Marines threaten to leave Corps

| February 2, 2013

The Associated Press reports that a in a survey of 53,000 Marines, 17% of them threatened to leave the ranks if women were allowed into combat-related jobs. That number increased to 22% if women were forced into those specialties;

About 4 percent of female Marines surveyed said they would consider leaving if the ban was lifted. Even more would drop out if women were put into those positions involuntarily with about 17 percent of female respondents expressing they would cut their careers short under those circumstances.

About 31 percent of female respondents say they would be interested in moving into a combat position.

The commandant of the Marine Corps said the infantry side of the most male of all military branches is skeptical about how women will perform in their units, and some positions may end up closed again if too few females meet the physically demanding standards of combat.

Apparently, Leon Panetta knew about the results of this survey before he made his announcement last month that he’ll force this square peg into a round hole, but he’s going ahead with it anyway. I wonder if those social scientists who are pulling for this are willing to fill the slots of one-in-five Marines who say they’ll leave while their replacements get trained.

I’ve seen the media use this line as some sort of justification for putting women in those jobs;

More than 150 women have been killed in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan while serving in support roles.

So, see? Women can be killed and that makes them fully qualified for combat. Its as if the media just discovered that women are mortals and that combat troop’s only significant job in combat is to die.

Category: Military issues

Comments (29)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Cortillaen says:

    Here’s an idea that was suggested as a “next step” after this stupidity, but I think it makes the perfect prerequisite, instead: Show us that co-ed sports teams work. If the “women are just as capable of handling combat as men” line is anything close to true, they should be just as capable of handling the physical demands of competitive sports. After all, sports doesn’t have the same level of long-term physical privation or mental strain, so it should be a piece of cake for those hordes of combat-ready women. Besides, it’s a two-fer: You get to de-descriminate sports while supporting the argument for co-ed combat units! How could anyone refuse?

  2. A_Proud_Infidel says:

    How many Light Infantrymen will it take to “hump” a female Troop’s gear when she “falls out” during a long road march? I’ve seen plenty of female troops that just wanted to work and earn their keep, but I’ve also seen a fair share that used their gender to weasel out of doing what they’re supposed to!!

  3. Joe says:

    Leaving the corps has always been their choice. To change the ruling because 17% want to resign would be the tail wagging the dog, despite the fact that the sky is falling and it is the end of civilization as we know it (not).

  4. Hondo says:

    Thank you for the benefit of your vast military experience, Comrade Joseph.

  5. Futue Te Ipsum says:

    Joe, you incredible moron — you have no service, ergo you have no opinion.

    Chingese usted, chingador

  6. pete says:

    could be by design by this gubberment,,get the hard core troops to leave so they can re-fill the ranks with they’re own version of military types who will obey any order given without question!! scary fuk’n thought right there

  7. Jacobite says:

    Run out of rocks to climb Joe? So bored you feel the need to come pee in our pool ’cause you have nothing better to do?

  8. Oldav8r says:

    Correct me, but didn’t the Corps open some combat positions/training to women last year? Getting something like 4 applicants, two of which dropped out within a couple of weeks.

  9. Jonn Lilyea says:

    Oldav8r; they had two applicants and both dropped.

  10. UpNorth says:

    Joey, what would you know about the military, other than COD? Go find a pebble to climb, or go peddle your ass around town on your Schwinn.

  11. Doc says:

    @pete, I have had that exact same thought. The current make up of the DoD would tell leadership to fuck off if ordered to take military action against US Citizens. The military is a strong block of constitutionally minded, America loving, patriots. This presents a serious block to any future leader with nefarious intentions.

  12. cannoncocker says:

    Is… Joe really trying to give us his “informed” opinion of the staffing woes of the US Military? The same Joe who spent way too much of his time on another thread yammering on about dodging the draft and protesting the war? Un-fugging-believable.

    Hey Joe, since you’re all knowing and all seeing, maybe you can help me troubleshoot a problem with my car. My LTFT is at about 28% and my upstream HO2S only toggles about 3 times in 7 seconds. The STFT hovers around 3% and the PCM sets the code P0403. Any ideas what’s wrong, Oh Great and Powerful Joe?

  13. FatCircles0311 says:

    The entirety of that 31% will lose all interest within the first 10 minutes of a fleet hump.

  14. Stacy0311 says:

    doesn’t matter how many leave the Corps due to this ruling. Recruiters will be overwhelmed with women volunteering to serve now that they can be combat arms. Just like the were overwhelm by massive numbers of LGBT volunteers once DADT was repealed.
    Oh wait…………..

  15. NHSparky says:

    You know what will kill the idea of women in combat the quickest?

