Carter opens all military specialties to women

| December 3, 2015

Jerry920 sends us a link to the Associated Press which reports that Ashton Carter, the Secretary of Defense has directed the service chiefs to open all military occupational specialties to the fairer sex, you know, despite the push back that he got from some of them.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, Gen. Joseph Dunford, former Marine Corps commandant, had argued that the Marines should be allowed to keep women out of certain front-line combat jobs, citing studies showing that mixed-gender units aren’t as capable as all-male units. Carter’s decision was a rejection of that argument.

Carter’s order will let women serve in the military’s most grueling and difficult jobs, including as special operations forces, such as the Army Delta units and Navy SEALs, according to the defense official.

The decision comes after several years of study, and will wipe away generations of limits on how and where women can fight for their country.

Yeah, several years of study that was wasted, because we all knew how it was going to end regardless of the results of the studies. Now we can waste more money to make the social justice warriors happy – the same social justice warriors who aren’t the least bit interested in occupying those jobs themselves.

So, when are Carter and the others going to answer my question – how will this help us kill more enemy and win wars?

Category: Big Pentagon

Comments (184)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    Well, if this thread doesn’t beg for Lars’ commentary, none does. I’m sure the lefty pundits will be poking around to catch the reaction of the Veteran community. Go for it, Lars! It’s your chance at fame, even if Daily Kos doesn’t use your screen name. (Note to Lefty trolls: Please forgive Lars’ writing. He has a disability.)

  2. Jeff says:

    So now lets let all of the fairer sex go to the post office at 18 and register for selective service, no Fed student loans till you do. Got to be equal then you got to do everything just like I had too.

    • jerry920 says:

      I hadn’t thought of that. The whole premise behind women being exempt from selective service was combat. Good point.

    • Richard says:

      Regardless of the opinion of Asshole Carter, I think that every 18-year-old should register for the draft – male or female, even if they are disqualified for physical, medical, or psychological reasons. Everybody.

      • The Commentor' Formerly Known as MCPO NYC USN Ret. says:

        With the notion that the 20 year retirement is now in jeopardy and with this news, we are going to have to use the draft when young men stop signing up in our all volunteer military.

        But what do I know …

      • Ex-PH2 says:

        I agree. If everything is open to women, then they should be expected to register with Selective Service, too. They can register to vote at the same time. And none of that idjit PC crap, either.

        Save water. Shower with a friend.

    • 3E9 says:

      In some states no drivers license either. At least in SC.

    • TopGoz says:

      If someone born with both X and Y chromosomes identifies as a homosexual female from age 18 through age 26, will this administration exempt them from Selective Service registration?

    • 1AirCav69 says:

      Well put Jeff. Many of us old timers have been saying that for years during the big ERA battles. All the women I knew supporting the ERA refused the idea that they had to register for the draft. The most used answer was, no shit, “There shouldn’t be any wars.” Lets see if one of our many idiots in Congress will suggest this.

  3. Jason says:

    Um.. It wont.

  4. OWB says:

    Will assignments be voluntary? A significant number of females enlisted with the knowledge that could not be compelled to perform some specialties. Will that now change?

    • Ex-PH2 says:

      My guess is that women will be sent where the military wants/needs them to go, regardless of their personal desires.

      • Green Thumb says:

        The military is also about to have to rewrite the book(s) on leadership standards, training SOPS, UCMJ and fiscal allocation for new facilities and logistics to accommodate a host of associated issues (privacy, personal, conduct, fiscal, etc.).

    • Green Thumb says:

      Good question.

      IMO, the military will have to justify this in the long run.

      That being said, if there is no interest in, lets say Infantry, then the Pentagon will have to “create” interest. That should begin in the form of special financial or schoolhouse incentives for female volunteers(curious if their male counterparts will get the same). But I can only imagine in the end, they will be assigned to those positions regardless of their preference to “create equality”.

    • Reddevil says:

      You have to differentiate between assignments and specialties.

      Enlisting for a specific ‘specialty’ (MOS) is voluntary.

      Assignment to most units is not- for example, service in Army airborne and most special,ops units is voluntary, and Navy sub duty is voluntary.

      • Ncat says:

        True, but if a woman fails out of AIT for, let’s say, an MI MOS (women have long been disproportionately represented in MI), does that mean the Army can send her into the combat arms.

        If memory serves, should you fail out of a given AIT, the Army can do what it wants with you.

        • Reddevil says:

          Not really You can reclassify according to the needs of the Army into occupations you qualify for.

          The Army has realized that troops who don’t want to be in a certain MOS don’t normally do well in it.

          You still have to compete training for that MOS as well…

      • TheCloser says:

        Just because you ‘volunteer’ for an MOS doesn’t mean you’re going to get it.

        I joined the Marine Corps with an aviation ‘guarantee’ (school in Memphis) and was sent to MCC&E School in 29 Palms.

        In addition, there was over a 50% failure rate, with most of those who failed becoming either wireman or radio operators.

        The Marine Corps no longer has guarantees and one of my sons was given the choice of one of four MOS’s right before shipping off to boot camp.

        There are also ASVAB score restrictions on many MOS’s which further restrict opportunities to ‘volunteer’ for any particular job.

        • Reddevil says:

          The Marines will only guarantee the opportunity to compete for a family of MOSs- no promise until you finish boot camp

          The army is the only service that will lock you n for a given AIT/MOS- assuming you qualify

        • The Commentor' Formerly Known as MCPO NYC USN Ret. says:

          In 1979 I walked into the US Navy recruiting station and pronounced, “I want to steam boilers”.

          All three recruiters, at least two of them were drunk at 10 am, started laughing and they collectively said, “never in the history of the US Navy has anyone ever walked in to the recruiter and asked to steam boilers”.

