Panetta throws open doors to combat for women
The LA Times reports that, on his way out his own door, Leon Panetta opened the door for women to serve in combat-related jobs.
The groundbreaking move recommended by the Joint Chiefs of Staff overturns a 1994 rule prohibiting women from being assigned to smaller ground combat units. Panetta’s decision gives the military services until January 2016 to seek special exceptions if they believe any positions must remain closed to women.
A senior military official says the services will develop plans for allowing women to seek the combat positions. Some jobs may open as soon as this year. Assessments for others, such as special operations forces, including Navy SEALS and the Army’s Delta Force, may take longer.
Yeah, well, whatever. If history has taught anything, the services had better keep the standards for combat jobs regardless of sex. As I’ve always said, the bullet isn’t forgiving and doesn’t discriminate. I’ve also said that I’ve known women who could handle the job, but they’re not all suited for it – I’ve known men who weren’t suited for the job. I see lots of women on Facebook celebrating this ill-considered decision, but none of them are currently in the military. If we’re doing this to make the military better, fine, but if we’re doing it just to beat our collective chest and show how just we are, then that’s how a lot of body bags are going to get filled.
I’ve never subscribed to the theory that women in combat will distract from the job being done, but rather I’ve opposed this because the sociologists will force square pegs into the round holes, with a hammer, if needed. But, I’m sure between allowing the gays to serve openly and allowing women into combat jobs, the recruiters must be amazed at the target-rich environments in which they’re operating. Yeah, that’s sarcasm.
Thanks to everyone who filled my inbox with the news while I was typing this.
January 23rd, 2013 at 5:15 pm
Fine then when is the Selective Service Requirement going to extend to women? Odd I didn’t see mentioned as part of this “groundbreaking move”…
January 23rd, 2013 at 5:19 pm
Leon went full retard. You should never go full retard.
January 23rd, 2013 at 5:21 pm
Note to Leon- GI Jane was a fantasy movie… not real
January 23rd, 2013 at 5:22 pm
Well probably like Israel (I believe), if they keep the physical standard similar such that a Man can pick up a woman and drag her to safety and then a woman can do the same thing, then it’s ok.
Just remember that we’re engineered differently and women just don’t have the same upper body strength or explosive speed that men do…and that’s a general statement against standard physiology, not athletic or fitness ability of any individual.
January 23rd, 2013 at 5:25 pm
And the first woman through the door is never Demi Moore, it’s always Shannon Faulkner.
January 23rd, 2013 at 5:27 pm
If they hurry they should be able to dredge up a female MOH recipient before all the good wars are gone.
January 23rd, 2013 at 5:27 pm
@5 Jonn
Or Kathy Bates.
January 23rd, 2013 at 5:28 pm
Isn’t something like this above him? Dosen’t an order like this have to come from congress?
January 23rd, 2013 at 5:30 pm
Sexual assaults will rise while combat cohesion and effectiveness will decline.
Just an observation.
January 23rd, 2013 at 5:31 pm
@1.
Great point.
January 23rd, 2013 at 5:33 pm
Like other elements… PC fantasies over-ride reality. The list of examples (and problems) is near endless.
Airborne types… maybe they should make actually jumping out of aircraft depend on how far off the ground you are?
January 23rd, 2013 at 5:36 pm
What are they gonna do, go to co-ed barracks and everything that entails? (Do they still even have barracks?!) There are too damn many variables! Privacy issues. Promotions. Female functions. Pregnancy? Put me down as a “NO” vote!
January 23rd, 2013 at 5:37 pm
Of course, I can’t help but think that the announcement today was to distract the media (and so, us) from Hillary’s little theater today.
January 23rd, 2013 at 5:37 pm
At a time when the administration is planning to gut the military financially, why are they starting programs that will waste training resources on a group that will experience an even higher failure rate than the current group. Every woman who goes to Ranger/buds/q-course will be taking a slot away from a man who has a much higher chance of passing.
January 23rd, 2013 at 5:39 pm
Just kill me!!!!
January 23rd, 2013 at 5:40 pm
@14 dont worry. the standards will be lowered and they’ll be pushed through so they can be paraded in front of the media.
January 23rd, 2013 at 5:40 pm
Jonn #13: Paranoia strikes deep. [grin]
January 23rd, 2013 at 5:40 pm
@all…..
Great now we’re going to have a metric-ass load of Female Ranger, SEAL, Green Beret, CIA, Delta Force, DEVGRU wanna-bes. It’s bad enough when pussy ass guys do it. Now we’re going to have macho biatches on this page now as well.
