Battleland

The Cowardly Push to Get Women into Combat

  • Share
  • Read Later
Scott Olson / Getty Images

Female Marine recruits ready for pugil stick training earlier this year at Parris Island, S.C.

Earlier this year, the Pentagon lifted the ban on women serving in U.S. combat units – including elite special-operations units like the Navy’s SEALs – if they can clear the physical and mental hurdles. While official Washington has saluted and moved on to other matters, there remains a rumble of opposition, especially evident when chatting with soldiers and Marines. Some argue that the existing standards – which already have kept several women from passing the Marines’ grueling infantry officers course – will basically act as a bar to women in the more demanding kinds of combat.

But Robert Maginnis, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and West Point graduate, fears that won’t happen. He spells out what he sees as the dangers of opening combat billets to women in his new book, Deadly Consequences: How Cowards Are Pushing Women into Combat. His key concern is that, under political pressure, the military will ease its standards, resulting in a less-capable force. Battleland recently conducted this email chat with him.

What’s the key thing you learned in writing Deadly Consequences: How Cowards Are Pushing Women into Combat?

Pentagon brass are kowtowing to their political masters and radical feminists to remove exemptions for women in ground combat in defiance of overwhelming scientific evidence and combat experience.

This craven behavior is terribly dangerous for our armed forces, our national security, and especially the young women who will be placed in harm’s way.

DeadlyConsequencesCover

Regnery

Pentagon officials insist they won’t lower standards to enable more women in combat units. Do you believe them?

I don’t believe them, and neither should the American people.

The Obama Administration and the Pentagon say they will maintain high standards “to ensure that the mission is met with the best-qualified and most capable people, regardless of gender,” in the words of former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta.

Personnel policy, however, is driven by the “diversity metrics” outlined in the 2011 Report of the Military Leadership Diversity Commission.

Diversity, not military readiness, is the highest priority.

General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has admitted as much. In the press conference announcing the rescission of the 1994 rule excluding women from ground combat units, he said, “If we do decide that a particular standard is so high that a woman couldn’t make it, the burden is now on the service to come back and explain to the secretary, why is it that high?”

The proper question is “Do we have the personnel we need to meet the current high standards for combat units?”

The answer right now is yes.

There is no shortage of able-bodied male volunteers who meet the existing, battle-tested standards for ground combat positions.

So why ask the services to consider changing the standards? Because this has become more about politics than fielding the most capable fighting force.

What do you see as the three biggest risks to letting women serve in the combat arms?

There are a multitude of risks—far more than most people realize, especially those without military experience. Among the many risks I discuss in “Deadly Consequences” are these three:

– First, standards will be lowered. As a practical matter, there has to be a certain minimum number of women in combat units for the policy to succeed. That can be accomplished only by “gender norming” the standards for combat service. Lower standards will inevitably degrade combat effectiveness, and the nation will be less secure. There is also good evidence that the policy will harm military recruitment and retention.

– Second, women who serve as ground combatants, whether by choice or under compulsion, will suffer disproportionate physical and psychological harm.

– Third, the already serious problem of sexual assault in the military will get worse. Notwithstanding the Administration’s wishful thinking, this prediction is borne out by the statistics.

What do you think will happen, given the push to let women serve in combat, if the nation ever needs to reinstitute the draft?

Lifting all combat exclusions for women virtually guarantees that the Supreme Court will declare male-only conscription unconstitutional.

And a return to the draft is far more likely than most people realize. The unsustainably high cost of the all-volunteer force, especially with $17 trillion in national debt, and the expected requirements of future military operations will probably lead to a resumption of the draft, however politically unpopular it might be.

When that happens, women will be drafted and forced into ground combat roles.

Screen Shot 2013-07-24 at 1.39.59 PM

Drawn to the Light Photography

Robert Maginnis

The Joint Chiefs of Staff endorse the idea of women serving in combat. Are they the “cowards” you refer to in your subtitle?

