Women proposed for Special Forces

[JSOCMarine]

A friend in Washington, D.C. sent me this article this morning. Those of you who have read my past posts on this subject know that I am totally opposed to the feminization of our combat forces. It is the reason that I retired from the Corps, I simply would not deploy with women near or with my combat unit.

As you can see, the feminazi's will never stop until they achive total integration of ALL units in the military. How sad to see such a fine institution as the U.S. Military be systematically dismantled by those who think women can be like men (they can't), and have reduced standards to allow men to be like women (we used to call them weak or non-hacker's).

Washington Times
June 6, 2000
Pg. 1

Original article: Women Proposed For Green Berets

By Rowan Scarborough, The Washington Times

The all-male Green Berets are up in arms over a proposal to allow women to train as combat medics.

A top Army physician at its Special Operations Command proposed allowing female soldiers to enter combat medics training, touching off fears among Green Berets that the change could one day lead to female commandos.

The doctor's proposal triggered an angry letter from a course instructor.

"I need some help with what I see as a potential blow to the readiness and combat effectiveness of further special forces and Ranger medics, Navy Seal and Recon corpsmen," he wrote to two U.S. senators in Washington.

A copy of the letter, minus the medic's name, was provided to The Washington Times.

A senior officer at Fort Bragg, N.C., headquarters to Special Forces and the vaunted Delta Force anti-terrorism team, overruled the surgeon. But the Green Berets fear the debate will resonate north to Washington, where women's advocates will use the doctor's proposal to lobby for the change.

Col. Warner D. Farr, a former enlisted medic and now the command's surgeon, submitted an official request to delete the male-only designation for the Special Forces medic's course several weeks ago.

Special Forces units are closed to women as are all land combat jobs. The female students who might enter the course would come from the command's 528th Special Operations Support Battalion, a supply outfit. It includes noncombat female medics. Commandos opposed to women in combat feared that the women could evade the combat exclusion on a "technicality" since they are part of the command.

Commandos hope Maj. Gen. William Boykin, who headed Delta Force when its members engaged in the 1993 shootout in Somalia, has quashed the debate by overruling Col. Farr. Gen. Boykin heads the command's John F. Kennedy Warfare Center and School, which oversees Special Forces medic training.

In a statement to The Times from its public affairs office, the command said the doctor's proposal never got above the staff level.

"In a close review of [command] directive and applicable regulations, it was determined that the change recommended . . . is not needed. [The command] will follow current policy in determining who attends the [course]. The statement added, "The SO combat medic course is a joint course designed for interoperability among combat forces such as Rangers, special forces, Seals; and by law those combat elements are closed to women."

But Green Berets remain concerned. They fear that the Pentagon's Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services will use the debate at Fort Bragg to urge Defense Secretary William S. Cohen to open combat medics' training to women. The committee already is pressing the Navy to let women serve on submarines and the Army to allow women to join certain artillery units.

The 24-week medics course is a demanding test, as specially selected medics are transformed into special operations troops as tough as the warriors they treat.

The medic, in his letter to two senators, wrote:

"This is a combat medic course. During this course, students are trained to handle casualties under austere conditions and while in close proximity to the enemy. They are even trained to provide 'care under fire' for casualties. During the training, candidates willfully expose their patients enabling compete physical exams. They also perform several medical procedures on completely nude patients.

"They also perform many physically rigorous tasks. Students carry simulated combat loads. . . . This includes rucksack and weapon. At times these weights exceed 100 pounds. . . . The students will also carry a casualty in a jungle litter several kilometers, at night, through the woods, with complete combat load. If you ask any of my former students, they will tell you this is a real smoker and many were barely able to do it. . . . Keep in mind these are men that have passed the Ranger School, Seal and special forces assessment and selection programs, some of the toughest training in the military."

The medic instructor sent the letter to his two home-state senators, Rick Santorum and Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania Republicans. A spokesman for Mr. Santorum said the letter was referred to a Senate Armed Services subcommittee and to the commander of U.S. Special Operations Command in Tampa, Fla.

Roger Charles, a former Marine Corps officer and member of a group named Soldiers for the Truth, called it "lunacy" to bring women into Special Forces medic training.

