Can a few servicemen please help me here

[Chicken_Hunter]

i am doing an assignment of women in the front line of defence and i was wondering what your views if it is. And if anyone actually knows what legislation it is related with could you please tell me.

thanks

[JSOCMarine]

This is my opinion based on 24 years of service in the Marine Corps including participation in combat operations of varying duration and intensity.

I say that you can have the very best, most combat capable ground combat units possible or you can have integrated (co-ed) ground combat units. You cannot have both.

The introduction of females into ground combat or combat support units usually results in a easing of physical standards or in many cases an outright elimination of standards. The ensuing SOCIAL issues that arise from mingling the sexes like this usually have a far greater impact on unit effectiveness and morale. Though this is plainly visible to those willing to admit what they are seeing in todays military, most people simply shut their mouths and turn a blind eye to reality. This includes officer and enlisted alike. Everyone is afraid to admit the amazing fact that men and women are different in many ways, and some of those differences make women less suited to be warriors.

Sadly, for many people in the military, they have only experienced the current way of doing things. They really dont have a frame of reference of the past. In many cases, they doggedly repeat the the party-line mantras of the careerists who are implementing these social programs.

There are many examples of standards suffering as a result of social experimentation in the armed forces. Look at the PT standards and training syllabus at West Point and the Naval Academy before women were allowed in. Look at it today. Huge difference. Read the Mission Statement before and after, MAJOR DIFFERENCE!

Look at the Armys Airborne School. See the PT requirements to enter the course and the PT regimen before women were allowed in. Again, huge difference. Why did they eliminate the push-up and pull-up requirements to enter the course? What about the running requirements relative to distance and pace? It is there in black and white for those willing to face the truth.

Integrated boot camps, co-ed sleeping arrangements in the field and while deployed, putting teenage males and females on combatant ships and the resulting pregnancy rates,etc. All of the services are guilty of perpetuating this fraud to some extent. Some more than others.

I could go on with many more examples. These are just examples of training courses that have been watered down. The effects of integration of the active forces has been far worse and is just now beginning to see the light of day. We will see if the Generals and politicians have the character to admit their return to common sense. I am watching but of course, I will not hold my breath while doing so! Could our careerists ever publicly concur with the recent British study that says putting women in combat units wont work because they could not meet the same standards as men? We will see!

Bottom line: If the presence of women in combat or combat support units was such a good thing you would think that our enemies would be rushing to copy our efforts in this area. Know why they are not? Because they want to win and they cannot conceive of doing anything that reduces their chances of doing so!

I say that if you are training men for war the right way not all of the men will be able to meet the standards. If you are pushing men hard enough some will drop out and surface as being weak,etc. If this is not happening you are not training hard enough.

If women are somehow meeting these same standards then the standards must not be difficult enough. Not only will women be allowed to enter units where they should not be, weaker males will slip through the cracks and further weaken units.

This is just my opinion and I recognize that others may disagree with it. I have no problem with that at all.

And before anyone says anything about people having rights, and it is a persons right to serve in the military,etc., I say that it IS NOT YOUR RIGHT TO SERVE-IT IS A PRIVILEGE. I say that the citizens of our country HAVE A RIGHT TO BE DEFENDED BY THE VERY BEST MILITARY FORCES POSSIBLE!

I guess one could say that I have strong feelings on this issue. S/F

[Silent_warrior]

In my opinion female soldiers in the military are something good(read positive). But I think that every woman who wants to enter army should gone the same training like all other military personal (no diffrences).

P.S.I am not a serviceman I just wanted to share my toughts about this issue.

[abprar]

I totally agree with JSOCMarine.
The Aussie army has a combined recruit training course,we call it BONK CAMP.
Women in combat always raises its head I noticed here in OZ to take attention away from more important political issues.

Further more the Chief of the Australian Defence force (a admiral) has said he sees 40-50 women per infantry battalion.He also says male and female standards will be brought in line....meaning the dropping of standards.

The funny thing is I've yet to meet a female Aussie Soldier you wants to be in infantry.Shit I never met an Israeli female you wanted to be in infantry.

BTW the Chief of the Army a Vietnam Veteran is dead against women in combat roles.

