our society.
Care to tease out that thought?
I will try, but I will admit it is only a half-baked feeling. Vast oversimplification ahead! Let's say you have group A, who has a monopoly on force, and group B who has only token force. Do you want Group A to get to a point where they can no longer relate to the Group B and feel that Group B is in fact a seperate entity than group A? What can Group A ever do to stop Group B from doing whatever the heck it wants? The system only works if Group A and Group B feel like they are part of the same "whole". If they feel disconnect from each other, why stay as one "whole"?
Granted, pretty half-baked.
Because the Marine Corps hasn't managed to pick out an island to form it's own nation on? I get that it's half baked but America especially is filled with cultural divides. State to state, region to region, never mind the various ethnic cultures in various locations, it doesn't stop any of us from being Americans.
While I get that it's a generalization. Group A comes from Group B. It lives beside and amongst them in concurrent but not seperate environments. Group A can relate to Group B the danger really lies in Group A not providing the tools for Group B to relate to Group A.
It's danger then becomes that Group B, unable to relate to Group A begins to fear and despise Group A and it's monopoly on force. Attacking them through peaceful means like legislation and financing; Group A eventually becomes so threatened by Group B it siezes power. Also known as "the Roman Empire" pre Germanic inclusion of course.
So, I think we can all agree that it is bad. The question is, what tools do we need to make sure Group A and Group B stay together for the good of the "whole"?
Which is odd, because I am not judging, just talking about real, recorded psychological phenomena. Nowhere did I say anything remotely in the area of judging soldiers, or claim that all soldiers have this problem. In fact, most do not, at least to the level where it becomes a problem.
In extreme cases where the military feels as if it doesn't need to be beholden to anyone, especially those idiot civilians who don't know anything, it can lead to serious problems. In other countries is has lead to coups.
On more personal levels, and really the type being talked about, the ability to relate only to other soldiers can cause rifts in friendships, divorce, high job turnover rate, alcholism, feelings of isolation, and in extreme cases (such as mixed with PTSD) suicide or lashing out at loved ones. There are people in the service that think that if they aren't in their platoon then they must hate them, just as their are cops that have trouble trusting anyone who also isn't a cop.
We aren't talking about recognizing different groups, we are talking about when it becomes "I am in group A and anyone not in Group A is either out to get me or might be".
Easy E wrote: So, I think we can all agree that it is bad. The question is, what tools do we need to make sure Group A and Group B stay together for the good of the "whole"?
Easy E wrote: I will try, but I will admit it is only a half-baked feeling. Vast oversimplification ahead! Let's say you have group A, who has a monopoly on force, and group B who has only token force. Do you want Group A to get to a point where they can no longer relate to the Group B and feel that Group B is in fact a seperate entity than group A? What can Group A ever do to stop Group B from doing whatever the heck it wants? The system only works if Group A and Group B feel like they are part of the same "whole". If they feel disconnect from each other, why stay as one "whole"?
Granted, pretty half-baked.
or to put it more bluntly:
"Why excuse me Mr.MilitaryMan you seem to be doing things in way that are one or more of the following: is an inefficient use of resources, is ethically dubious, fails to reflect our nations values, is actively against the best interest of the citizenry."
"It has to be that way and/or is best that way."
"Hmmm, I think I have a rather well-reasoned argument backed up by either data gathered from independent sources or that stems from basic implications of common knowledge. Do you have a counter-argument or data that conflicts with mine?"
"Sure Here."
"I see. I think I can see some holes in this reasoning and/or data you've provided. Could you address any of these points specifically, or outline your concerns on a more granular level?"
"No. You'd never understand you're not a solider"
"That makes it rather difficult to the trust the issue is being given full consideration in good faith, and it's an important issue"
"That's because you're not a soldier. You'd understand if you were soldier"
Seaward wrote: Could you give us some real-life examples of that scenario, Chongara?
Any issues of equality in military service, up to and including this one.
So you've just neglected to read the points about readiness, physical standards, and unit cohesion? Fair enough.
And now, a joke I'm stealing from Kyle Defoor:
The DOD contracted a scientific company to find out what made Special Operations soldiers so unique in hopes of graduating higher numbers from the various selection courses. The company came up with a way to test for resourcefulness, problem solving abilities, physical and mental strength, and performance under pressure.
The company was given two members from some of the most elite units in the world; Navy SEALs, Army SF, MARSOC, German GSG-9, Australian SAS, and even 2 mujahideen from Afghanistan who had fought the Russians in the early '80s.
Finally ready, they began the experiment. The two members of each team would be locked into a room for 24 hours with nothing but two 36" steel ball bearings and the uniforms on their back. The room had no windows, no furniture, no lights, nothing. It was essentially a large concrete room with only one entry/exit that was guarded. Once inside, the door would be locked and the two team members would not be allowed out until 24 hours had elapsed. After 24 hours the scientists were excited to see what these commandos had come up with.