They demonstrate a cowardice of silence because they know better. The scientific evidence and the lessons of combat experience are utterly one-sided: women are unsuited for ground combat service.

Congress has the constitutional responsibility to set the rules and regulations governing the armed forces (Article I, Section 8).

Unfortunately, Congress is as cowardly as the Joint Chiefs.

Putting women in combat is as historic a change of military policy as anything I can think of, yet neither house has held full hearings on the question in over 20 years.

The politicians are running scared.

You said letting openly gay men and women serve in uniform would be a disaster, and likely lead to problems with recruiting and retention. None of that has come to pass. So why should we pay attention to your arguments about women in combat?

It is much too early to assess the effects of open homosexuality in the military.

The Pentagon has not released any external or internal surveys on recruiting and retention since “don’t ask, don’t tell” was repealed. The Pentagon survey conducted prior to the repeal demonstrated substantial opposition within the ranks, which continues today.

What we do have is the Pentagon-sponsored 2013 Sexual Assault Prevention & Response Office survey, which found a giant increase in unwanted male-on-male sexual contact since the repeal.

According to the New York Times, 13,900 active-duty men and 12,100 active duty women said they had experienced unwanted sexual contact in 2012, the first full year after repeal of the homosexual ban.

The proportion of female victims is much higher, of course, but the Pentagon obviously has a serious problem with male-on-male sexual assaults.

Is there cause and effect here or merely correlation?

It is too early to say, but there is certainly no basis for declaring the new policy on homosexuality a success.

98 comments
ChelseaTornade-Hoe
ChelseaTornade-Hoe

Radical feminists would never join combat. We are against the male institution of war.
 And we don't want equality with murderers and rapists, we want liberation from them.
Duh.

EyesFrontmen
EyesFrontmen

Feminists don't want women in combat. They want the illusion of women in combat through a few token women who "chose" to do what men must do. They need this illusion to keep people from noticing that feminism is about securing privilege for females and has nothing to do with equality. They know that if women were ever actually required to accept the equality they pretend to want, women would run from feminism as fast as they could.

It is time to call the feminist bluff. Draft the women. Do not enlist or re-enlist another man until all units, specialties, services are 50% female. Change the standards for men and women to female normed standards. Same for all military schools, ROTC that create officers.

That won't happen only because feminists are liars. They will never accept equality, it would kill the movement in a day. What you may see is the military staffing positions with a predominance of women where combat exposure is unlikely, but that are classed as "combat" positions, so that the feminists can indulge their illusion.

Females should be 50% of wounded and 50% of body bags. Men have been carrying the burden of the nations defense for too long. Likewise with all of the dangerous, dirty, difficult jobs we misogynistic patriarchal men have always done and continue to do even in this feminist dystopia.

Stop white knighting for feminists. Stop provisioning and protecting the feminist state.

RuthMance
RuthMance

I agree with my godfather, Thomas Charles Mance, a WWII Veteran and honorable man.  He served in the Battle of the Bulge, cleaned up fetid restrooms in the aftermath in France, and cleaned them up again after they were destroyed by the civilians.  He went above and beyond.  I was in ARMY ROTC, and after Rhonda Cornum's story came to light, a flight surgeon (I wanted to be a doctor), I was scared about the notion of women's roles in the military.  Other girls in my battalion were talking about being fighter pilots.  I wanted nothing like that--I wanted to be service and support.  A doctor, I thought about being a nurse (my college didn't have nursing), and eventually obtained my medical technology license.  MY BODY was anorexic and worn down from the physical training, and the guys were scared to death and told me to stop training and start eating--I was happy to oblige--the pressure to keep up was too much.  The women in my battalion took me to lunch in the cafeteria, and we had gal time and I laughed for the first time in months.  I agree with my Uncle Tom, and a lot of men who have served, lost limb, life, and went through things you wouldn't believe.  I can help the sick, I can be of service and support.  Uncle Tom is RIGHT.  My dad is right.  My Uncle Jim, (Ltc. James Mance), Uncle Dan Mance, Uncle Corky, Uncle Joe, Big Mike, Rich, Lee, and all the relatives I am forgetting--Jamie Hackamer, RIP--I LOVE YOU!!!--WOMEN DON'T BELONG IN COMBAT!!!!!!!