          I got what I wanted …

          So, miracles can happen!

  5. Former11b says:

    Let the goooooooooooooooooddddddd tiiiiiiiiiimmmmmmmmeeeeeessss rolllllllllllllllllll!

    Let the good times roll!

  6. Stacy0311 says:

    No more running cadences about Suzy Rottencrotch because she’s in the grunts now.
    Open contract going to be a bitch.
    If I had the power to assign every boot coming through MCRD, every female recruit would hear Gunny Hartmann “Congratulations, you made it. 0300”
    Burn it down.
    When we rebuild it after the current clowns leave it will be better

    • Green Thumb says:

      If I punch a fellow Infantryman/Ranger in the face during a alcohol-induced barracks fight over a card game or a woman and they happen to be female, am I in trouble for battery, sexual assault and harassment?

      UCMJ is about to change.

      When this goes through, discipline will have to be uniform deep. No further.

      • Ex-PH2 says:

        What if she punches you first?

        • Green Thumb says:

          Depends if I am claiming transgender status.

          But on a serious note, the rules (UCMJ) will need a once over due to the potential of these types of altercations.

          And if she does, she does. The bigger issue will lie in the fact that the SJW may want the cake and be able to eat it too.

          Back in the day, physical discipline by a NCO would have been enough corrective action. Will that methodology and approach still hold true?

          • D says:

            Um, the UCMJ already covers battery, regardless of gender.

            • Green Thumb says:

              Um, those that are reported.

              Check out an infantry platoon.

              • Climb to Glory says:

                Agreed. Not a whole lot of reporting of barracks brawls and bar fights in an infantry platoon. Kinda goes likes this at Monday formation:

                PSG: What the fuck happened to your fucking face.
                PVT: I don’t know.
                PSG: Hopefully the other guy looks worse(walks away).

              • D says:

                That’s a non-sequitur. How does someone reporting it or not affect whether it’s lawful or not under the UCMJ? I get it. You don’t want women in combat arms. There are many more legitimate reasons than the one you are giving about the UCMJ. You haven’t said what would need to be changed, but I posit that it’s fine the way it is.

    • Rerun0369 says:

      I didn’t change a damn thing when the ladies came through my platoon in ITB. I remained a foul-mouthed, irritable, angry prick like I have always been. My platoon never had any male/female relation problems, no complaints of biasness, etc etc. Then there were some Platoon Sergeants that walked on egg shells, and they were the ones with the most problems.

  7. L. Taylor says:

    Good. Long overdue.

    Fuck you if you disagree.

    You are wrong.

    Have a nice day.

    • Ex-PH2 says:

      I disagree.

      I’m a woman.

      You’re full of shit.

      Have a crappy day, carp.

    • Jonn Lilyea says:

      How does it make the force more lethal?

      • Ex-PH2 says:

        I don’t know, Sarge, I’ll find Obi-wan Kenobi and ask him.

      • 2/17 Air Cav says:

        Did you ever see Crazy Sally pissed off? Damn straight the services will now be more lethal.

      • L. Taylor says:

        Killing people is not the only role of the US military, nor is it the only role of the infantry or other combat arms in modern war.

        We can debate whether it should be, but we do not have another agency or branch suited for many of the tasks being conducted by the DoD due to issues of manpower, training, or funding. So whether the military is the right agency for the jobs we are doing, they are they jobs we are doing and the expectation is there is a lot more work to be done in these unconventional, stability operations, peacekeeping, crisis, civil order, and humanitarian roles in the future.

        I think there is a way though policy and unit assignments to capitalize on the benefits of women in combat arms while reducing the risks/cons.

        As long as the physical standards for combat arms are not reduced to accommodate women.

        • smoke-check says:

          Oh dear god you’re dense. Here you go moron, mission of the Infantry as defined in the FM 3-21.8 as:

          “The mission of the Infantry is to close with the enemy by means of fire and maneuver in order to destroy or capture him, or to repel his assault with fire, close combat, and counterattack. The Infantry will engage the enemy with combined arms in all operational environments to bring about his defeat.”

          Please tell me where along the way you became convinced that any thought that crops up in your head was absolute fact?

          • 68W58 says:

            They don’t quote FMs at UC-Berkeley dude, so that won’t matter to Lars.

          • Rerun0369 says:

            From the 3-11.1, the mission of the Marine Rifle Squad:

            “Locate, close with, and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver, and to repel the enemies assault by fire and close combat.”

          • L. Taylor says:

            Seriously? That is the best you got? Let’s just ignore the decades of the infantry not being used that way.

            Soldiers and units perform the role they are assigned.

            And that does not even address the fact that women are also capable of closing with and destroying the enemy.

            • Derek says:

              Hey I wrote a new song, it’s called “fuck you, you’re a dickhead useless troll”

            • smoke-check says:

              That’s mission of the Infantry, I don’t need anything else, numbnuts. Infantry soldiers also clean latrines from time to time. That does doesn’t mean the established mission of the Infantry is to “close with and destroy mildew and soap scum by scrubbing and mopping techniques”.

              Every single argument you ever have is based on something pulled out of your fourth point of contact. You really are nothing but a worthless ideologue.

          • SFC D says:

            “The mission of the Infantry is to close with the enemy by means of fire and maneuver in order to destroy or capture him, or to repel his assault with fire, close combat, and counterattack. The Infantry will engage the enemy with combined arms in all operational environments to bring about his defeat.”

            There are only 2 jobs in the Army. You are either Infantry, or you support Infantry.

            • 3E9 says:

              I don’t know if I read it or made it up but my saying for years has always been “There are two jobs in the military:
              1. Kill people
              2. Help people kill people

              Figure out which one you want to do and be the best you can at it.

            • Green Thumb says:

              Word.