THANKS LEON!!!!
January 23rd, 2013 at 5:48 pm
Jonn- I went full on spew over the Faulkner comment…guess I should tell my girls to strap on the proverbials and git’er done after this absolutely retarded move. JFC!!
January 23rd, 2013 at 5:49 pm
The 0bama administration; destroying our military step by step.
January 23rd, 2013 at 5:58 pm
Read, “The kinder, gentler military” by Stephanie Gutmann. In it she describes how the first West Point classes with women suffered terrible attrition rates until everything was “Gender Adjusted”. Don’t think for a second that someone isn’t formatting a RR/EO quota policy right now. Got to get those generals stars right?
January 23rd, 2013 at 6:00 pm
This is going to go the way of PC run amok, because the first woman that gets washed out of 11B is going to go whining to her congresscritter and NOW that the DI’s were big meanies and were being unfair and were screaming at her and stuff! Then, Big Daddy Leon will send down the thunder that she be pushed through and graduated.
January 23rd, 2013 at 6:05 pm
How novel of this slug going forward to appease 14% of the military when their own studies have already shown it won’t work. Female Marines already have absurd separate and unequal standards compared to males, so in order to implement this retardo policy standards will be lowered for the special group once again.
lol @ equal opportunity officers now being native to infantry battalions. RIP combat arms culture, non effeminate males, and the ability to get rid of shitbags unable to pull their own weight.
January 23rd, 2013 at 6:05 pm
Let’s see: Hillary is (alleged to be) a woman, and she proved it today by getting all weepy, and angry, and various other kinds of emotional. In front of witnesses. But some folks want to talk about the substance of what she said instead. Sooo, Leon? How’s about throwing out that women in combat red herring today?
Yep, I can see it, Jonn.
January 23rd, 2013 at 6:07 pm
I was over at my FB reading the WSJ feed and and everyone is “Good”. “Great” and “’bout time”. “Long as they can pass the test” is the most common thread. The thing is though, they can’t. They can only pass a “Gender Normed” PT test. I don’t want someone who passed an adjusted PT test in a fire fight with me. I want someone that took and passed the same test I had to.
January 23rd, 2013 at 6:09 pm
Old Trooper, my money says that any woman that joins the Army on a 11,12,13 or 19 series contract (if the Army doesn’t apply to exempt those fields from women) will have a drop out and reclass option all the way through OSUT. So even if they quit or fail, they can reclass.
January 23rd, 2013 at 6:13 pm
The only thing that won’t adjust for gender will be the battlefield. That’s going to be a very rude — and permanent — reality check.
January 23rd, 2013 at 6:28 pm
Leon Panetta is a mother fucking coward.
By the way, I second the recommendation for “The kinder, gentler military” by Stephanie Gutmann. It is an excellent book about the realities of this fantasy world that “equal opportunity” retards are pushing.
January 23rd, 2013 at 6:37 pm
Just when you think how can things possibly get worse…..
January 23rd, 2013 at 6:53 pm
I know that servicewomen have been killed but none, that I am aware of, in a direct engagement with the enemy. There is something very wrong with sending a sister, daughter, or mother into the lion’s den where the likelihood of death or serious injury is great. I wonder if this is part of the transformation of America. There is no way Pointsettia did this unilaterally. He had either the instruction or the approval to do it.
January 23rd, 2013 at 6:54 pm
Great…I think I might cancel my enlistment now.
January 23rd, 2013 at 7:00 pm
@26: Yep.
@27: A bullet doesn’t discriminate. Reality will not be kind because you are a woman.
As an aside, I know that there are women that have performed exceptionally in firefights that they were caught up in while doing a non-frontline duty. I have never said they couldn’t handle a firefight. What I have said is that the physical requirements for day to day infantry duties are a much different animal and physiologically, women don’t have the upper body strength to do it for extended periods of time i.e months/years.
January 23rd, 2013 at 7:02 pm
Go get em girls! I need a break!
January 23rd, 2013 at 7:16 pm
Can’t agree more with you John. God save the military, we grow smaller, more expensive, and softer every minute. Always knew Panetta was a fuck up from the beginning.
January 23rd, 2013 at 7:20 pm
@ #8. That was my question too. Is the policy against women in combat arms a DOD policy or is it a law?
January 23rd, 2013 at 7:20 pm
TCGST is going to be a bitch! “Come on sweet cheeks we don’t have all day to load the main gun” Maybe we’ll get an autoloader in the M1A3………
January 23rd, 2013 at 7:32 pm
They watched the barracks scene in Starship Trooper too many times.