BTW, I did 51 pushups in 2 minutes, a 12-minute 2-mile, I couldn't do sit-ups.  All the time during the combat training parts of the exercises, the only thing I could think of was "I don't want to do this."  And I couldn't keep up.  It was part of training, to help me get to service and support.  When pressures got too high, I couldn't keep up with school anymore.  Yes, women CAN do service and support, I feel like I have been on the front lines at home for years, as an honorably discharged soldier, working in hospitals, and now soldiers to teachers.  I have more insight and knowledge of human nature, and gaining wisdom as I grow older.  Putting women in combat roles with the men is putting both in a moral quandary that the old-timers wanted to protect the women from, because there was honor.  


I think the ARMY let me go honorably because we didn't know what would happen if I ended up with the same position as Gen. Rhonda Cornum, and she deserves her honor.  I would still become a doctor, I idolize this women and her moral character and strength.  I idolize my Uncle Tom and Uncle Jim, but I also idolize women like my great aunt Sister Carmeline and Sister Karen Klimczak, both nuns who fought a type-of service and support position their whole lives, and lived saintly lives, and didn't feel the need as women to push for roles they knew they'd rather other's wouldn't like to have as women.  I don't think I'd be able to stop crying in a real gun fight, or get too emotional, and I'm not sure I'd be any good to the men in that position--and where does that put them?


KEEP WOMEN IN SERVICE AND SUPPORT!!!!!!!!  Even Sojourner Truth was a good example.  My great-great grandfather Bernard Williams served and died in Gettysburg.  Maybe Sojourner Truth nursed him there.

ChrisCurley
ChrisCurley

They don't allow women to be Navy Seals or Delta Force,as well as Army Rangers.They can however work in forwardly placed units.Perhaps a woman is superior to you DragonDude,but to most men they are simply physically inferior.I would bet my life savings a woman wouldn't last 2 minutes with me ,before I neutralized her.Women are however very intelligent and can do many things thay require high intellect and the ability to work quickly under pressure.Idf there is ever a draft,I would be ashamed if my country allowed our women to die.

Dave58
Dave58

Common' folks.  I know there may be a small number of women who can handle the rigors of combat.  It's the consequences.  Now we'll have to draft women into combat against their will.  Imagine drafting children's mothers into combat because of a small group of liberals who insist that men and women be identical even if they aren't.  What if women get captured and raped? People who say the consequences of this are the same for both sexes clearly don't care about anything but forcing this down our throats at any expense. It's not sensible. 

DragonDude9797
DragonDude9797

women have just as many rights as men and could probably do way more then us men. they deserve a chance

qleyland2000
qleyland2000

Women are not allowed in spec ops like the green beret or rangers check the website.

JohnKelly2
JohnKelly2

women don't compete very well physically with men and in some cases the don't even try, so how is integrating women into jobs where they have to compete with men physically suppose to work

jasonberry123900
jasonberry123900

allowing women in combat arms is a big mistake.. where is the common sense

AleMadi
AleMadi

I must add that I'm extremely dissappointed by the fact that sexual assault increase would be listed as a reason to bar women entry. This does nothing but perpetuate the idea that men are just innate rapists. How about you stop covering up the attacks? How about making it a serious point not to equate rank with innocence? Mere proximity to men is not a rape wish. Social tolerance is the reason it's so widespread. 

AleMadi
AleMadi

Social pressures will keep most women from developing the upper body strength anyway but women should at least have the option. Don't bar women entry but don't lower the physical standards. End of story. 