First they went to the Germans' door: upon opening it, the scientists saw an Audi A8 in perfect working order. It was unbelievable that these two GSG-9 soldiers could have built that car in one day with no tools and nothing but two ball bearings.
The scientists decided next they would check on the mujahideen. They opened the door, and could not believe what they saw: a Toyaota Hilux in one corner, and in the other corner a lush, green field growing poppies with irrigation water running uphill! They were excited to see that the Afghani men had indeed made all this out of two ball bearings.
Next the scientists visited the Army Special Forces room. They opened the door and were in awe at what they saw: a fire base complete with .50 cal machine guns, sandbagged positions, a chow hall, a hospital, and 50 indigenous personnel crazily working to make the fire base even better while the two SF guys were playing X-Box. All of this out of two ball bearings.
The scientists made their way to the MARSOC room. When they opened the door, it was completely empty. No ball bearings, no Marines. They searched and searched, but never found them. The Marines reported back to their unit six months later with a complete report on the disposition of enemy forces within the room.
Next was the Australian room. The scientists opened the door and were completely surprised by what they saw: A beautiful woman with an Aussie accent welcomed them in and showed them to the bar, where they could have any beer they wanted from the taps on the rack. The beautiful woman showed them to their table and had their steaks waiting for them. All this - a bar, a grill, beer, a woman - all this from two ball bearings.
Lastly, the scientists made their way to the SEALs' room. They were so excited to see what the frogmen had come up with. They opened the door. In the corner of the room sat the two SEALs. The scientists looked around and saw...nothing. They asked the SEALs, "What happened? We saw all the other teams make these fabulous things; cars, submarines, women.. even the mujahideen made some poppies grow and water flow uphill! What happened to you guys, and what happened to your ball bearings?!"
The SEALs looked at each other and responded to the scientists, "We broke one and lost the other."
CptJake wrote: Wrong, it prevents them from being assigned. And there IS a difference. They have been being attached regularly, and that isn't new.
Exactly. And when a piece of legalese is regularly used to bypass a law with little real world reasoning behind it... you change that rule.
The rule was put in place because people were uncomfortable with the idea of women in combat, but the reality of combat in the last decade has shown that that rule doesn't stop it happening. All it does it put an arbitrary restriction on commanding officers about how they might best deploy their troops.
sar·casm /ˈsärˌkazəm/ Noun The use of irony to mock or convey contempt.
In order for that to work, you'd have to be mocking a statement made by the other person. That is, if I had implied that I was dubious that there were this many soldiers posting on an internet forum because soldiers spend too much time training and patrolling, then your response that soldiers are just mouth breathing robots* with no outside hobbies would have made sense.
But I didn't, my comment was a response to d-usa's post about drunk patients who were ex-special forces, and was suggesting that it is likely that some of the people on internet forums claiming they're in the army probably are not.
Now, had you made some kind of a joke about how it was true, and no-one had become a soldier since 1982 and everyone on the internet was lying, then that would be sarcasm that made sense. Not saying it'd be funny, but it would have made some kind of sense.
*Seriously, what the hell kind of robots breathe?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ratbarf wrote: Hey, I'm a fat bearded nerd who, while I don't live in my parents basement, does not go outside if there isn't a direct reason to. The fact that many people would be proud of their military service and not proud of their manchild status would seem to be the reason for your perceptions.
It's possible. Or it's possible some people like to tell stories. Go read one of the threads about picking up women some time. Notice how many smooth talking pick up artists there are.
Seriously, some people on the internet don't tell the truth about everything in their lives. It happens.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KalashnikovMarine wrote: And if you're actually applying number two to me, that you think I'd actually think something like that, you clearly don't read my posts very much. Or anyone on Dakka's for that matter because I can't think of a single poster who'd argue the position that the majority of civilians think the military is a bunch of unthinking murder machines. Thus why it's a joke, because in it's most basic form it's exaggerated to the point of lunacy.
It is a position that is unlikely to be held by anyone on the forum, but it is a position that several people on the board are likely to claim others believe.
That is, no-one the board is likely to say 'oh you soldiers are a bunch of mouth breathing robots who live to kill', but a few people are likely to say 'you only say that because you believe soldiers are just a bunch of mouth breathing robots who live to kill' or something very similar to that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: It appears to be a bunch of dudes with absolutely no frame of reference attempting to tell current and prior service members about the military.
I mean, I like endless hilarity as much as the next guy, but c'mon.
Actually, it's a bunch of people attempting to explain the position and reasoning of Department of Defense to a bunch of people who seem to really hate reading.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: Sorry. I'm afraid I'm going to have to insist that most civilians do not understand the military better than members of the military.