January 23rd, 2013 at 8:21 pm
[...] One guy who was in a front line unit has similar views: [...]
January 23rd, 2013 at 8:24 pm
@35. Policy cannot trump law. The law either is silent on the matter or puts the determination in the lap of the exec branch. In other words, the fact that Pointsettia is changing the policy as he walks out the door tells us there is no law either prohibiting or requiring women in the infantry.
January 23rd, 2013 at 8:25 pm
For parades, the D&C (drill and ceremony) rifle for the United States Military Academy is the venerable M14, the last true battle rifle of the US Army. Contrary to a certain GI Joe episode, the rifles are neutered, having their firing pins removed long ago. The only other modification made to the rifles is that a certain number of them have had their charging springs shortened by about a third. The reason for this is because most females don’t possess the upper body strength to properly lock the bolt to the rear while performing the ‘inspection arms’ drill movement. Cutting the spring relieves the pressure allowing the weaker females to perform the move without struggling.
January 23rd, 2013 at 8:30 pm
The election is over, the POTUS sworn in. This is just the first payoff to the ladies who donated their money and time.
Wonder when Ranger tabs will come in “Hello Kitty”
January 23rd, 2013 at 8:31 pm
#8, #35: best I can tell the former statutory restrictions went away during the Clinton Administration. They appear to have been replaced by DoD policy restricting women from assignments below Brigade HQ level in ground combat units and a statutory requirement to notify Congress NLT 30 days prior should DoD change policy. See 10 USC 652.
2/17 Air Cav: dunno about that, amigo (30). I’d consider dying as the result of an IED or small arms attack – or from incoming IDF, for that matter – an dying due to an engagement with the enemy.
http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/guardandreserve/a/ng1stfemalekia.htm
Like bullets, IEDs and incoming IDF also don’t discriminate based on gender.
January 23rd, 2013 at 8:36 pm
@Hondo at 42: Which is why I’m convinced this is going to be a hi-viz announcement with little substantive change to actual operations, and am waiting to see the announcement tomorrow to weigh in further.
January 23rd, 2013 at 8:36 pm
So, what happens in the field, on foot patrol? Ladies to the left catholes and men to the right ones? It’s cold. You buddy up. Aw fahgettabout it. There are a million scenarios that are, shall we say, disquieting.
Diversity, we honor you!
LT: “How’s that rifle squad looking sarge?”
SGT: “Great LT. We have two lesbians, two gays, and a married woman with three kids.”
LT: “Outstanding!”
January 23rd, 2013 at 8:40 pm
Blackshoe: I hope you’re right. However, pertinent US military history and personnel practices over the past 35 years or so – much of which I’ve seen personally – argues otherwise.
January 23rd, 2013 at 8:45 pm
I can just imagine what it’d be like if the Marine Corps still did the MCCRES with it lovely 25 mile hump. “Hey LCPL Buttercup, you’re carrying the baseplate.”
Firefights suck, but being infantry sucks even more. It’s not just pulling the trigger, it’s getting to the location to pull the trigger. And before anybody starts, spare me the BS about “everything’s motorized/mechanized these days dinosaur”. Except when the MRAPs can go up the mountain or if(when) the helos are late (again)
January 23rd, 2013 at 8:49 pm
I can hear it now at the School of Infantry, while rucking up “The Microwave” and yelling at someone dropping back: “Get your sad fuckin’ ass up here!” Then the complaining is REALLY going to start, followed by sensitivity training and such.
January 23rd, 2013 at 8:53 pm
Supported the Brigade SOY board last weekend, we had a female competitor who won the NCO portion. She is a good troop, did well on the written test, interview and land nav, but finished 3 minutes behind all the other competitors in the 2 mile run and 20 minutes behind the rest in the road march. She is in an ordnance company and I don’t doubt that she is one of their best troops and does a great job in that role and she was the best overall choice to represent our brigade at the next level, but physically she was no match for any of the males-not even close.
January 23rd, 2013 at 9:03 pm
Ok…whose turn is it to hump the four deuce baseplate? Any takers…only 10 more cross country miles to go! Come on girls…you can do it…it’s your turn and we must be fair.
January 23rd, 2013 at 9:21 pm
@46. You can’t refer to a 25-mile “hump” anymore.
January 23rd, 2013 at 9:45 pm
# 49 You can roll the base plate, try humpping the bridge, now thats fun
January 23rd, 2013 at 9:56 pm
@46.
Roger that.