Logger007
Logger007

As a man who served in the 82nd Airborne in the 1980s and who went to parachute school with some females I have some pretty big problems with men and women doing anything together in the military.  Mistakes get people injured or killed.  I remember being ordered to escort two female trainees once while I was in basic training.  When I returned to battalion headquaters it was if I drank a pint of wiskey.  I got a serious chewing out for the smile on my face and for saying "yeah" instead of "yes seargent".  Mixing men and women in the Army is not fair to men.  And it is abusive to both men and women.  Give women equal opportunities but keep them away from Men!  I'll reconsider mixing women with men in the infantry when the NFL is 50 percent women, nurses are 50 percent men, the Olympics no longer have seperate categories for women, and affirmative action for women is ended.  Sexual attractions in the military need to be avoided as much as possible.  Lives and the reputation of our country depend on it.  People do not think the same when they expect to die or their life is threatened over a long period of time.  They end up doing things they would not normally do.  Things that they would latter regret.

lostsociety
lostsociety

What this man says is true. The military is just following the rest of our countries downward curve in it's push that anything goes and if you do not agree, promote and join in, you are ostracized as a bigot!

MuricanBob
MuricanBob

Even though this chump makes a lot of sense, the only colonel I listen to (much like my fellow MURICANs) is colonel Sanders!!! Gotta love that KFC ;)

AngelinaMason
AngelinaMason

Cravenly attempt...cowardly.....AM I THE ONLY 1 WHO WATCHED THE DOCUMENTARY ON PBS THE LIONESS(ES) Are amazing Ladies whom I am in awe of. Watch it and perhaps your hair will turn grey or you will wonder why you did naught put on your depends-if you empathy people(s).

failureofreality
failureofreality

Diversity trumps all other concerns in America.  Competence, skill and knowledge no longer are the ways we measure things.  We only measure diversity.  Measurements therefore change.  If a specific group does not meet the standard measurement, we change the measurement.  Maybe we should just mandate that every job category satisfies the strict requirements of diversity.  Half of all soldiers must be women.  Half of all construction workers must be women.  Half of all nurses must be men.  Half of all public school teachers must be men.  Half of all CEOs must be women.  Half of all computer programmers must be women.  If people do not comply, we simply engage in forceful compliance.  

MarkT.DeNucciSr.
MarkT.DeNucciSr.

I only have time to address one of Col. Maginnis's concerns:  He states that if women are allowed into combat positions, "the already serious problem of sexual assault in the military will get worse. Notwithstanding the Administration’s wishful thinking, this prediction is borne out by the statistics."

This is a straw argument.  The Armed Forces of the United States of America, in this time of a voluntary military, should be consist of only our best and brightest; men (and women) of the highest caliber.  I get disgusted every time this argument is brought up.  My wife and I have one son who is in the Air National Guard and our second son is considering the Navy and they both were raised to treat everybody with respect.  If there is (and there still is) a sexist attitude in the military it needs to be crushed immediately from the top down with ruthless efficiency.

cybersleuth58
cybersleuth58

These are the VERY SAME fears that men expressed when opposition was dropped to having women serving on the front line as police officers and fire fighters. Men couldn't rely on women to watch their backs - remember? The standards would be relaxed and therefore the quality of our police and firefighters would suffer. Am I just older than you are do you have a short memory?

Fast forward a few decades. Women now serve in every level of law enforcement. They are more scarce in fire departments, but at least they are there. And let's not forget that there were women first responders who lost their lives on 9/11. Please also note that women have joined the ranks as police & firefighters all over the world. 

Alfred Hitchcock knew that one's fears were always far worse than reality. If we were able to see into the future, I think we'll see men and women working hand in hand in combat. Especially as technology improves and weaponry requires less and less upper body strength. 


Theirishman
Theirishman

Frankly I don't understand the point of allowing women in combat. It won't boost effectiveness. The israelis did a study by sending a mixed gender unit into combat. The result: One women was hailed a hero and another hid behind a bush for an hour and a half while her unit thought she was kidnapped. But what is perhaps most concerning is that the men went out of their way to defend the women. They put themselves in situations that they wouldn't normally be in.

see:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/01/26/world/middleeast/looking-to-israel-for-clues-on-women-in-combat.html

There is no reason to risk losing effectiveness in the name of fairness. Sure, nowadays most combat happens at a distance, but when that 6'0, 200 lb, knife wielding enemy does jump out and grab a US soldier's neck would you rather that soldier be a 5'10 man or 5'5 woman?