              Non-Infantry fucks will never get it.

              They will never understand why the ski is blue.

          • Ex-PH2 says:

            Well, that settles it. The trout-sniffing carp Lars the Fallible is exactly the kind of officious jackanapes who will not only NOT listen to his sergeant but will also drag his troops into the line of fire and get them cut to pieces, because RA-A-ANK!!

        • David says:

          Which doesn’t pose the question of “why don’t we have women doing these extraneous non-war-contributing humanitarian jobs” but rather makes one want to ask “why s the military in general doing all this extraneous horseshit? And how much smaller, more mobile, lethal, and less expensive could the military be if we restricted its use to activities aligned with its mission, fighting wars?”

          • L. Taylor says:

            Because the one place where both conservative and liberal politicians can agree to spend money is on defense.

            I think we need to start a foreign service corp and a domestic service corp and fund them.

            The foreign service corp would handle many of the non-combat, humanitarian, development, and stability operations that the US military is handling now. It would allow for access to education and training for young people much like the armed forces but focused on developing a large number of Americans who speak foreign languages have contacts and relationships at the sub-national level in countries around the world, and one better suited of the more nuanced and less lethal missions we face in an increasingly destabilizing world.

            • Ex-PH2 says:

              Foreign service corps? We already have one, dimwit. It’s called the Peace Corps. President Kennedy started it before you were born.

              And the word is spelled c-o-r-p-s. CORP is the abbreviation for corporation. Please start taking responsibility for your mistakes, will you? If you do, maybe people will think better of you.

              • L. Taylor says:

                I think I am going to make more mistakes just to irritate you.

                • Ex-PH2 says:

                  Big mistake. Big HUGE mistake.

                  Don’t warn people of your intentions if you want to win the war.

                  Geez, whatever poor souls get stuck with you as their leader are going to end up not just confused but most likely dead right there.

                  You really are dumber than a sack of moldy apples.

                  • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

                    Ex-PH2, the more I see of Lars-pinky’s rants, the more convinced I am that he was a substandard Soldier that his CoC DOD NOT want to retain.

                  • Ex-PH2 says:

                    Actually, API, the more he rattles on, the more clear it is that he was as incompetent in the Army as he is online here.

              • HMCS (FMF) ret. says:

                And if I remember correctly, there’s AmeriCorps which was stood up for domestic service:

                http://www.nationalservice.gov/programs/americorps

            • 19D2OR4 - Smitty says:

              *Corps* not corp genius

              • L. Taylor says:

                Well, “corps” would not be capitalized in this case, genius.

                • David says:

                  As the first word in the comment – yes, as a matter of fact, it would be capitalized. They do have good points, ‘know – Americorps and the Peace Corps are created to do exactly what the vast majority of ‘humanitarian actions’ wind up doing.

                  • L. Taylor says:

                    Lol, fair enough. I mistook the capitalization as part of his correction.

                  • L. Taylor says:

                    No, that is not the role of Peace Corps, nor are they well funded, and nor do they have the manpower. I have something much more like increasing the funding, manpower, and capacity of the DoS/USAID.

                    Americorps is close to what I have in mind domestically, but it is underfunded, training is scarce, they do not provide the same access to opportunity and education as the military, and the pay is very poor.

                    • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

                      Lars-pinky, the Piss (*OOPS!*, Peace) Corps was founded during the early 60’s with flower-headed do-gooders like you who want to try and save everybody from themselves in order to bolster their PRECIOUS self-esteem! 😀

                    • David says:

                      Yes, they are underfunded and small….precisely because most politicians know that a good chunk of the American public could give a shit about dirstributing Koans and Tupperware in Assholistan. So they have the military do all the humanitarian relief because it’s buried in the DoD budget.

        • 68W58 says:

          I think there is a way though policy…./i>

          In progspeak this incantation serves the same purpose as “there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet” and “for God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son” does in other religions.

        • Jonn Lilyea says:

          Women were already allowed in the jobs that not killing the enemy was the main focus. But now, women will be in the series of occupations known as “combat arms” because that’s their focus. So, again, I ask, how will this purely political decision contribute to the deaths of even more of our enemies?

          • L. Taylor says:

            Is it enough that it kill as many enemies?

            Doe it need to kill more to be a legitimate decision?

            The question is not whether a female will outperform an equally qualified male.

            The question is whether a highly qualified female will outperform the lesser qualified males we would be admitting if we banned females and their were insufficient highly qualified males.

            Based on the fact that the ASVB score for infantry is lower than it has been at times in the past it is clear we are lowering standard to meet requirements.

            It is reasonable that highly qualified women would be better than lower quality males.

            While DoD has done studies on women in combat with somewhat negative results (though mixed) they have also done studies on the effects of intelligent soldiers in combat and found intelligent soldiers perform significantly better than soldiers with average or below average intelligence; including killing more enemies.

            So, if the result of admitting women is maintaining a higher minimum intelligence requirement due to sufficient applicants then “yes” adding women may very well increase the effectiveness of killing enemies.

            And this is no more a “political” decision as are the principles on which we are founded. We are either a country that believes all Americans are equal under the law or we are not.

            If we are not then I am not sure we are worth defending anyway.

            • HMCS (FMF) ret. says:

              And there you have it folks… our divine guidance from the Deputy Assistant General Secretary of Defense for Social Warfare Programs and other minutae, Lars Taylor….

              • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

                I’ve heard that B. Hussein 0bama is considering the installation of a Political Correctness Czar, thus Lars-pinky is spouting off here to show how good he is at spreading the disease (*OOPS!*, message) of political correctness to us unwashed Conservative heathens who DO NOT believe in it in order to try and show that he’s qualified! 😀

            • 68W58 says:

              We are either a country that believes all Americans are equal under the law or we are not.