And I'm going to go out on a limb and insist the Department of Defence understands the Department of Defence better than you do.
sebster wrote: Exactly. And when a piece of legalese is regularly used to bypass a law with little real world reasoning behind it... you change that rule.
The rule was put in place because people were uncomfortable with the idea of women in combat, but the reality of combat in the last decade has shown that that rule doesn't stop it happening. All it does it put an arbitrary restriction on commanding officers about how they might best deploy their troops.
No, it really doesn't. I'm not even sure how you could draw that conclusion aside from actively trying to be wrong. While the likelihood of non-combat arms MOSes seeing combat in Iraq and Afghanistan is pretty decent, it's still the combat arms guys who are going to see the bulk of it in the aggregate.
Furthermore, the rule was not put in place because people were uncomfortable with the idea of women in combat. The rule was put in place for a whole host of reasons, chief among them, to my mind, being pure capability.
AustonT wrote: There's a certain element that rings true in the concept tha civilians don't really understand military life.
Oh it is absolutely true. But that's where conversation and debate can be useful. So when I posted that I'd heard from the Department of Defence about the actual substance of the changes planned and the reasoning for them, then there was scope for posters with military knowledge to go and read what the Department of Defense has stated, then come back and explain why what they're saying did or didn't quite work.
We didn't get that, though, instead we just people who wanted to talk about why women can't match front line infantry standards (seemingly entirely ignorant that those standards aren't changing) and other such stuff.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: No, it really doesn't. I'm not even sure how you could draw that conclusion aside from actively trying to be wrong. While the likelihood of non-combat arms MOSes seeing combat in Iraq and Afghanistan is pretty decent, it's still the combat arms guys who are going to see the bulk of it in the aggregate.
Sure, and the front line combat guys will still be seeing the aggregate. That isn't changing.
Furthermore, the rule was not put in place because people were uncomfortable with the idea of women in combat. The rule was put in place for a whole host of reasons, chief among them, to my mind, being pure capability.
And the standards aren't changing, so that reply makes no fething sense.
This implies we want more Marines. If we really wanted more we'd place big signs in the windows of our recuriting offices detailing all the cash bonuses you can qualify for like the army
AustonT wrote: There's a certain element that rings true in the concept tha civilians don't really understand military life.
Oh it is absolutely true. But that's where conversation and debate can be useful. So when I posted that I'd heard from the Department of Defence about the actual substance of the changes planned and the reasoning for them, then there was scope for posters with military knowledge to go and read what the Department of Defense has stated, then come back and explain why what they're saying did or didn't quite work.
We didn't get that, though, instead we just people who wanted to talk about why women can't match front line infantry standards (seemingly entirely ignorant that those standards aren't changing) and other such stuff.
.
We did give you that though. We explained readiness, unit cohesion, and multiple other factors and I brought in several testimonies from female Marines and soldiers agreeing with or making points similar to those points, along with some other equally valid positions. Just because you don't like what we're telling you you're handing waving it to talk about front line infantry standards which no one's really talking about except in a tone of warning, because in the United States, when ever we do something in the name of being PC it usually comes with percentages attached, and if they aren't there at the start they appear over time, about how many of a specific demographic should be in a certain position, and when you're not meeting standards... "We don't have enough female 11Bs/0311s, what can we do to fix that?" is when the sliding scale sets in. It's also where we start to get fething pissed over here. We are not your social lab rats or the demonstration of democracy and tolerance in action. As my friend Sgt J so eloquently put it and I quoted earlier in this thread:
We need to stop this worry of whether a female can "advance her career". Who gives a crap about the "career", we need mission accomplishment. THAT is the purpose of a military.
Her words. Not mine. Then again, I think that should extend to both genders, I find the careerism found presently amongst certain circles in all four branches disgusting, and it's actively driving away some of our best and brightest.
sebster wrote: And the standards aren't changing, so that reply makes no fething sense.
Inevitably, they will, sebster. Kalashnikov explained why quite well above.
We're not facing manpower shortages. Female infantrymen do not address a critical gap in capability. This is a political agenda, and when it doesn't pan out the way the people pushing it want it to, suddenly the flexed arm hang will be just fine for female 11Bs, or they'll start giving out enough food in Ranger School, or Hell Week will become Hell Day.
Aside from all the other arguments against it, of course.
sebster wrote: And the standards aren't changing, so that reply makes no fething sense.
Inevitably, they will, sebster. Kalashnikov explained why quite well above.
We're not facing manpower shortages. Female infantrymen do not address a critical gap in capability. This is a political agenda, and when it doesn't pan out the way the people pushing it want it to, suddenly the flexed arm hang will be just fine for female 11Bs, or they'll start giving out enough food in Ranger School, or Hell Week will become Hell Day.