DavidRuff
DavidRuff

it is real simple.  same standards apply or it is not worth discussing.  last i checked congress wants to lower standards for females in this case.  so NO GO.  otherwise, have at it.


Jaylemieux
Jaylemieux

Hey Time, do you mind putting discriminatory propaganda in perspective when you're reporting on it?

cheerpeople1
cheerpeople1

I don't know if you noticed but having women is beneficial.  In the current fight within Muslim countries women are needed when encountering Muslim females.  It makes the U.S. look better then having males manhandle Muslim women.  Women will need to be trained since there really is no more front lines anywhere.

CharlieHerron
CharlieHerron

From Boudica to the French resistance in Nazi occupied France during World War II woman have fought alongside and sometimes led men into battle. The Vietcong guerrillas often employed women in their operations. As nurses, transporting equipment and supplies, spies, and yes as soldiers fighting in combat. If forced to fight for my life, my family, my country, there are many woman I know that I would want beside me and many men I would wish to leave behind. Strength inner or outer is not the exclusive domain of men.

orangeplasticfish
orangeplasticfish

Silly, archaic viewpoint. Keep women barefoot and pregnant, huh?...Both men and women are required to serve in Israel. Moreover, some three percent of the women soldiers serve in combat units. Not a big number, but some women can serve in combat.

Cobra6
Cobra6

Hey jwayfifty, I serve in the Infantry (11M, 11B series), including 2nd ID in Korea, 3rd ID, and the 101st ABN (AASLT.) Multiple combat tours across those units. CIB, BSM multiple award, Airborne, Air Assault, Ranger Tab. Are my credentials okay with you? Funny, you haven't mentioned yours..

In every *hardcore, high standard* combat infantry unit I've ever served in, there have been fat-body, out of shape males who couldn't pass a PT test. We took them to combat, and they were able to hack it. We had very small, frail males who couldnt hump a ruck like the rest of us. We took them to combat, and they were able to hack it. As leaders, we took it upon ourselves to lift them up and make them better. We also found ways to utilize the talents they DID have for the benefit of the unit.

By the way, we had an MP platoon attached to my company. The MP platoon leader was a female, and she was hard core. She more than held her own in multiple contacts, and was as physically fit, more organized and a better planner than any of the male Infantry platoon leaders to her left and right. I'd serve next to her in combat any day, because she already HAS lead and succeeded in infantry combat in all but job title.

Females can achieve and exceed the standard and make it in combat arms, it's not a theory, its the reality.

ChelseaTornade-Hoe
ChelseaTornade-Hoe

"Oh please let me serve men and die for men,  may I? Please!" - said no Radical Feminist ever.

Bacon_Industry
Bacon_Industry

@EyesFrontmen I don't necessarily agree with some of your statements but you have a point. The US Marine Corps itself demographically represents females by a little over 6% in the active duty ranks. They just so happen to have the worst gender gap than any other branch of service. 

It's not because the Marines are denying women combat roles either.

80% of the billets available in the Marine Corps are "non-combat" jobs. As in 80% of the Corps is made up of POGUES.

Women make up half the population of this country yet there is a gender gap in nearly all branches of services not just including the branch of service that espouses itself as being a dedicated infantry force. 

Not enough females are enlisting in the armed forces in the first place. So why is this even a debate?

ChrisCurley
ChrisCurley

@qleyland2000 your forgetting the 2 most elite special forces elite units....Delta Force and the Navy Seals,which women are not permitted to even apply for.I may have an issue if I had to protect a woman,no woman is dying on my watch in my unit.