"This is so stupid, it makes me want to both cry and laugh," said Mr. Charles, whose group believes the military is losing its warrior spirit. "It's a deadly serious issue, being treated as just another incremental advance for gender equality on the battlefield by the 'PC' crowd, who, by the way, don't have a clue about what it means to have to carry/drag a wounded Marine/ soldier while under fire from multiple machine guns."

[King]

Just a comment:

In Canada as you may know women are currently allowed to serve in all elements of the Canadian Forces, including the infantry, armour, and artillery (except on submarines).

Women are even allowed to serve in Canada's CT/SF unit the Joint Task Force 2. Whether any have ever been accepted into the unit or not I don't know.

[BK101484]

It upsets me to find that politics have found its way into the Special Operations theater. I know this is not a new issue but find women serving in combat a bad idea. I have read that many women cannot even pull back the charging handle of a M-60.

------------------
| |BK101484| |

[Snake]

Most men cant climb up a 10meter rope. Your point?


Snake
25th ID(L)

[JSOCMarine]

Snake,
His point is that some things that are routine and easy to do for a small, average man are often difficult for women. A small man in the Marine Corps would be say, a 145lbs'er. There are many of them, and we seem to make them all machine gunners or mortar men so they have to carry even more gear! In my experience, most, if not the vast majority of women that weigh that much in the military are typically soft and overfat. I know there are the occasional triathletes,etc., but anyone in the service knows that they are few and far between.

I know you are touchy on this subject. The debate will not go away anytime soon. When you become an officer and are in higher level staff meetings and attend briefs by senior officers from D.C, you will understand just how sickening the decision making process has become in the military. Trust me, you don't know what you don't know in many areas. Keep the same open mind that you often infer others do not have, and you just may come to find that your attitudes and opinions may change in a few years.

By the way, I never knew a single male Marine that could not climb a 10 meter rope, but I saw many women officers at TBS who could not get halfway up(they graduated anyway). I do know that many physical standards that existed for years have been systematically watered down or eliminated altogether because women could not meet the mark, ot were getting injured too frequently.

Remember, I went to jump school at Benning twice(early 70's/early 90's), the second time as a morale builder for my men, went with several young fellas from my unit. Class was not filled, they let me jump in.

The difference between the 1st and 2nd time? Absolutely shocking! You already know what I feel precipitated the changes that resulted to the course becoming a veritable joke.

Semper Fi.





[This message has been edited by JSOCMarine (edited 06-14-2000).]

[Snake]

JSOC,
I know what your saying, but your
-blaming- the victim, not the culprit. It's not the Female's fault that no one has the intestinal fortitude to say "Ok, we'll let open CA to Females, but if they cant make the same -High- standards as the Males
-today-, their gone". Thats the fault of the caste of poitical, go-along-to-get-along
Generals. You and I both know that there
is a small percentage of the Female population thatcould hack Benning, Parris Island, and Grunt work with little problem. The key is, "can we screen out the ones who do -not- fall into that bracket?". Currently, the answer is a resounding No. Not, however, the fault of those Soldiers!
Dont blame them, they just want to serve our Nation, by placing themselves in harms way.
Funnily enough, just like you and me...
Females have a problem with some of the stuff manly men like you and I shake off as routine due to one fact. Lack of preperation.
Women generally need a longer cycle-up period to achive the kind of physicality grunts need. Playing Varsity volleyball
in High School does wonders for agility and cardio, but doesnt prepare you for prolonged stress on the skeletal frame like, say, football and weights. Thats one of the big reasons women end up with stress fractures durng ruck marches. The ones who are into endurance sports generally dont have a big problem.

Snake
25th ID(L)

[Cree Warrior]

well said snake,
I would have to agree with youon that one. I think that we are blaming women, women that show more intestinal fortitude than 99% of the civies out there. It is the lowering of the standard that has screwed us. Both men and women.
In Canada, back after WWI, the country started Phys Ed programs in schools because most of the recruits were unfit and not soldier quality. This made a difference. Now with the average kid in the US watching 42 HOURS of TV a week (Similar in Canada) the standards will continue to decrease. Thats my pet peave, the overall lack of fitness in the mass population and the military giving in to whining, lazy, sh-tbags. One guy dies in Canada on a ruckmarch and then...POW...no more rucking.etc.etc. Same thing in the US when I was there, except it was all based on being sued.
People are getting soft all round, men and women.
IF a woman is up to the standard, and many are, then they should be allowed to serve in combat forces. Thats my view anyway.