              What do you presume this even means Lars? It’s an empty platitude until you get down to brass tacks. Does it mean that we have to make exemptions for other groups in other ways? In any particular circumstance? If not why not?

              And just so I’m clear-if we can’t do this in any conceivable circumstance-then you are unsure that we “aren’t worth defending” Because failure to live up to whatever your vague ideals might be would mean that we aren’t clearly better than almost every other alternative throughout human history?

              • smoke-check says:

                Yeah, duh. Because the Infantry will be so much better served with people who were born with no legs. That’s the next step folks. No more ableist discrimination in combat arms!!!!!

            • Jonn Lilyea says:

              Funny, I spent twenty years in the infantry and the focus of my job was on killing the enemy as efficiently and quickly as possible. I know you’re not an infantryman, but please don’t pretend that my job was anything except killing large numbers of the other guys before they killed me. This doesn’t help in that regard.

              • L. Taylor says:

                Jonn, I am not going to speak to what you did during you career.

                However, the FM definition does not even come close to describing the role of infantry in modern war. If we truly limited the role of infantry to closing with and destroying the enemy we would need a lot less of you folks on active duty most of the time. We would need to train a hell of a lot of other folks to do jobs currently being done by the infantry in the battlespace

                I understand the role of combat arms. I am trained and qualified as an infantry officer and I spent the majority of my career in special forces and infantry units.

                Right now, in combat the most challenging task is finding and identifying the enemy. Something females are well suited to do.

                This is something the infantry spends much of not most of their time doing on the modern battlefield.

                when we actually find the enemy we win almost every time. Having women in combat arms roles will not change that part of the outcome. IT will change the rate and effectiveness of finding the enemy.

                The era of large conventional forces fighting a conventional front is long gone. I know right now there are some old 3 and 4 stars in the pentagon pushing that future war agenda but they are doing it based on some really sketchy assumptions and motives. Much of it has to do with the kind of war we plan to fight determines who gets the funding in the next 25 years.

                It is no accident that Putin used unconventional forces in the Ukraine, that North Korea has the largest unconventional force in the world, that Iran has specifically structured their army to be a large unconventional force, and that China is taking an unconventional approach to countering our Navy superiority and their “unrestricted warfare” strategy includes a critical unconventional ground component.

                • David says:

                  “in combat the most challenging task is finding and identifying the enemy. Something females are well suited to do. ” Okay, I think I understand now…. let the women do all the recon and identify who they are closing with – call a time-out, bring up the knuckledraggers, and let THEM engage. Let me know how that works out.

                • Ex-PH2 says:

                  This is how you get people killed on your side of the battle line.

                • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

                  Lars, YOU SAID that you WERE 11A, time to own up to it. If you really were, I bet that you were CHASED out of it!

              • L. Taylor says:

                Right now and over the next 2-3 decades no nation on the planet will be able to defeat the US in a conventional war. Women in combat or not.

                Which is precisely why no nation plans to fight us conventionally.

                • Reddevil says:

                  Lars, I understand your point but you are missing the larger point.

                  Of the various branches, the Maneuver Combat Arms (Armor and Infantry) are the only ones with the mission of closing with and destroying the enemy. Can an MP engage in combat? Yes, but that is a secondary role. Can an infantryman talk to a key leader or man a checkpoint? Of course, but that is a secondary role. The minute we fail to organize,train, and equip our maneuver forces for their primary mission we have lost the next war

                  • Reddevil says:

                    The character of war may change, but the nature never does. The amount and method of killing may change, but killing is the constant.

                    I agree that the MISSION of the military is to win, not necessarily to kill, and the mission of the Infnatry is to destroy, not necessarily to kill.

                    However, destruction of the enemy is an inherently violent act, and that violence must compel the enemy to flee, surrender, or die.

                  • L. Taylor says:

                    Depends on the next war.

                    Canary had a very different mission than it does today.

                    While we assume infantry role is primarily to kill the enemy the nature of the enemy and the methods we use to find and kill them are changing. I think women in infantry roles will enhance our capacity to do that. Particularly if the female applicants means we have sufficient numbers to raise the minimum requirements for all. Particularly intelligence standards.

                    I consider one of the largest liability of US infantry forces on the modern battlefield is how much more intelligent a soldier must be to operate than in most of the past.

                    • L. Taylor says:

                      Damnit!

                      Did I seriously just write “canary” instead of “cavalry”?

                      So annoying.

                    • Animal says:

                      Lars, I don’t mean this with anything other than genuine curiosity, but what exactly did you do in the military? And if I’m not getting too personal, what do you do now?

                    • Green Thumb says:

                      I used to play RISK.

                      Not video games, shitbag.

                      Go back to concentrating on your thesis and TA position.

                      Your financial aid (grades) may depend on it.

                    • reddevil says:

                      Not so sure about canaries, but the Cavalry has long had primarily a reconnaissance and security mission. That did not really change much during the last conflict.

                      It is confusing because the Army uses lineal designations for units that don’t really match the actual units- for instance, the Cav regiments today are all actually Stryker Brigades, and all of the Cav Squadrons are RSTA squadrons. In the First CAV, the Cav units are actually CABs…

                      I firmly believe that there are women that can meet the standard to serve in the infantry, and I applaud the decision to give them the opportunity to serve.

                      True, the recent conflicts call for our ground troops to be able to fill many roles. That is true.

                      However, that does not change the fundamental nature of combat or the mission of the infantry.

                      Women in the infantry need to be as lethal as their male counterparts. The fact that they enhance our capability to fulfill non traditional wars is a good thing, but first and foremost the infantry is the infantry.