Albert
Albert

@jasonberry123900  


The Left Wing is running this country now.  That's a big warning sign about intentions.

komplex66
komplex66

@AleMadi This does not perpetuate the idea that men are rapists.  All it is doing is stating the fact that sexual harassment and sexual assault exist in the military and that putting women in a combat unit with the majority of males will not change that fact.  In almost all cases the victim knows the criminal who attacks them or harasses them.  That being said when you work in close proximity with a member of the opposite sex it is more than likely you will gain some sort of feelings for them.  

As for your "Rank with innocence" comment that is not true.  I was recently in Korea in 2011-2012 and there was a male officer who was incarcerated for sodomizing a male solider.  He got caught because the soldier immediately went to hospital and filed a report so proper DNA testing was possible.  What gets people of higher rank off the hook is the fear of the subordinate soldiers to come forward right away while the DNA samples can still be gathered.  More often than not they gather the courage too late and it becomes a game of "he said she said" and it is not possible to get the appropriate evidence in order to charge somebody.  So they usually force them into an early retirement.  

I am just letting you know from my personal experience.  I was an infantryman for seven years.

TimTammyHouck-Sparks
TimTammyHouck-Sparks

@MarkT.DeNucciSr. ,

This is not "sexist" it's just common sense. This is why since the dawn of man through our nations history men OVERWHELMINGLY have been combat warriors. It's a savage, unforgiving business that both my father and brother paid a heavy price for doing. The sticking of men & women in isolated forward bases and combat units away from their spouses and families plus loneliness, boredom , raging hormones and intimate contact, fighting over the girl/guy in the unit and what you have is a recipe for disaster for both the men and women. The old system worked for over 200 years. Women got to served honorably where their best could be used to support our military. The men could keep their focus on their objectives and complete their mission. Please, read Lt. Col. Macginnis's book and the writings of Lt. Gen. Scott Nuebold USMC (ret.) and the famous Cpt. Dale Dye USMC (ret.) for clarity on this subject.

TimTammyHouck-Sparks
TimTammyHouck-Sparks

@cybersleuth58

You are forgetting some important details. In every police department women out on a call require male backup. Why?

because experience has shown they can be overpowered easily (Bryan Nichols- Atlanta Ga.) This is happening over and over across the country. This puts cops on the streets under tremendous burden. This is why you find most calls for women cops are for domestic- child abuse calls instead of robberies and other violent calls. If it weren't for Federal law the complexion of how women are used in law enforcement would be very different. As for fire they can't carry a 150 lbs person on their backs down a ladder as required unless local political intervention occurs most end being EMT's anyway. A local off duty women cop was stabbed 20 times a few year ago when doing security guard duty at a grocery store who couldn't over power or even shoot one lone man.

komplex66
komplex66

@cybersleuth58 An infantryman is not a police officer or a firefighter.  He is an infantryman.  You cannot say that they have the same standards or the same job and therefore cannot compare the two.  Also firefighting is more physically demanding than being a police officer and that is why there are fewer women doing it.  i am not saying they can't, I am just saying it is harder.

emeraldseatown
emeraldseatown

@cybersleuth58 Absent the movies, how many women serve on SWAT teams?

Women are scarce in fire departments for the same reason they would be scarce in the infantry; upper body strength is essential, and most women don't have it.

Warfare is not a place for affirmative action; if women are the best qualified, then by all means let them in, but if they are barely qualified and better qualified men want the jobs, they are out of luck.

spookiewriter
spookiewriter

@Theirishman Because every knows that one incident is proof.

You do realize that women have been in combat since the start of the latest wars? Not to mention anyone making these arguments are thinking of a proper battlefield where 2 armies face off, you know, like WW2.

That kind of warfare is long gone.

cybersleuth58
cybersleuth58

@Theirishman OMG! That sounds like the plot to a bad made for TV movie circa 1976. Cowardice knows no gender.  This was a failure of training & recruitment. I invite you to meet some of the women cops who work the areas controlled by gangs in LA or NY. . Also meet the women who work in supermax prisons all over the US. I don't think you'll find many of them cowering behind a bush (or a male coworker). 