Sua Sponte

[Mike]

Then we need more active-duty personnel at great personal risks to the careers to speak up more like raising the standards, rather than complain about the lowering of standards for women. Also more women are going into the military because as recruiters will tell, some men are not going into the military.

[TonyM]

I posted this in another forum in answer to a female about the military.

Women are eligible to try out for our JTF here in Canada. Never heard of any making it though. My own experiences with women in the forces are :
1) I was leader of a 4 man recce det, including one female. We were in beltkit only (no ruck), movement was at night and not a long distance to cover so fitness could not be assesed(about 3 miles). She performed as good as any of the other members. Quiet and careful about movement / noise, covered her arcs well and used proper spacing all without being told.
2) On a course (non-physicaly demanding) that comprised 21 males and 3 females, whenever the females were around, a lot of the males started acting much more animated, etc in attempts to get thier attention. It was somewhat disrupting, but the more mature candidates ignored it. One of the females became "romanticly involved" with another (male) candidate, causing a little tension in the barracks. Again, the older ones ignored it.
3) On a timed 8 mile forced march, full load of weapon, beltkit, ruck, platoon weapons, ammo and water after a 5 day field ex (last 30hrs was no sleep and company night raid) 3 out of the 4 females in our company dropped out (the one left was the smalest, looked like her ruck had grown a pair of boots) Out of 44 males, 2 dropped out.
4) On the same course as #3, one female was included in our barracks. This caused a lot of logistical problems for both sexes. Particularly shower and bathroom schedules. This became a real pain when time was short.
It would of reflected better management from the course staff to have had all the females in a seperate barracks (and saved everyone a lot of wasted time and frustration).
5) Again on this course, 3 out of the 4 females became "romanticly engaged" with other coursemates.

Conclusions I've drawn from these, and other, experiences.
1)Boys will be boys.
2)Girls will be girls.
3)Soldiers will be Soldiers.
4)When put to the test, the weak will fail.
5)Don't stand up in a canoe (that was a joke, never suffer a total sense of humour failure)

[Snake]

If I were King...

Initiate a "Pre-Grunt" Assessment Course, much like the Royal Marines(love those guys!) have Potential Commando Course and Potential Officer Course. 3-4 Days at Benning, Balls(no pun) to the wall, Rucking, Obstacle Course, APFT/APFT/APFT!!!!! If they can make it, let em sign for 11boom-boom (or those -other- 11-thingssss) or Branch Infantry/Armor for O's. Make it hard, show the males that it's hard, which should give them some confidence in the ability of their Female compatriots. Anyone heard how that NORPLANT system of implanted birth control is, effective-wise?

Snake
25th ID(L)

[JSOCMarine]

Snake,
Delta tried just what you proposed. They wanted to get some women in for operational purposes, but they did not want to reduce standards for selection and thus create a double-standard.

So they let some women try out. These women were far above the average female soldier in physical ability. The results? Not one woman made it through the entire selection course.

So, they created a modified selection course (far easier than the real one) and some women made it through. However, they were never fully accepted by the operators because they had not passed the same selection. In fact, the vibes were so bad for a while that ultimately they had to put the women in a special platoon in a support unit. The shooters would not stand for them being in a regular squadron. Remember, part of the appeal of Delta is that they tell their people that the unit grants (and never will)no waivers of established standards.

The Marine Corps also tried what you are proposing at TBS in Quantico,Va. I was there. They tried to integrate women into male companies and make them run the male PFT, carry the same loads, etc. The result was predictable, many injured females who simply could not keep up, many of whom were eventually discharged for medical reasons.

And, instead of instilling confidence in the men that some women could hack it the opposite effect was realized. The men saw that anything hard physically usually meant that the women were going to drop out. And they did, typically all of them, while the males did not. God forbid that you task a woman with carrying an M60 or a baseplate, she'd be tits up with the first 3 miles of a hump.