          • Reddevil says:

            I think that there is a very small number of women, less than 1% of women who would join the service in the first place, that are capable of performing to standard in line infantry units. We are talking about maybe a hundred women a year total, out of the thousands that join the Army every year. The Marines had over 200 women volunteer for and complete the 0300 Infantry course to standard in a two year period

            If those women can replace a few of the men that are there now who CANNOT perform to standard, then we will have a better Army and Marine Corps.

        • Richard says:

          According to the techninsider here:

          http://www.techinsider.io/military-women-combat-jobs-2015-12

          “Carter overruled the Corps’ objections and called for a common set of standards for males and females, saying the move would make the military “better and stronger.””

          To me, “common standards” means, “lowered standards”. YMMV but I bet I’m right.

        • Hondo says:

          I’ll refer you to the Army’s Mission, Taylor:

          The Army’s mission is to fight and win our Nation’s wars by . . . .

          Everything after the word “by” in the definition is a description of how.

          If a policy does not enhance the Army’s ability to do the above, it does not support the Army’s mission. It is exceptionally difficult for me to comprehend how this change will enhance the Army’s ability to fight and win the nation’s wars. If anything, IMO it almost certainly will degrade the Army’s ability to do so.

    • The Other Whitey says:

      Oh Lars. If only you were 1/512 as smart as you think you are.

      • 2/17 Air Cav says:

        Well, he is certainly as smart as we know him to be. That’s for sure. Poor Lars. He is a confused soul. He wants to belong. He wants to believe. But he can’t. He just can’t. So, he pretends that he is better than the rest, that he is rejected because of his imagined superior intellect, his imagined skill at argumentation, not to mention his degrees from a place we would envy if we had any sense at all.

      • Ex-PH2 says:

        I guess the trout-sniffer has never heard of the Yeomanettes, WAVES, WACs, WAAFs, and the WASPs. Non-combatant, extraneous, sometimes humanitarian jobs that the military required but couldn’t spare men to do.

        Maybe those who can’t qualify for combat positions can be added to the shore-duty puke jobs where trained people are badly needed, but have no glamourousnesses attached to them.

        • Hondo says:

          Maybe those who can’t qualify for combat positions can be added to the shore-duty puke jobs where trained people are badly needed, but have no glamourousnesses attached to them.

          So, does that mean those less-arduous assignments end up going preferentially to women? Given biological norms, that certainly sounds like what will happen.

          Yeah, that’s really going to be popular with those who do qualify for shipboard/combat arms specialties. You’ve just told them they have essentially half or less the chance of their female peers to get one of those “breather” assignments – and are going to spend virtually all of their careers busting their ass in difficult assignments.

          That’s certainly going to have a long-term effect on morale, cohesion, and retention. But I don’t think it’s going to be a good one.

        • Ex-PH2 says:

          Maybe I wasn’t clear enough. Women were recruited to fill jobs that men filled during WWII, Korea and Vietnam, not because they were less strenuous, but because they were noncombatant jobs, except for maybe nursing. This released men from stateside positions to be sent overseas. During WWII and Korea, women were also sent overseas to war zones, but not so much during Vietnam.
          The MOSes or rates that women filled included the same occupational slots that men filled in peacetime, such as Aerial Interpreter (PHAI) in the Navy but which were later rolled into the PH rate. I know there was a WAC who lived around here who was stationed in London during WWII as what she called a ‘code breaker’. She wasn’t more specific about it than that. If that would be considered a combat job, okay, but she was never sent over to the continent.

          The WASPs were civilian women who ferried planes from one base to another for the Army during WWII. Those were dangerous jobs, but they were noncombatant pilots who flew everything from towing targets for pilot training to bombers. They weren’t granted military status until a few years ago.

          Sorry if I wasn’t clear.

          • Hondo says:

            I understand that, Ex-PH2. But conditions in WW2 were far different than today.

            WW2 was an era of mass, industrial scale warfare. It was fought with essentially a part-time, temporary force impressed from the civilian sector out of existential need. Every male who could be spared was needed to fill a combat slot – as shown by other manpower initiatives during the war (disqualifying conditions – mental and physical – changed radically between late 1941 and 1943).

            Even then, the Army’s “90 division gamble” damn near backfired. Of the 90 divisions fielded, 88 deployed to combat. Had the war in Europe and the Pacific lasted much longer, we’d have been SOL; the Army would have run out of trained troops. As it was, had only Japan continued the war after Hiroshima and Nagasaki a huge redeployment of combat divisions from Europe to the Pacific would have been required.

            Today’s situation is far different. We have a professional force – one in which a large portion serves a full career. The normal pattern among careerists in many if not all services is a “hard” assignment (deployed or with a troop unit) followed by a less-arduous one (staff/shore/school). This is necessary to prevent physical and mental “burnout”; everyone has their limits, and needs a breather from time to time.

            What you suggest essentially would result in a disproportionate fraction of females in “easy” assignments. This is because biology dictates that most females simply will not, under current standards, be able to qualify physically for combat-arms assignments. A disproportionate number of females in such assignments perforce means fewer males will get such an assignment, and will get repeated arduous or “hardship” assignments.

            This is precisely why the military chooses to discharge many nondeployable members through the PEB and medical discharge/retirement process. A soldier that’s non-deployable perforce occupies an “easy” assignment, because they are restricted from deployment. It’s a matter of equity and long-term impact on those who are fully qualified for deployment. Failing to do this would result in a larger number of careerists experiencing “early burnout” (which is already a problem), and leaving early. The resulting experience and talent drain has been deemed unacceptable.

            I fear what you propose would lead to the same end. I fail to see why that would be acceptable.

          • Ex-PH2 says:

            Not arguing your point, Hondo, except that I did not says ‘women only’. During WWII, Korea and Vietnam, women were hired to release men to combat duty. You know as well as I do that there were Army NCOs who were on their 3rd or 4th tour in Vietnam by the late 1960s.