January 23rd, 2013 at 10:01 pm
This has absolutely nothing to do with women desiring to have the opportunity to go into combat. It has everything to do with some women wanting to be four-star generals and admirals. To support the vanity of a few, we’ll sacrifice much. You Americans voted for this. And you will pay for it.
January 23rd, 2013 at 10:01 pm
Man, the testosterone fog is getting thick in here.
Can someone open the windows and let in some fresh air?
Yeah, thanks!
I will only say that ground and classroom classes are not the same as field conditions. Theory is great, but practical factors outweight theory, and any of you who have been in live fire know that. You aren’t going to be running over smooth terrain or working under perfect/ideal conditions. You’re going to be working in shit up to your little pink snouts, freezing to death or boiling, dying of thirst, scared silly, homesick, and wondering how come you can’t get mom or dad to send you the socks you asked for, while someone is taking potshots at your sorry head. So you’d better hope that whoever is next to you, whether male OR female, is dedicated to getting done the job of killing off the opposition and surviving, especially if some nasty person half a mile away just put a live round through your ass.
That’s all I have to say.
January 23rd, 2013 at 10:55 pm
Do you think “hygiene” products would start coming in MREs?
January 23rd, 2013 at 11:11 pm
What? Wetwipes? >)
January 23rd, 2013 at 11:16 pm
How about LRP rations?
January 23rd, 2013 at 11:19 pm
F’ it, the military needs to do away with separate living quarters and heads. Make everything co-ed as well as jobs and start requiring women to register for selective service.
This is about the few not what’s best for the military or country.
January 23rd, 2013 at 11:19 pm
I get you Ex-PH2, but that jock itch gets rough after 40 miles with a 100 lb ruck…
Not to mention body armor, weapon, ammo and personal gear and pogey bait (gummy worms)…
No offense, just saying….
January 23rd, 2013 at 11:20 pm
@54, excuse me for relying on personal experience but it’s the only kind I have. After 13 years in the Corps (infantry go figure) and 14 year in the armor community, having BTDT and got several t-shirts, I have yet to see a female that could hang in the infantry or armor. Humping a ruck or busting track isn’t something that can be accomplished by executive fiat. Not testosterone fog, but the cold hard atmosphere of the real world. MCCRESS, TCGST and Tank Table VIII don’t care about equal opportunity and promotability.
January 23rd, 2013 at 11:30 pm
@55 During Desert Storm they came in sundry packs. No tobacco products, though.
January 24th, 2013 at 1:25 am
In other news Hillary was quoted as saying, “I already accepted full responsibility, why are you people blaming me?”
January 24th, 2013 at 1:28 am
@60 — You’re saying basically the same thing I said. I don’t think it matters who is humping a ruck, it only matters that whoever is dragging that thing is able to do it. Upper body strength is something that is acquired, not inborn — acclimation through constant exposure and increased loads.
But if the person in question doesn’t want to do the hard physical training to get to that point, and politics/fiat are more important than common sense, the entire business of infantry/combat training becomes nonsense…which is why I said that it does not matter who is firing the weapon, it only matters how accurate the shooter is.
Personally, from the viewpoint of not knowing 40 years ago what I know now, I would not ask for combat training now even if it were offered to me with incentives. And it isn’t the abrasive delivery of DIs or the conditions in the field. I just don’t want to get my stuff all shot up. You have to want it to be successful at it.
This is just a smokescreen of appeasement and not much else.
January 24th, 2013 at 6:48 am
Told y’all.
It was never if, but when, and the time is now.
Just hoping infantry units are not co-ed. Whole can of worms thurr.
January 24th, 2013 at 6:51 am
Ex-PH2: the gender differences in physical strength and cardio capability are due to more than exercise/training/willpower. Biological differences simply make males generally bigger, stronger, and possessing higher CV endurance than women. Don’t believe that? Take a look at pro sports.
For most occupations in the military, the gender difference in physical potential for strength and endurance is immaterial. For a few, however, it makes a huge difference.
My concern here is not that a tiny fraction (I’d personally guess far less than 1%) of women in the military will actually want to be in these specialties and will actually be able to “hang with the guys”. If they can do the job, OK, that’s fine.
Rather, my fear is that some senior political appointee or politically ambitious GO in a key position will look at the initial numbers (high failure rates in early training for same, exceptionally low numbers of bona fide qualified females) and will turn to his subordinates and say, “These numbers are a problem. Fix it.”