Eventually, standards were greatly reduced. Very tough individual events that stood the test of years suddenly were written out of the curriculum or were made "team events" so the men could physically drag the women through.

Do some research and you will see that what you are proposing was also tried at the service academies. Again, the results were abysmal. Look at the West Point's summer "Beast Barracks" schedule from 1970 and then look at it from 1978 onward. You'll see what I mean....total reduction of tough events and in many cases, they were completely eliminated. As usual, staff members who tried to wave the bullshit flag were also systematically eliminated.

For those who would argue that women should not be in SOF because it is too hard, but that regular combat arms is OK, I disagree. Should we ever have to go and fight, I mean fight a viscious and determined enemy, the regular forces will be the ones doing the bulk of the face to face fighting. Why should we even consider lessening their chances of success?

For you younger folks out there, you will feel different about this issue when you have children. I do not want my daughter to be asked to be a man due to some feminist social bullshit. I also do want my son to go to war with a unit that has been weakened in any way. And all of the studies point out that the integration of the sexes in the military does just that.

Those of you who cry out for "establish one standard and if the women can meet it let them in the unit" are showing how inexperienced and naive you are in the arena of the political pressures and social agendas that are forced on out general officers. Anytime this has been tried and the results are less than favorable, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs or the Service Chief in question gets a phone call or visit from the Senator who is championing the social experiment.

Look at the recent debate over putting women on submarines. If you think for one minute that the CNO is not being held hostage to do this you are dead wrong. I can assure you that his funding for other essential programs and weapons systems is at stake here. In other words, "Admiral, I'd like to vote for funding the new F-22 fighter, but I want to know what you are going to do on the women on subs issue". The message is clear, and this thing happens every day. I am not saying it is right, but it is reality. Why generals do not resign when faced with an issue like this is beyond me, I guess somehow they rationalize going tits-up on important issues as if they are really doing the service a favor in the long run.

Sorry for the long post. I know this subject intimately, as I was involved in trying to ward off the effeminization of the Marine Corps. I actually testified in front of the Armed Services Commmitee on the issue and had the pleasure of essentially telling Pat Schroeder that she was engineering the eventual demise of a great institution, the U.S. Military. I saw her and others speak with condescension and disgust toward a panel of very experienced combat warriors.

By the way, after I said my piece, one of the members of the Commitee nodded at me and gave me a wink, as if to say, "Good job, Marine" That person was Senator John McCain. Semper Fi.

[jcollettusa]

I think women in combat is ridiculous. There is no way I would want any women beside me in a combat situation, because most combat incidents lead to Hand-to-Hand, and I am not sure on how you guys feel about fighting women, but I don't think there is not One women in this world that could take me in hand-to-hand. I could be wrong, but I still feel the same way. And I would be willing to bet that many of you feel that you could take over 90% of the women in the world also.

This women in combat units is another perfect example of this srewed up society and Postmodernism. Everything has to be about feminist issues, or minorities rights, or homosexual rights, etc... just to make the average white male look bad. I am sick and tired of hearing all of this BS, it makes me want to puke. There are physical differences between the Male and female.

1. The male on average has a larger heart than that of the average female. Therefore, is able to pump more blood into the muscles for longer rates of endurance.

2. The average male has a 25% larger lung capacity than that of the average female. Therefore, the male has the ablility to pump more O2 into the body giving males more endurance also. For example, go to any neonatology unit in any hospital and ask a Dr. what type of prematures babies have the best chance of living, and they will say that females do, because the females do not have as large as lungs as that of the males, therefore, thier lungs can develop quicker than the males.

3. Body weight, the average males has over 25 lbs on the averagae female. Therefore, providing the male with greater advantage in almost all situations.

4. Hips, on average women have wider hips than males making their center of gravtity lower to the ground and causing them to have more of a sway from side to side when they run. Therefore, making running that much harder on females than on males.

5. Upper body strength, if a women and a male were to stand side by side and both were to put there arms straight out, the males arms would be a straight line, whereas, the females arm would form an "X" like shape. Try this with your wife or girlfriend, females arms bend-in at the elbow whereas a mans does not. This gives the male more leverage and more upper body strength in areas such as pull-ups and push-ups.