            In this case, with all slots open to women, the likelihood that there would be men who are considered not deployable, or who would be eligible for non-combat tours for a break, as you put it, is very high. It’s not a male or female thing now, and I did say ‘those who do not qualify’. If there is to be a real shooting war, as I believe is going to happen, this will have to be addressed ahead of time. The military is not supposed to be a social club, which is what it seems to be turning into.

            • Hondo says:

              Vietnam was also during the “mass/industrial military” era, Ex-PH2. And it was also fought with a largely “short-term” force (e.g., by people who had no desire to make the military a career), regardless of whether they were drafted or signed up voluntarily.

              Those who had done 3 or 4 tours in Vietnam by the late 1960s were in general professionals who wanted to do that. But even then, they typically had a “breather” assignment or two in the mix somewhere.

              Personnel policies appropriate for that day and age are not necessarily appropriate for today.

    • Tony180a says:

      There are females currently serving in SMU’s doing some of the most dangerous real world operations our country engages in. They have a very specific, focused area of operations. That being said IMO it would be a mistake to open all MOS to include females. It would reduce combat effectiveness, more than likely leading to more casualties. There are many jobs that our female warriors can do just as well or better than men… This is not one of them.

    • Eden says:

      Shut up, Lars. I’m another female veteran who disagrees with you. You have no say in the matter.

  8. Green Thumb says:

    I wonder how quickly the standards will drop?

    Glad I am out.

    And I agree about the selective service argument.

    We will see if they ever get around to it. retention and recruitment is about to go down the tubes.

    • Ex-PH2 says:

      It’s going down the tubes, anyway, GT. If anything, the draft will have to be reinstated at some point. If it’s necessary to recall people like you to AD, even if you’re retired, because your skill set is lacking numbers and you have experience that will benefit younger troops, some of your troops may be female. If it’s combat training, you’ll just have to suck it up, buttercup, and deal with it.

      It’s only a matter of time before the draft comes up again, anyway.

      • Green Thumb says:

        I am getting to old to suck it up but I can try!

        I bet I can still out drink the Privates!

        Though I probably need to brush up on my IMT.

        Shoot, move, communicate!

      • Ex-PH2 says:

        That’s a challenge. I’m out of practice but in my salad days, I could drink sub sailors under the table… not that it’s anything to be proud of, mind you. 😉

      • OldSarge57 says:

        You are truly an optimist. Do you really think if the draft was ever reinstated that the majority of special snowflakes would actually participate? Well, maybe if they had a “safe space” and were all instantly promoted to leadership positions with lots of awards and shiny things to wear. Those who weren’t too fat to pass the physical, anyway. Good Lord, I’m getting cynical in my old age.

        • Ex-PH2 says:

          I know, but then in a pinch, I might get recalled after all these years and they’d run into me. And I would make them cry.

          • Good point Ex… If they recall me as well PLEASE make me cry. Might meet the new PC requirements for promotion since competency in the job appears a minor issue now.

            I’ll start practicing now… you meany.

        • 3E9 says:

          They are going to have to get at least $15 an hour before they participate.

  9. Rerun0369 says:

    We will see an initial surge of “motivated” ladies, just like when we started the study. Once word gets back out that the infantry life is actually pretty damn miserable and not some good old boys club where all we do is shoot guns, drink beer and give high fives, you will see a drastic drop in female 03XX/11B contracts.

    • USMCMSgtRet says:

      You beat me to it.

      Ashton Carter must’ve watched “Starship Troopers” too many times.

      • The Other Whitey says:

        Lars’s favorite movie!

        Yeah, let’s put a bunch of physically-fit 18-20-year-old females in a gang shower with a bunch of 18-20-year-old lads. I’m confident that perfect military discipline will be maintained without any problems at all!

      • Ex-PH2 says:

        Maybe it’s Carter’s unspoken wet dream.

        But what do I know?

    • Veritas Omnia Vincit says:

      I carried the M-60, lots of nice long walks in the warm sun. Plenty of fresh air, the smell of my squadmates after a month with only washing your balls in cold water…

      Good times, good times indeed…

    • Stacy0311 says:

      We will see a huge rush of women signing up to be infantry, tankers, Rangers, Special Forces and all other combat arms MOS now that this sexist patriarchal ban is gone.
      Just like we saw the huge rush of gays to the recruiting office when DADT was repealed.
      Everyone remembers that right? It was in all the papers….

      SecDef skipped ‘retard’ and went straight to potato

    • OldSarge57 says:

      I’m waiting for the first all female (or female wannabe) Infantry or Armor Company or whatever. You just know it’s going to happen…

  10. Toasty Coastie says:

    I wonder what the hair thinks about women being able to join the SEALs…. Personally, I think all women should have the opportunity as long as they are held to the SAME standards as the men are to qualify.

    • Ex-PH2 says:

      Ask him, TC! I doubt he’ll chew your ear off for asking.

      Seriously, if the Red Army could recruit 2,000 women for sniper positions during WWII, that is something women could do without necessarily being in actual combat, then it’s something women in the US military could also do, but they have to be MOTIVATED ahead of time on their own.

      • David says:

        “that is something women could do without necessarily being in actual combat”

        bet there’s a boatload of ex-snipers out there who might dispute that phrasing… wanna take another shot at it?

      • Tony180a says:

        If you’re in a sniper hide site….. you’re in combat.

      • Ex-PH2 says:

        Oh, come on. Women are just as good as men at some things, and sometimes better. And I did use the word ‘motivated’. The women of the Red Army were were highly motivated people.

        Besides, who wouldn’t want a job that almost guarantees you’ll lose those extra 10 pounds you’ve been carrying around and can’t ditch?