It takes millenia to change human genetics significantly. So I’m afraid I know exactly what the fix will be: a new set of gender-normed physical standards for those specialties and training programs, or a lowering of physical standards across the board. The second-order effect of that fix will be lowered combat capabilities in specialties that are critical for combat. The third-order effect will be an increased number of body bags coming home during our next war.
I’ve not personally watched that many flag-draped coffins start their final trip home – I’d guess somewhere around 15 or 20, but I didn’t keep count. But that was more than enough, thanks.
January 24th, 2013 at 7:33 am
Don’t worry gents there’s a timetable! The gubment har it allllllllll under control! Just like the deficit!
January 24th, 2013 at 8:12 am
You’re preachin’ to the choir, Hondo.
Some women will want it, they won’t whine or ask for special this and that, they’ll take it seriously and they’ll be quite good at it.
Others will be assigned to it, whine and complain, do lousy, make a mess of it. (That applies to men, too, you know.
)
It’s just appeasement, nothing else.
January 24th, 2013 at 8:30 am
I know we discussed women in firefighting before. Here is a Tribune article about women firefighters, who make up about 2% of the entire Chicago firefighting population.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-08-17/news/ct-met-female-firefighter-test-20110817_1_chicago-firefighters-physical-abilities-test-firefighter-exams
The contention in this suit is that the actual requirements are kept secret, so I don’t know if it’s whining or what, but I do not give a personal rat’s ass about ‘family traditions’ where my safety is concerned. This is especialy true since the warehouse fire on South Ashland that was a 5-alarmer, worst fire in years, revived itself after the pumper trucks left.
My suggestion is that the testing requirements are published, that training and requirements remain the same for men and women, and those who can’t pass them don’t go into combat. You pass or you fail. Period.
End of analysis.
January 24th, 2013 at 10:31 am
so will there be a huge rush of women clamoring to join the combat arms just like there was a huge rush of LGBTs to the recruiting offices when DADT was repealed?
January 24th, 2013 at 11:04 am
I’ve noticed that the silence on having women sign up for selective service is deafening.
January 24th, 2013 at 11:07 am
Oh, I’m sorry, Twist. I always thought women should be drafted right aong with men. Why shouldn’t we be sharing the load?
As for a rush to join combat arms, I seriously doubt it. Duckworth was a pilot, not a soldier. There are plenty of women already in combat zones.
January 24th, 2013 at 11:10 am
Ex-PH2: if I recall correctly, in the Army Aviation is considered one of the combat arms branches. The aircraft – and their crews – get shot at regularly.
January 24th, 2013 at 11:29 am
@71, I was talking about the women that brought the lawsuit. I need to articulate better.
January 24th, 2013 at 11:43 am
Hondo, you’re right — my mistake. They have gunners and they aren’t on the ground.
@73 – Lawsuit? Oh, fill me in on that!!
January 24th, 2013 at 11:47 am
Is that the lawsuit to lift the ban on women in combat?
January 24th, 2013 at 11:54 am
@75, Yep. I believed we discussed that on here a while back.
January 24th, 2013 at 12:00 pm
OK, thanks!
January 24th, 2013 at 1:23 pm
Great piece, and great discussion that follows it.
I’m going back in time, in my mind, from 2011 to the early 1990s when I first went in.
12 click movement to contact lanes, with full rucks until we hit the ORP, on Fort Campbell’s evil back 40, at night. Full combat load with the M60. I stopped growing at 5’8″ and have never weighed more than 165lbs. Put Alaska by snowshoe or 12 clicks of walking up and downhill on soggy basketballs into the mix, carrying the same load, and even the platoon lanes took on some epic, Wittgenfeld-esque “trail assassin” ambience.
Fast forward to when they disbanded even the Guard LRSD and the light infantry/airborne types end up with the leg tossers. The last 6 years of my service I think I didn’t walk with a full ruck more than 100meters. Sure, the ladies make it through the 12-mile affair at Air Assault school, but as retired CSM Purdy once famously opined, they should shoot *all* graduates in the leg with a 22 before the march before they ever dare call that the 10 toughest days in the Army.
All this low-intensity conflict focus in GWOT has perhaps fooled the American public into believing that automation is the great equalizer on the battlefield these days. Indeed, if an infantryman is sitting behind the FBCB2 in his Stryker, or working the head-space and timing on his M2, he’s a different animal than a light fighter, and I don’t see why a woman couldn’t do any of that stuff. But at some point, direct, force-on-force is going to be required again, if it’s not already, and with a President that seems to believe we don’t even issue bayonets anymore, given my puniness, even with all my aggression, I’d still worry about squaring off against a larger enemy. I’d win, because that’s what we do, but when we start mixing genders on MMA and boxing and start seeing how that works out, I’ll be a lot more sanguine about gender integration.