Aside from all the other arguments against it, of course.
Dempsey already stated they are going to be relooking at all standards. I quoted him earlier.
GEN Dempsey, Chairman JCS wrote:
He added: “Importantly, though, if we do decide that a particular standard is so high that a woman couldn't make it, the burden is now on the service to come back and explain to the secretary, why is it that high? Does it really have to be that high? With the direct combat exclusion provision in place, we never had to have that conversation.”
There will be pressure to lower standards. Having spent more than a day in the Army there is no other way to translate that.
Recently Dempsey and others have made more comments of a similar nature.
An article I read yesterday had Dempsey or someone similar asking things like 'Do infantry men really need to be able to carry 120 pounds or do a 12 mile ruck march in a certain time period for the way we think we will be fighting?' 'An armor crew man needs to lift a 60 pound shell, but does it really need to be loaded in 5 seconds?'
That is obviously a paraphrase and not a quote, article is on my work computer not this one.
I think you won't see standards lowered, instead we'll find they were just too high to begin with and brought down to the correct level
sebster wrote: And the standards aren't changing, so that reply makes no fething sense.
Inevitably, they will, sebster. Kalashnikov explained why quite well above.
We're not facing manpower shortages. Female infantrymen do not address a critical gap in capability. This is a political agenda, and when it doesn't pan out the way the people pushing it want it to, suddenly the flexed arm hang will be just fine for female 11Bs, or they'll start giving out enough food in Ranger School, or Hell Week will become Hell Day.
Aside from all the other arguments against it, of course.
Some general defending already noted they would be "revisiting all the standards to see if they make sense." Maybe they won't have different standards, but I bet they sure loosen the standards.
I don't have a dog in this hunt, other than to note, I look forward to seeing the females signing up for selective service at 18 too. Oh wait, are they?
Frazzled wrote: Some general defending already noted they would be "revisiting all the standards to see if they make sense." Maybe they won't have different standards, but I bet they sure loosen the standards.
I don't have a dog in this hunt, other than to note, I look forward to seeing the females signing up for selective service at 18 too. Oh wait, are they?
Yeah, CptJake pointed out Dempsey's comments a few posts ago. The confirmation that they'd be lowering standards to ensure the girls get to play happened even sooner than I thought it would, I guess.
A shame. I'd really hoped they'd do like Naval Special Warfare did when someone started bitching that the Teams aren't diverse enough; pay it lip service and otherwise ignore it.
CptJake wrote: An article I read yesterday had Dempsey or someone similar asking things like 'Do infantry men really need to be able to carry 120 pounds or do a 12 mile ruck march in a certain time period for the way we think we will be fighting?' 'An armor crew man needs to lift a 60 pound shell, but does it really need to be loaded in 5 seconds?'
That is obviously a paraphrase and not a quote, article is on my work computer not this one.
I think you won't see standards lowered, instead we'll find they were just too high to begin with and brought down to the correct level
In the above it was Sergeant Major of the Army (SMA) Chandler. My quote earlier from Dempsey was indeed Dempsey, but I got this source wrong.
www.army.mil news wrote:Chandler then offered an example from the infantry occupational series.
"Their highest performance requirement is to carry 128 pounds," he said. "Now where does that number come from? Twelve pounds for uniform, about 60 pounds for body armor and the rest is in your assault pack. You've got to be able to carry that weight and conduct a road march a certain distance and be able to move directly into combat.
"Is that still accurate?" he asked rhetorically. "We're going to assess that. Do you need to be able to march 20 kilometers in six hours? Is that what we expect every infantryman to do?"
A 'letter to the editor' from the Washington Post made me chuckle too:
Female Veteran wrote:As an Army veteran, I had to have the correct eyesight to be accepted for training in one job, I had to have the right educational background for most of them, and I had to pass all the tests for every one.
Personal Post Frontline combat positions require certain standards as well, and not just brute physical strength. I may not have been able to hump a 120-pound pack, but I might have been able to tote a sniper rifle or a grenade launcher. Would I have wanted to? I never had the choice, but I can assure you that some of my fellow female veterans would have wanted to try.
For the record, the grenadier (guy with the M203 or replacement) has the 2nd heaviest load in an infantry squad*... When you don't know that you shouldn't use that weapon as the example. You don't get to carry it unless you carry the associated load out.
* Center for Army Lessons Learned study done in Afghanistan showed the M203 gunner avg fighting load was 71.44 pounds and the emergency approach load was 136.64 pounds which was from about 41% to 72% of the trooper's body weight. The SAW gunner was the only position in the squad where the trooper was under more of a load. Now, that 136 number was rare, it generally averaged about 105 pounds (avg approach load).