      • Rerun0369 says:

        The snipers of today are very different from WW2. Those 2,000 Red Army females were more akin to designated marksmen than snipers, meaning being able to shoot was the primary concern. Today, shooting is still important, but not the deciding factor, physical and mental endurance are much higher on the priority lists anybody can be taught how to shoot.

        There is a reason the Marine Corps calls it STA (surveillance and target acquisition). Snipers of today fill more of a reconnaissance role, being a battalion commanders eyes and ears. They are expected to work in small teams, for extended durations with little to no support. Because of this, the amount of gear and supplies they carry is usually much more substantial than your average infantryman.

        Lots of people assume snipers just sit in one spot and shoot, which couldn’t be further from the truth. The Scout Sniper Basic Courses in the Marine Corps have some of the highest attrition rates of any of our Advanced Infantry Training Courses, and as such not everybody in a STA platoon is even an 0317, some stay as pigs, carrying extra gear, ammo, and providing security for the team while in a hide.

        This is an argument I have seen before, and it seems to come from a general lack of understanding of what a sniper actually does.

  11. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    If the standards do not change, this is all a dog and pony show–and I don’t believe that it is. Standards that are not voluntarily lowered will be the stuff of legal argument and, in the end, the standards will fall. They must or, as I say, this is all a dog and pony show.

  12. Cacti35 says:

    The clown in the Oval Office has almost succeeded completely in running this once great nation into the crapper. He still has 13 months to fuck us over some more.

    • Ex-PH2 says:

      Oh, cheer up! It could be worse. He could choke on a quiche and leave Biden in charge.

      • 2/17 Air Cav says:

        I would rather have Biden. oBaMa is smart, not incompetent at all. I mean it. He had an agenda and, with the help of the Left in the media, the Congress, the Supreme Court, and elsewhere, he has effected much of it. Biden, on the other hand, is just a mean-spirited moron and could easily be manipulated. He is not a fellow traveler. He’s just a dope, useful to oBaMa, but just a dope.

  13. B Woodman says:

    AAANNNNDDDD> . . . . .in addition to all of the above (all good comments, with the exception of Larsy-Parsy-Poo), I wonder, with all of the budget cutbacks, and the backlog of VA (everything), how the military is going to pay for all the injuries, “walking wounded”, and medical early retirements?

    Crank up the electronic printing press, the dollar is about to become even MORE worthless!

  14. Tony180a says:

    Clearly Gen Dunford’s opinion was over ruled regarding this matter. I wonder if he will hold his nose and continue to serve as the highest ranking officer in the US military (CJCS) or call it for what it is and resign.

    • Hondo says:

      I would hate to see him go; he seems like a straight shooter, and DoD needs senior officers of that type. But part of me can’t help but wish he puts in the paperwork for immediate retirement – and then very publicly says exactly why.

      • Tony180a says:

        Honda you are spot on!! By all accounts (the ones that matter) from the Marines he’s served with and commanded he is a Warrior first and an officer of the highest character and integrity. I didn’t post to denigrate him in any way. What this and every administration should strive for is straight poop / ground truth. It’s obvious on this issue the decision was made years prior.

    • Devtun says:

      Gen Dunford will be the “good soldier” salute & carry on. Besides, his first 2 year term will carry over into the next administration…look at the big picture & bide his time until Jan 2017.

  15. Richard says:

    My kids have served or are beyond the age but my grandkids aren’t. In order to make this do what they want, they will have to lower standards. Our enemies will fight just as hard – maybe harder if they get to engage a female – and more of our people will be captured and die. People like me will have a good deal to say about that and the decision will be adjusted. But those kids who should not have died will still be dead and the people who made this decision will still think that it isn’t their fault.

    Mr. Carter is either (a) a fool or (b) a coward unwilling to stand up to Obama for his troops or (c) ambitious and confident that this decision won’t bite him in the ass or (d) all of the above.

  16. Joe says:

    You guys are worried the women will show you up.

    • smoke-check says:

      Hey everyone come look at this guy! He’s well versed in the proper application of “poisoning the well”. I sure do know who I want on my debate team.

    • Ex-PH2 says:

      No, Joe, they’re afraid of losing their place in line at the teasing pole.

    • Green Thumb says:

      More worried about the A-types fucking up the platoon and the inevitable increase in SA.

    • Richard says:

      Yeah, Joe you are kind of right. In my opinion the Purple Heart is that thing that nobody wants to get. I am worried that women will get more Purple Hearts than men. And I am worried that the men in those mixed units will get more Purple Hearts exactly because the women are excelling in this category.

      My masculinity is not concerned. I am too old, fat, slow, and ugly to worry about that component. About 10 years ago in some martial arts training, I was pretty consistently beat up by the 100-pound very cute girl who used karate moves for which I had no defense. Hitting the mat face down hurts. I have personally known several women who were smarter than me. None of that bothers me.

      What does bother me is the potential of going to a funeral for a granddaughter who discovered too late that combat is not an exercise in political correctness.

  17. sapper3307 says:

    That DD-214 never felt better.

  18. Jonn Lilyea says:

    Carter in an interview on NPR when asked how he arrived at the decision:

    Well, we had done, over a period of several years, a number of studies. We’d surveyed before, done experiments. And then I received recommendations from the secretary of the Army, the secretary of the Navy, the secretary of the Air Force, the head of our Special Operations Command about special op — women in special operations, and all of our joint chiefs of staff.

    And I took all that data and all their suggestions and recommendations into account, and came to the decision to open up all remaining military specialties to females.

    And the reason for that is simply this. We have an all-volunteer military, and in order to have — as we have in the future what we have today, which is the finest fighting force the world has ever known, I need to be able to reach into the entirety of the American population because remember, it’s an all-volunteer force. So I want to recruit from all pools.