And then again, maybe it’s an antidote for my sense that combat service roles have always been a combat liability (see Jessica Lynch, 1 ea). Maybe by inculcating the same warrior spirit into the female of the species, we can de-sissify the REMFs. I doubt it. If only they’d go with the Israeli model, and adopt it and use insulated standards and specific applications of said units. Our civilian government, though, will not suffer anything but full, and deleterious to combat-effectiveness, equality, because, after all, this is hampering promotions for the ladies.
I can’t count the number of times I pissed in a crouch on a security halt, humped a ruck weighing nearly as much as I did, or hacked my way through permafrost to dig a fighting position. Until Panetta and company fully assess what being a warrior really entails, and not just use metrics established by mounted patrols out of FOB Liberty, they have no business moving forward.
January 24th, 2013 at 1:38 pm
@78, Ahhh the good ole back 40. Every time we rucked in from Angel’s gate I swear that the water tower had wheels on it and gremlins would keep pushing it away from you and you would never reach it. I also can’t count how many times I rolled my ankle on baby heads in Alaska. I do remember CSM Purdy saying that about the .22 and thinking WTF.
January 24th, 2013 at 3:24 pm
@1. The Selective Service aspect, previously settled, will again be resurrected. Presently, registration affects only males 18-35(?). Why are women excluded? Because the law excludes them. However, laws must pass constitutional muster and the blanket exemption of females may now be unconstitutional, thanks to this policy change. Of course, it will require a new challenge, based upon the Due Process, equal protection argument. This was previously done, as you might guess, and the Supremes upheld the constitutionality of the exemption. But the reason they did so is key. The majority said that the purpose of a draft is to secure combat troops and since women are exempt from combat, their selective service exemption is constitutional. I think you see the problem. Stay tuned.
January 24th, 2013 at 3:53 pm
Here’s my side of it.
That photo of me in my light blues was taken in 1969 right after I got my second class crow. Besides what I did at NPC, I was also schooling and showing horses on my own time. I was in a 6-section duty roster, which meant that every 6 days, I stood duty on the quarter deck in that building. When I was out at the stable where I was training for horse shows, I was either helping the guy who owned the place, an ex-SeaBee, build a barn for new boarders or working with a bunch of different horses 5 hours a day during the week and ll day on weekends. That meant helping the man’s wife, who ran the business, by cleaning stalls, hauling bales of hay or bags of peanut shell bedding and bags of feed into the main barn. The hay bales weighed, on average, 90 pounds. The bags of peanut shell bedding weighed 105 pounds. The bags of grain weighed between 75 and 125 pounds. To save time, we loaded things into wheel barrows at the storeroom, and unloaded them where they were supposed to go. The hay bales were up above the stalls and were carried, not dragged, over to the hole in the floor to dump flakes of hay into the hayracks.
That was in addition to dealing with obstreperous horses that didn’t want to let you pick up a hoof to clean it, or stand still in the cross ties. I also helped build jumps for the local hunt club that I belonged to.
It takes physical strength to do all of this and I was used to it. I had been doing stuff like that since I was 10.
So could I have run through all those infantry requirements back then? Probably, but I was used to doing that kind physical hard work. I did it all the time.
When I was going through RTC(w) at Bainbridge, all of us walked everywhere we went. Ditto, Photo “A” school at Pensacola. I used to do 60 mile bike rides when I had the chance.
The point is, most young women who go into any kind of physical training in the military now are not used to it before they get there, they don’t have any kind of prep work before they go in, and that is why they don’t do well. They simply aren’t prepared for it.
And I don’t care if they ran marathons before they went to basic. Running a marathon is done with the lightest load possible to increase your time. People who train for marathons sometimes do train by running with weighted backpacks, but the weight in their backpacks is far less than the weight in a full military field pack plus uniform gear and Kevlar vest, and they aren’t carrying weapons with them, either.
You can’t comapre a marathon runner to someone geared up for the combat field, any more than you can compare a man in steel plate armor with a sword and shield to a man dressed for fencing with an epee.
If you want to know what a real comparison would be, pick up a full set of chain mail armor some time. Just lift it. It’s quite heavy, around 75 pounds of steel links. However, if you wear it all day long, along with a knightly sword with weighs several pounds by itself, plus the shield you’re supposed to carry, you get used to carrying all that weight with you. It’s distributed over your body, and you get used to carrying it around. However, if you have to carry it around as an item in a shopping bag, it is a whole lot heavier.