Females in the Airforce (flight status) are in combat roles.On surface ships in the navy and in submarines.Word is they were given a tick in the box for their submariner courses.

[USMCSNIPERONE]

JSOCMarine,You said it all,Sir!

Semper Fi Sniperone

[mtech_81]

<thumbs up to JSOCMarine!>

Fact: During Operation Desert Storm, female sailors were almost four types as non-deployable as men.

Fact: Center for Naval Analysis recently stated that the "unplanned loss rate" for female sailors is about 2.5 times that for men.

Go look up the Center for Military Readiness webpage ( www.cmrlink.org (http://www.cmrlink.org) ). It is a wealth of links and information you will not commonly find anywhere else.

[Huey One Four]

What about an all female unit, would that work? thered be no distractions, etc.

[This message has been edited by Huey One Four (edited 08-07-2001).]

[Skip]

Both the Russians and the Israelis tried that and it didn't work because they couldn't fill the numbers.

The problem here is that the people who are making the decisions don't have the experience, and therefore are simply career building using political correctness as their tool.

The Royal Marines and SAS have all opened up their selection courses to women, but have not lowered the standards. In fact according to the Royal Marines they have increased their standards - and I'd possibly agree.

However the British Army has dramaticially lowered their standards, both for potential officers and other ranks.

I don't believe that recuits even have to dig a trench anymore, an essential skill for battlefield survival.

[joew]

Skip, when did Selection get opened up to females? Do you know if any have been put through the course yet?

[Snake]

As much as this will elicit a few guffaws from JSOC, I have recently come to agree with him. My experiences in a Line Manuever Battalion in both a Light and an Airborne Division, with their professional and dedicated Soldiers, male and female, presented me with a somewhat rose-colored view of gender gaps.
Having experienced ROTC, I recieved a somewhat rude awakening. Coming fresh out of a manuever unit, I got put in charge of instructing the MS II/III Cadets in FM 7-8 (Basic Small Unit Tactics/Operations) material, discrepancies emerged. On ruck marches of a minor intensity (5 miles) my laggards were -all- female. My mobility run droppers were 90% female. No corrective action was permitted. I was encouraged to use gentle cajolery, in the same manner as is used to moivate technical and CSS troops. Use that method on grunts and they'll smell weakness and lock up on you. I was (kindly, but firmly)reprimanded for excessive intensity during our once-a-week Battalion PT sessions. A 3 mile run, at a 9 minute/per mile pace succeeded in droppin all but one female, who was also a member of the Ranger Challenge team, and a true professional. No disciplinary action was taken against females who were chronic run drops, ergo none could be taken against their male counterparts, who might be Platoon Leaders in a Light Infantry Battalion, which lives or dies by its ability to march and run.
Yes, there are many females out there who could thrive in a combat unit, but the process of integrating them into a unit would allow an unnacceptable amount of their less able fellows to slip through. As with the Naval Aviation community, a arbitrary number of females would be decided upon, and -would- be met, to hell with the standards.
I am unfamiliar with the fighting of an aerial battle. Infantry work, with which I am intimately familiar, is 50% strength, 30% agression, and 20% pure skill and discipline.
90% of females dont have that strength, and the 10% that do just arent worth the bother of integrating. Thts just the way it is for now.


Snake
82nd Airborne

[This message has been edited by Snake (edited 08-09-2001).]

[SSMV]

I also agree with JSOC's post.

------------------
"...America is a family...We've got to start remembering that no member of our family should be satisfied if any member of our American family is suffering or in need and we can do something about it."

[JSOCMarine]

Snake,
No guffaws from me. I always suspected that, as you indicated, your perspective was based on somewhat limited exposure to the whole issue. I believe that in an earlier email I told you that once you went to ROTC you would see the double-standards and other ill effects associated with this issue.

Now, think about this. If your opinion has been affected by what you observed during a short period of time at one school, imagine what exists relative to this issue that you still don't know about. Go back and read my old posts on the subject, about the quotas for promotions,the documented effects of integration in certain units,standards being eliminated, etc.