    • Ex-PH2 says:

      What a wimp.

      Why doesn’t he just say ‘reinstate the draft, have women register for Selective Service’? Does he think he’s fooling anyone? The military isn’t a social club, no matter how much he wants it to be.

    • Tony180a says:

      Why doesn’t he just say….”Because I was directed to”

    • 3E9 says:

      In other words, we have downsized the military so much the only way to plus it up is by being politically correct. Fuck him

    • Just An Old Dog says:

      Translation of what Carter said:
      The military conducted studies on the feasibilty of women in combat arms and turned it in to me. I tossed it in the trash and did what the fuck I wanted to as a SJW.

    • Ex-PH2 says:

      Is Carter gay?

  19. Roh-Dog says:

    It’s Infantryman not InfantyWOman! Just kidding but really…

    I’ve seen the fallout when standards go out the fucking window because this nation can’t help but play politics with the military. You can kiss my DD-214’s and my ass. *drops mic, turns around, walks off stage with middle finger up overhead*

    Oh, and Lars, fuck you.

    Roh-Dog, out.

  20. beretverde says:

    Chosin Reservoir, Battle of the Bulge, Ia Drang Valley, Iwo Jima…

    What would be the outcome if females were there?

    More body bags? Yes. Stamped USA on them.

  21. Green Thumb says:

    And if you are currently in a Battalion-Level Infantry Command slot or below (Officer-NCO)at this point….

    HAVE FUN!!!!!!

    Glad I am out.

    Word.

  22. Formally known as JR says:

    One more reason to finally ETS next year, and one more reason aliens will not be visiting us anytime soon.By the way, I can always tell when Lars post something because on my phone there are so many replys that towards the end its 1 letter a line.

  23. Herbert J Messkit says:

    Are there a lot of women who want to be infantry?
    When I went to AIT (1984 13F). The drills threatened us with cook school if we washed out. YOU DONTJUST GO HOME.

    PS. I respected and honored all the hard working mess hall personnel.

  24. Roger in Republic says:

    My nephew is a company commander in a Stryker brigade, I am sure he is thrilled about this. As are all of his commanders.

  25. OWB says:

    Wonder what impact this will have upon the transgender community…

  26. Stacy0311 says:

    Here’s what I foresee:
    Careerist female officers in the Army and USMC will join to get the 11A/0302 designator.
    After their initial tour they will never serve in an infantry billet again but retain the “infantry” designator for promotion purposes.
    Enlisted females will go to infantry school, get the 11/03 designator then assigned in the company office/battalion staff, B Billets, FAP. They won’t be in an infantry billet but they will have the infantry MOS.
    So the SJWs will be able to proclaim “Look at all the female infantry we have!!”

    Meanwhile the line units will continue to be below authorized T/O strength because so many infantrypersons are off doing collateral duties.

  27. DrumGrunt says:

    In the spirit of equality, the Department of Defense will undoubtedly now move to eliminate the difference in male and female physical fitness tests and the promotion points that are awarded for those scores. Not just in combat arms, but across the entire military–every MOS, rate, and AFSC. Yeah. That’s gonna happen…

  28. Green Thumb says:

    December 3, 2015

    DoD Announcement:

    Defense Secretary Ash Carter has announced that ALL branches of service will integrate women into the remaining combat roles – all military occupations are open to women. Every position in the U.S. Military is now open to women. The integrated is scheduled within 30 days, as per federal law.

    No. 1 goal of the U.S. Military is mission effectiveness and defending the Country. Equal opportunity: men and women have to meet the high standards. Confident this change will be completed successfully by monitoring it correctly and leveraging skills.

    1. Implementation with clear objectives

    2. Leaders must assign tasks on ability, physical standards, skills, maturity

    3. Equal opportunity does not necessarily mean equal participation. No quotas.

    4. Physical differences on average must be taken into account, that only a small number of women meet the current physical standards

    5. Surveys have revealed concerns that some service members believe that integration will cost mission effectiveness – overtime, these concerns will no longer be an issue.

    6. Team and not just individual performance must be taken into account.

    7. International Relations – this will be perceived differently, but successful implementation will make this process a success.

    Sec. Carter will continue giving “progress reports” as time goes by.

    http://www.defense.gov/News/Speeches/Speech-View/Article/632495/remarks-on-the-women-in-service-review

  29. Just An Old Dog says:

    If properly implemented I foresee a drastic DROP in the number of females who join the military and make careers of it.
    Why? Because if done properly the percentage of women who get assigned to combat arms because of being open contract or failing out of other MOS schools should be equal.
    The women who VOLUNTEERED for SOI had an unacccepted drop rate. USMC Infantry Officer School had no Females pass and Ranger School had 3 females total pass. ALL of these females were carefully screened and prepped for these courses. They were set up for success.
    Now you are going to have an initial surge of females who are going to be allowed to sign up for combat arms without any preparation or screening simply because they want to. These “Volunteers” are not going to be anywhere near the caliber of the test subjects. As a result the attrition rates in Combat Arms MOS schools will skyrocket.
    The ones that do graduate are NOT going to be simply given the MOS as a secondary and sent for other training. They are going to be sent to Combat Arms units where the REAL training begins. A large % of these Females will never finish their first enlistment.
    Now lets look at the other thing to consider. What about when Susie, who is 120 pounds soaking wet, barely mets PT standards and thinks she is getting to be a computer repair specialist gets told that the MOS is closed and she is going to sent to the infantry?
    What about HER? She doesnt want to do the job, isn’t cut out for it mentally or physically and is just thrown in the mix.
    How many Female service members are going to be physically broken by this crap before word gets out.
    Pretty soon the word will get out that the Military is potentially nothing more than a shell game where the SJW willfully are screwing over females to make a piont and female enlistments will drop drastically.