January 24th, 2013 at 4:23 pm
Two simple points:
1–ABSOLUTE equality, as in physical standards, physical requirements, etc.
2–The military needs to get a handle on this shit. If it means holding a “this is how birth control works” briefing twice a year, then so be it. In the modern age of Sandra Fluke and “free birth control,” especially for active duty females, there is NO EXCUSE for “unplanned” or “accidental” pregnancies. Period.
January 24th, 2013 at 4:35 pm
Ex-PH2: You might be surprised at what a soldier going into combat today wears in terms of equipment and weaponry. weight wise.
- The basic IBA vest and accessories? Somewhere around 33.5lbs.
- Kevlar helmet and cover? About 3.5 lbs
- Ammo: varies; more is usually better. Figure 10 lbs between that and other stuff in the pockets
- Other gear (either worn or typically hung off the IBA vest and accessories when not worn) (ammo pouches, gloves, D-rings, field dressing and holder) – figure another 5 lbs, min
- Camelback (2L): about 5lbs filled.
- M16: a bit over 7 lbs, unloaded ; more if they’ve got the grenade launcher variant or a machine gun
Add that up, and you’re talking close to 70 lbs. And that doesn’t include boots, socks, skivvies, or uniform. Figure another 7-10 lbs for that.
And remember: that doesn’t include a rucksack and its contents. An Infantryman’s ruck can easily weigh 80 lbs or more. It will be “or more” if you’re a RTO or on a mortar crew.
Add the two, and you’re talking over 150lbs of stuff.
And unlike knights in “days of old”, soldiers generally don’t have a squire that carries their gear for them when they’re moving out on foot.
There are many reasons people in the Infantry don’t stay in the infantry. One of the most common is that they break down physically and no longer can stay in the infantry.
January 24th, 2013 at 4:45 pm
LL: your point 1 is sound, would work, and I’d have no problem with it if it were to be implemented. Unfortunately, from what I’ve personally seen from the last 30+ years of gender integration in the military, I’ll be absolutely shocked if that’s what happens. Don’t bet the farm.
Your point 2 is similarly sound, would also work, and I’d have no problem with it either. Unfortunately, that would conflict with the “right to reproductive freedom” (or some such). So we ain’t gonna see that, either.
January 24th, 2013 at 4:55 pm
Hondo: OK, so, I’ll wear 2 sets of chain mail. And carry a sword.
I’ll be impervious to bullets.
January 24th, 2013 at 5:11 pm
Hondo-an aid bag can weigh 40 pounds or so as well, just sayin’.
January 24th, 2013 at 5:21 pm
My water main just thawed and you’re only interested in discussions about condiments? I finally have (some) water again, and you want to talk about habaneros. OK.
January 24th, 2013 at 5:25 pm
Ex-PH2: hey, you’re the one who chose to live up near the Great Mistakes. Melt some snow. (smile)
January 24th, 2013 at 5:47 pm
Oh, hey, I called Steve the plumber who sent his red-headed son and coworker and they got the main line free of ice. That’s all I care about. The wind chill Monday night was near -28F, but I have water again. I will never give in.
January 24th, 2013 at 6:50 pm
Couple of things on this.
This is a great move if the result they are looking for is to reduce the number of women in the military. Those who have no interest in combat may have difficulty deciding to reup if there is a chance of their being sent there.
Speaking of which – what is the likelihood of women being assigned to combat posiitions against their will? Sure, you go where you are assigned, but when the rules change after you sign up, individuals adversely impacted certainly can have a negative reaction to it. Every woman now serving is doing so with the understanding that she will not see combat, however that is today defined. It will be a deal breaker for most of those women if they can now be forced to do what they were exemoted from doing when they enlisted.
These are real women. Of the thousands that I served with over the years not a single one wished to hold an infantry, or other combat eligible, job. Yes, I knew air crew as well. And yes, some of them took fire, but they were not assigned to aircraft whose primary duty was to engage with an enemy.
This is just one more in a continuing series of assinine decisions made by idiots. Unfortunately, they are causing real people to die as a result.
January 24th, 2013 at 7:17 pm
1. Yes women have indeed contributed to our nation’s greatness. However; the operational side – combat arms – of the military is the pointy end of US foreign policy, it’s not a petri dish for political correctness sociology studies. Our heroes at arms are not there to exhibit complete gender equality, they are there to make the enemies of our great nation assume room temperature at the earliest opportunity. Ergo, IF – a big if – they could do the deed requiring extra support or lowering the standards and yes, squeeze the trigger when it counts, these political bozos might have an argument. However, in 24yrs of active duty I have never seen any non-Y chromosome human who could pass muster.