Trust me Snake, you have only experienced the tip of the iceberg on this one, and the rest of the story is fairly disheartening considering our nation's defense is a the core of the issue. Think about this.....there are many people senior to you that will tell you that you did not see what you saw happening in that ROTC unit! They'll tell you that standards were not being ignored,etc. If you wrote a report to the CSA about the unit and the unit commander wrote one, the reports would be so different that one would not ever believe that both were about the same unit! Problem is; you don't get to write a report and if you were able to nobody would want to face the truth contained in it!

Think about some of the substandard individuals you saw. The fact is that most of them will serve as commissioned officers. Now, fast forward 20 years and ask yourself if they are the type of leader you are willing to entrust the life of your child to? When you think of it this way it gets frightening very quickly.

I applaud you for being able to admit that you have had a change in perspective. This won't be the last time your opinion and thoughts on an issue change. Keep an open mind, because some changes are good and you'll have to fight to implement them. S/F

[Snake]

JSOC,
I'm getting the feeling that the next shooting war we get into will thin out the herd somewhat. Ever notice we dont pick on anyone our size? I've yet to be on the recieving end of -hostile- howitzer or rocket fire missions. China, Russia, and Our Next Arch Enemy will shake the bolo's loose in a hurry, while we trade ground and blood for time and experience.
BTW, the quota issue is noted and understood.

Snake
82nd Airborne

[wcollar]

Snake,
We Americans are notorious for screwing up our initial battles. The problem is that too many die in those early screwups (World War II, Korea). The one war in which we were quite prepared for (Desert Storm), we won rather easily and with few casualties (granted Iraq did make it really easy for us but you have to be good enough to take advantage of that. Just look at the Iran/Iraq war to see what happens when the neither side is competant enough to take advantage of the other). It seems that we are repeating history but as long as we fight short conflicts against weak opponents no one will notice. However, you can't get away with that forever. It's too bad that we are repeating these mistakes again. Unfortunately it's the soldier in the field rather than the leader in the cushy office that will suffer from these policies. T. R. Fehrenbach very well describes this in his book, This Kind of War.

JSOCMarine,
Snake's story scares me. We started seeing the kindler, gentler ones (of both genders) coming into the fleet in the mid to late 90's and it wasn't encouraging (and we in the Surface Navy were never going to be mistaken for tough ground pounders. However, even we have our limits.) I don't now what's worse: those who get get unfairly pushed through by an easier system or those can get by in the old system but think the new, easier system is the correct way to train. What happens when those cadets become officers and think the way to train at Ole Miss (or pick your ROTC/Academy/OCS unit) is the correct military way and start treating their units in the same manner. It's already happening but this shows that it is even more entrenched than previous thought. Unfortunately, I really don't see it changing much in the near future.

Skip, Joew,
The Royal Marines had 3 females (2 officers and one enlisted) go through their supporting arms course (my Royal Marine info is somewhat hazy but I believe they still have 2 courses: one for the infantry and another less demanding one for the support troops). One was injured, one quit and the last was dropped right before the big week due to a "lack of military skills". She is going to try again. The might have toughened standards but your generals sound a lot like our generals when it come to females and that's not very encouraging. For every GEN Guthrie that spouts off, you have others that sound a wee bit too politically correct on females in the military. The Internet version of the Daily Telegraph has a lot of stories on the subject.

mtech81,
I briefly saw the internet site. Didn't Elaine Donnelly receive the leaked safety report after the brass tried to cover up the real reasons behind Kara Hultgren's crash. I also believe that your statistics on unplanned losses do not show that many of the males get injured during physical activities (which thus have a military applicability) as opposed to the females getting pregnant (while sex does result in some caloric loss that hardly helps in physical training. However, we in the surface Navy found that intensive personal (re: solo) wrist workouts can help when it comes to opening hatches and closing/opening valves during damage control evolutions.)

SSMV,
What's with the user name change? Are you finally done with Clemson JC?
R/wcollar (a rather undistinguished alum of Mr. Jefferson's University)

[SSMV]

wcollar,

Yeah, I finally graduated...thank goodness.

I had to change my username, because my email address was wrong and that was when they were having problems with the system. Therefore, it "supposedly" sent me a new password for my old username, but I never received it. So I had to change usernames.


How have you been?

Good post by the way.
------------------
"...America is a family...We've got to start remembering that no member of our family should be satisfied if any member of our American family is suffering or in need and we can do something about it."