By the way - the stuff about who you'd rather have watching your back in combat? The same question was asked about female police officers in the 1970's and 80's. Women cops were the butt of jokes back then. Guess what? Women with sufficient training and conditioning are just as valuable as men. 

Wow! Are you still living in the 1950's or what?


cybersleuth58
cybersleuth58

@DavidRuff Same was said about women police officers. I don't hear about police officers dying in the field bc women cops can't tow the line. This is nonsense. If the standards are there for good reason - as in the case of firefighters - then they should remain. If the standards are there simply to keep women out - they need to be changed. 

destaccado
destaccado

@CharlieHerron Good luck with those women beside you when any physical work needs to be done.  Women are decent guerilla fighters where proximity to home is common and physical size isn't as important but once they need to start carrying around 100lbs of gear in the Afghani mountains and can't do it -- you've just distributed their load amongst the men making the man's jobs harder.

absurdbuttrue
absurdbuttrue

@CharlieHerron Spoken like a man who has never seen the uglies of direct combat.  If you had, you would never think of placing your mother, sister, wife or any female in that hell.


Theirishman
Theirishman

@orangeplasticfish That's sort of a myth and sort of true. The israelis do have women in combat units, but they're not sending them into battle.  The mixed gender units act more like a police force than anything else. 

MHikiji
MHikiji

@Cobra6 I agree.  Any citizen that has volunteered to serve our country and can pass the standards should not be restricted from doing so because of gender.  You make a good point: there are capable and tough female soldiers; there are also lackluster male soldiers.  Personally, I believe that while physical fitness and skills training is critical, you cannot test a soldier's mettle--her or his heart--until faced with a dire situation and a choice must be made.   During my time in Iraq I saw some big guys fail when it mattered while others, including women, stepped up to complete the mission.  Soldiers are only humans, but most I served with I consider my brothers and sisters.  They are the best folks in the world.  By the way, I was a truck driver 88M and supply clerk 92Y but I was attached to armored cav and infantry.  Of course I didn't "earn" those credentials, but I wasn't allowed the opportunity and without that training, was occupying the same battle space for raids and patrols less prepared.  To me, that's a more dangerous situation, to pretend women are not "in combat" by policy and paperwork, but then put them in combat situations anyway.     

jwayfifty
jwayfifty

Roger that and thank you for your service!  I am former Marine/Army.  Troopers who can not keep up and are weak links should be shoved to the rear.   A female attached to infantry is not the same as assigned.  To be assigned you have to earn it.    I have no problem with females assigned to FET/CST and attached to Infantry; however, being assigned to infantry and SpecOPs is a whole other beast. It Is not just meeting the minimums, but exceeding the maximums.  Females have not proven they can pass the Marine IOC; therefore, why put the cart before the horse and talk about women being elgible for Seals, PJs, Rangers, etc... Read the latest Washington Times Article. 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/25/pentagon-mulling-separate-combat-training-men-wome/

c0011j
c0011j

@ChelseaTornade-Hoe

Except you are not serving and dying for 'men.' You go to war for your country. You server under men AND women. 

ChrisCurley
ChrisCurley

@Albert @jasonberry123900 THE LEFT IS RUNNNG IT AFTER THE RIGHT RUINED IT.What unit are you in?Thats what I thought!!!!!

groupie711
groupie711

@cybersleuth58 calm down! as a military woman...i feel that some jobs are "special" for men only. I am a rescue swimmer...and that alone is a very physically and mentally challenging occupation. I would love to push for SEALs...but that should never happen. Just a mere GI Jane wannabe moment. But never would I want to change standards to meet some plea for gender equality. Plus, my husband is a combat fighter, and god forbid that something happens...could you pull him to safety while wearing heavy gear and still in a fire fight? Seriously ask yourself that. And also, cops to soldiers...waaay different! Try researching their requirements and physical capabilities...and then ask yourself again if your argument is still valid.

cybersleuth58
cybersleuth58

@jwayfifty Let's not pretend that Washington Times doesn't have a political agenda, please. 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,105 other followers