2. What will the political correctness say about their decision the first time a woman is captured and shown abused in unmentionable ways and murdered on al jazeera? God forbid such a thing, but the potentiality exists come day one.
Food for though my brethren…
January 24th, 2013 at 7:21 pm
Correction:
… “IF – a big if – they could do the deed WITHOUT requiring extra support or lowering the standards and yes, squeeze the trigger when it counts, these political bozos might have an argument”.
January 24th, 2013 at 7:35 pm
Look at Hondo’s post. This is where the discussion begins. I don’t care about cardio bunnies who can run all day, that doesn’t matter. I weight 220 lbs at 5’9. With basic load, weapon, basic load for the 9mm and anything extra I bring, I weight about 280lbs. The average guy can’t drag me, pick me, let alone a female. Ok so forget that…anybody here ever break track on an M1, pull a sprocket, load a main gun round. As a Tanker, my loader better be able to hump rounds…how about just open a skirt. Abd Dempsey just sat there and took it..again!
January 25th, 2013 at 1:03 am
I knew women in the military who were better leaders than myself, brooked less BS, and generally were fine soldiers. That being said, all of the schools I went to and the billets I held (Infantry) had nice, fat, wash-out rates for the men.
I’ll go farther. I also spent a great deal of time in the mountains after my service, as a climber and a guide. It is a very exacting arena, and not a forgiving one. I knew many women who were very buff and savvy. But, not as many women as men, not by a long shot. Those who wanted to lead on the pointy end of the rope were severely absent when the time came. It just wasn’t in their make-up. Yes, there were some.
Every man here present who served in the military knows that docking a big ship, stowing supplies, humping 155 mm ammo, mortar baseplates, HMG tripods, butt loads of ammo and water cans…I’m getting tired just thinking of all this, is hard work. Not hard – brutally hard. Listen to Charles Durning talk about his D Day experiences on You Tube and picture your sister exiting into 60 feet of ocean water with the guy on either side getting killed.
There are some women loggers, but you gotta be kidding me if you think they can pull their weight as a rule.
Of course we all know there will be monkeying with the standards. That alone should give you pause. Thanks, Mr Panetta and Mr Obama. Dumb asses.
January 25th, 2013 at 8:13 am
@Hondo #84
“Unfortunately, that would conflict with the “right to reproductive freedom” (or some such).”
And this is what amuses me the most. I’ve seen the argument. I’m pretty damn sure the enemy does not care about your reproductive rights or hell, even your right to live. Here’s the thing, you have a small outpost with 8 men. Now you have a small outpost with 7 men, 1 woman. She gets knocked up, but not in the immaculate conception kind of way. To be fair and equal, BOTH parties get disciplined, sent home, kicked out (and I personally think both parties should lose any and all benefits). In the end, the big picture, there are 6 guys left at the outpost, 2 soldiers short, and that right there is the problem.
If you want the “choice” to fight on the front lines, to be a grunt, then you better damn well be making the “choice” where you absolutely WILL NOT get pregnant.
My 2 cents.
January 25th, 2013 at 8:42 am
LL: agree pretty much 100% with your latest comment.
But what you propose just ain’t gonna happen. Politics guarantees that.
What will happen is that both will possibly be disciplined for violation of orders (consensual sex between unmarried couples was technically prohibited in 2007-2008, and may still be prohibited in-theater today). The gal will be sent home to have the kid. The guy will serve out his term in-country, and if disciplined probably not have the option to continue his career. And the outpost will be 1 soldier short for the duration.
January 25th, 2013 at 1:47 pm
[...] One guy who was in a front line unit has similar views: [...]
January 27th, 2013 at 12:58 am
FWIW – I spent most of time in the NG… in an AdMin company…that was about 40% female.
We had 14 GP medium tents and 10 GP small tents to put up every time we went out to the field on a problem. Nothing was quite as interesting as watching six or seven females trying to erect the center poles/ridgepole on a GP medium, let alone load the folded tent onto the back of a Duce.
Can’t say the women didn’t know their jobs, but the physical side was a whole ‘nother thing. And yes we did have the same ones getting preggers every year just in time for our two week deployment.
February 3rd, 2013 at 5:34 pm
[...] a wise man has said: “If history has taught anything, the services had better keep the standards for combat [...]