[This message has been edited by SSMV (edited 08-10-2001).]

[joew]

wcollar,
women going through the all arms commando course was quite a well publicised event over here. One thing that pissed me off was that the papers kept saying that they were going through the Royal Marines course which they certainyl were not (the all arms course is 8 weeks, the full course is 30 weeks I believe!) ... not heard anything about the Regiment accepting apps from women though. Wouldn't surprise me, but then I'm sure they woulnd't reduce their standards one bit ...

[mtech_81]

wcollar,

I believe the original statistical data did start to break down the how and why of the unplanned losses. And yes, getting injured while in the performance of one's duties is a much different set of circumstances than getting pregnant. The Naval Aviation community has also found solo wrist exercises to be of the utmost value in increasing grip and forearm strength.

Donnelly was leaked a copy of the Hultgreen report, if memory serves. This was of course the one which placed the brunt of the fault to be pilot error. I was an IP on the West Coast my last year in ('93 to '94), which is when Hultgreen, Lohrenz & Co. were going through F-14 FRS. While not one of their IPs (I was an -18 driver), I do have some hours in the -14 and knew enough to handle one safely. They couldn't. Mind you, there's nothing wrong with that. Not everyone has what it takes, male or female, and it doesn't make them less of an aviator. However, it had already been determined far above our paygrade that they were going to get qualed and be the female Top Guns.

You could probably correct me on this, but didn't the blackshoe Navy find that women weren't able to pull their weight as effectively as men in damage control evolutions in some study done a few years back? And let's not even get started on trying to find combat commands for female officers who've never served on a surface shooter in any capacity.

You know, to steal a line from Nathan Hale, I regret that I could only fall on my sword once to make a point and try to make a difference.

[wcollar]

mtech,
Naval aviation tends to negate the positive effects of the wrist workout by actually picking up women and thus disrupting the workout routine. The social skills of the surface community prevents this from happening to us. There were studies in the late 80's that found that overwhelming numbers of women were not capable of conducting basic damage control tasks. That information was ignored. I don't have it with me (am on leave) but I'll get it in a few days and post it. In all fairness to the women, there are a number of men on ships that are too weak or fat to be able to be helpful in damage control. They also shouldn't be allowed on ships.

With the female CO's, they started putting female dept heads on shooters in the mid 90's. The first shooter CO's were on FFGs in the late 90's - that was much too early for them to go through the correct pipeline (shooter CO's have to do department head tours on shooters.) I could be wrong but I don't think so. But like you said, the higher paygrades mandated it so it was going to happen. You'll probably have the first SWO female admiral in 2 to 3 years time.

As we SWO's say, why fall on your sword when you can stab someone in the back with it. You naval aviators tend to be burdened with a little too much integrity. You didn't by chance know Patrick Burns.

Joew,
I still don't think that the Regiment is open to women (but the Aussie SASR is technically open). I'll defer to Skip on this one but I could have sworn that I read that British infantry and special forces are still closed to women.

SSMV,
Thanks for the compliment. I remember from the last JSOC/Snake debate that we had similar views on the issue. Maybe all those floats with the Marines has influenced my views. I'n now getting ready for a new career. I guess then I'll have to find a real job. I once favored Arby's but I'm looking more to Wendy's now. R/wcollar

[This message has been edited by wcollar (edited 08-10-2001).]

[Snake]

I'd just like to remind everyone that, presently, The US/UK Forces enjoy -no- commodity on the ability to place forces in the rear areas of an OPFOR. If we can do it, so can others. Give Russia 10-15 years and Europe 10-12, and you'll see forces deliberately -designed- to kill American and British Divisions. During a 25th ID(L) JRTC evolution, a company-sized OPFOR commando force was Air Assaulted into the Rear CP area. Chaos ensued. Had to reorient a Line Battalion to assist the Security Force in xing out 100+/- OPFORS. Disrupted our entire FEBA operation. An OPFOR Motorized Rifle Brigade could have come right through our lines. 8th Army and X Corps in Korea come to mind. I reiterate: IT HAS BEEN A WHILE SINCE WE FOOLED WITH ANYONE CAPABLE OF STANDING UP TO US. If Russia ever gets its economy unfucked, we'll be back to the Bad Ole Days in a hurry.