    Another picture splashed on every front page of every media outlet in the world of an American servicewoman “infantry” soldier being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu, or being burned and hung from a bridge in Fallujah.

    And then the same people who screamed for this change the loudest, who cheered the loudest when it did change, who then became the quietest when asked if they would serve, will then show the greatest faux outrage and how could we DO such a thing?

    Yeah, you see it coming too, don’t you?

  16. Joe says:

    Im a Veteran, you morans.

  17. UpNorth says:

    A veteran? Of what, the Peace Corps? Rock Climbing for Heroes? Right, the march on D.C. That doesn’t count, Joey boy.

  18. Jonn Lilyea says:

    I think he’s a different Joe than our regular hippie, draft dodger Joe.

  19. Hondo says:

    Joe (17): FYI, there is a liberal, admitted Vietnam-era draft avoider who posts here using the same moniker “Joe”. That “Joe” – AKA Joe the Rockclimbing Hero, or sometimes Comrade Joseph, Socialist Hero of Rockclimbing for Greater Glory Socialist Republic of Durango – has the common sense of a football bat and the logical argument skills of an imbecile. Yet he still loves to comment here, particularly on articles here involving womens’ issues and guns. Your comment 3 above sounds like something that Joe the Rockclimbing Hero might have posted on one of his rare days of lucidity.

    Unfortunately, Joe the Rockclimbing Hero been providing comic relief here at TAH for quite a while. So he’s well known, and people using the screen name “Joe” are sometimes mistaken for him.

    Assuming you’re legit and aren’t the same individual playing games (comment 17 was posted from a mobile device), it’s your call – but you might want to use a different screen name to avoid future misidentifications if you are. Maybe “Joe the Vet” or something similar.

  20. UpNorth says:

    Sorry, Joe, as there’s no unique sign-in, there is room for lots of confusion.

  21. NSOM says:

    They’re banking on the Bush economy, the Democrat “recovery” and the emaciated Obama military keeping the ranks filled to the brim, which they will. By the time the economy is recovered and the DoD needs to be pulled back off the shelf the people responsible will either be retired or doing to the “all politics is local” Congressional shuck and jive anyway. Most people don’t give a shit if you helped destroy the military 15 years ago, as long as your politico-for-life ass is bringing home the welfare checks and special privilege legislation.

  22. Green Thumb says:

    I am so glad I do not have to deal with this anymore…

    Chalk another “social/moral” victory up for the “O” administration.

    It would really backfire if the USMC started authorizing vasectomies and regulated BC….

    No pregnancy = deployment.


  23. jaggirl47 says:

    I think if women can meet all requirements expected of the men without changing them, they should be allowed. It would be an extremely small percentage, but no reason not to allow it. Women have served on the “front lines” of both wars from the beginning to include being directly assigned to infantry companies and following the same exact expectations. It’s the ones that use their sex to get others to do their job that truly piss me off and end up making a bad name for all women in the services.

  24. WigWam says:

    150 women over 11 years? That’s barely over 1 a month. Out of the dozens of thousands that serve every year and the hundreds of thousands collectively that have served over 11 years, 150 doesn’t sound like much. I think more people have died from lightning strikes over the past 11 years than that.

  25. USMCE8Ret says:

    There’s also “Joe Williams” that stops by frequently, also.

  26. Stacy0311 says:

    @23-if it’s an extremely small percentage, how would it increase the effectiveness of the military in accomplishing their mission? What does that extremely small percentage bring in the way of capabilities that we don’t already have? And would an extremely small percentage be worth the time trouble and effort to integrate them into the force?

  27. cannoncocker says:

    My apologies to the Not-Crazy Joe. We tend to jump the proverbial gun when we see that name attached to a post.

  28. Hondo says:

    jaggirl47: I’d like to see something showing that women have actually been assigned to infantry companies (vice to a supporting or OPCON unit) during operations in Iraq or Afghanistan. Not saying it didn’t happen, but that would be news to me. Prior to mid-2012, Army policy expressly prohibited that, and I believe it still does for combat arms units at the company level. The announcement of the policy change last year indicates women would be allowed to serve at BCTs down to the battalion level – not in combat arms companies. The SECDEF’s more recent announcement is not yet effective.

    I could be wrong here, but I’d like to see some proof.

  29. Joe Williams says:

    If the SoD and GOs modifly the requirements(lower for the females will this create a grounds for a male to equal employment suit? From all I have read all the Femals crying to get into the combat arms are ones that out of service or too of rank to be elible for the combat schools. As to being equal to men,why do they want to give up all power? Joe