Snake
82nd Airborne

[abprar]

wcollar
The Aussie SASR is not open to women neither is any ground combat role.I'm also certain that the Brits are the same.

I picked up Brit "Soldier" magazine yesterday and saw a pic of a bandswomen in the Para Regt ,Beret and badge.

Do women do P coy?I was certain that this was the only way to earn a Para beret.

[mtech_81]

We have to intersperse our workouts with picking up women, otherwise we lose our feel while in the cockpit. Excessive exercise decreases our sensitivity and we end up with carpal tunnel. And I certainly do agree with the observation that there are some males who are unfit for duty as well. I recall more than once wondering how some would handle d.c. if it came to that. As my one NROTC instructor was fond of saying, "When the shooting starts at sea, everyone's job is ultimately damage control."

It's the entire Naval aviator stereotype, if we can't go down in a blaze of glory we might as well do something morally brave and allows us to never again have to buy a drink at Tailhook conventions. Not that I know anything about that, of course. I knew Pat at the time. While a somewhat new IP, he was certainly more than competent from what I had observed of him. He just retired about two years ago, if memory serves.

[Ranger002]

Good Posts gentleman...Snake one quick caveat in the Special Operations arena it not as much about the FEBA or full scale conventional war it may be about the suicide bomber in a crowded diner. Also the nature of modern warfare has "evolved to the point that there is no such thing as combatants and non-combatants....If Bosnia and the Current Middle East Troubles ( and in Sri Lanka where half the Tamil Tiger suicide bombers are WOMAN) don't you show the futility of most or your arguments well consider yourselves lucky. The other side is not debating about this issue nowadays bullets dod not discriminate. Also please understand what all out combat does to the pysche of a HUMAN BEING much less a man or a woman.To paraphrase a passage from Philip Caputo's excellent book "A Rumor of WAR"
"Sir...You are going to find out that there is nothing more savage or horrible in this war than your average 19 year old American Boy..."
William Hazen

[Snake]

Hazen,
wasnt speaking so much about SOF, as about lack of readiness overall. The US Military has a hell of an uppercut, but a glass jaw as well. The Body Politic doesnt understand our purpose, otherwise the politicians wouldnt get away with these shenanigans. If the 1/14th is getting their asses shot off in Taiwan or Korea, where are Ted Kennedy's sons and nephews?

Snake
82nd Airborne

[JSOCMarine]

Bump for Gracie.

Gracie, see Snake's posts in this thread. S/F

[Chatterbox]

Guys and girls,

I remember when I first joined up, and a big para SSM spoke to us. He said simply - "there is one colour in the army - and thats green, and there one sex - soldier."

There is a lot more to combat and military employment than colour, creed or sex. I have worked with soldiers of both sexes who are pathetic.

Surely freedom - what we're all fighting for - should be freedom for all.

If someone, regardless of sex, colour or creed can sucessfully complete a course - they should pass.

The Royal Marines have recently badged their first women, and I believe that DELTA, or CAG has a small number of women.

For certain roles women can be even better than men specificially, Body Guard, Sniper, etc etc.

[grubber]

Hi Chicken Hunter,

I read a book recently called Miniskirts and Minefields, or it may be the other way around. It talks about women in either the services or entertainers in Vietnam.

It discusses women around the frontline, etc.(not in combat role).
Could be of interest to you as a sort of additional reading for you.

Hope that helps.

[sta marine]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Skip
[B]
The Royal Marines and SAS have all opened up their selection courses to women, but have not lowered the standards. In fact according to the Royal Marines they have increased their standards - and I'd possibly agree.







:rolleyes:

Come on!!! You dont believe that the SAS is open to women right!?!?!

[Bringer]

There are no women Royal Marines. The woman who did pass the Commando Course passed the All Arms version, for Army personnel assigned to work alongside the RMs. She was in logistics, not in a combat role.

[Purple36]

The Operators, by James Rennie. Interesting book, but I had to drive to Vancouver, Canada to find it.

[mangda]

http://www.eelamweb.com/operation/waves1/photos/images/2b.jpg