There are several more areas that I could go into, such as body fat percentages, muscle mass ratio's, red blood cells, white blood cells, etc. but I think I have made my point. Just think about going into a hand-to-hand situation against four tangos and all you have next to you is a women. Would you trust her to be able to maybe take on one of them. Or your out on patrol and your team gets ambushed and your shot in the leg; could you trust her to firemans carry your but back or will she just have to leave you there because my 220lbs ass is too heavy.

I work out every day, and there are plenty of women who work out with me in the gym, but even the ones that are in the best shape does not even come within a small percentage of what I can do. I am not trying to brag, I am just being honest.

I am not sexist, I believe that a women is capable of performing any job that a man can do, except when it comes to a combat position. There are even jobs that I think women would be better at than men, but a combat position is the exception.

------------------
Semper Fi

[Snake]

JSOC,
Your' speaking of the 1980's Delta experiment, right? I'd like to see the results (hardcopy) of the individual tests that were used. You say that all the Females failed the 1st battery, and thats a
-bad- thing? If they couldnt make the grade, they shouldnt have been let near SFOD-D. Those Operators were dead on right to want them gone, when they got in under reduced standards. But why did they only give that 1st test cycle once? They should have opened the -testing- after that, and if 1 Female out of 2000 made it through, cool. If none did, too bad. You can run and hide under you bedcovers, yelling "but the politico's.....".
The desegregation of Combat Arms is a forgone conclusion. Anyone who says it isnt, doestn have a firm grasp on reality. I give it 10 years at the outside. Question is, will it be an Army initiative, or one Congress rams down our throats? If they do, your damn certain we'll have a double standard, because they'll be on the rampage in a political crusade. If we sandbag 'em by doing it
-our- way, we set the rules, within limits.
I hope to be commissioned in about 2-3 years.
This is something I'm going to have to deal with. In ten years, the Navy went from women-free ships, to a female CO on a FFG.
In another ten years, I have no doubt I'll be leading female Grunts or Tankers. My opinion doesnt have any bearing upon it. I'm a Soldier, I do what Properly Constituted Authority tells me to do. Oh, an you'll most likely see Female Jarhead Grunts ("Every Girl, a Riflegirl"?) and SEAL's. PJ's too. No one is gonna get clear of this one. Do you want to ameliorate any damage done, by supporting the -Soldiers-, or bitch about politico's, and take it out on the Soldiers?

Snake
25th ID(L)

[JSOCMarine]

Snake, my replies follow your quotes.

"Your' speaking of the 1980's Delta experiment, right? I'd like to see the results (hardcopy) of the individual tests that were used."

You know that you will never see that data as it would show the actual selection process. By the way, it was not an experiment, they really wanted a few women. They did what you propose the services do and it only highlighted what we already know; that elite women will always fall far short of elite men.

"You can run and hide under you bedcovers, yelling "but the politico's.....".

I never ran when bullets were flying by my face, nor did I run when politicians and cowardly generals attempted to ruin my Service. I spoke out very loudly (I was actually called "Hackworth" by some senior officers) at the risk of my career. You may get your chance to face both tests once you are an officer, but you'll face one for sure. I truly hope that you will be able to live with your performance as well as I can live with mine.


"The desegregation of Combat Arms is a forgone conclusion. Anyone who says it isnt, doestn have a firm grasp on reality."

Brought to you by the same people that said, "Standards will not change" during the integration of the Service Academies, Airborne units, recruit training, and "pregnancy won't be an issue on deployments".

Is this what they are telling you in boot camp now or is that the latest mantra from DACOWITS?

"I give it 10 years at the outside. Question is, will it be an Army initiative, or one Congress rams down our throats? If they do, your damn certain we'll have a double standard, because they'll be on the rampage in a political crusade. If we sandbag 'em by doing it
-our- way, we set the rules, within limits."

What you are saying is the party line. This is the kind of bullshit that Generals say at the Pentagon. I know that you have heard officers say this and other flawed rationalizations. It simply is not working now and will not in the future. My advice is to not go to war with those officers who say shit like this. They are cowards in peacetime, and will undoubtedly fold under the stress of combat, which by the way MOST HAVE NEVER EXPERIENCED! Using their logic we may as well just start putting girls in the Ranger Regiment right now, because sooner or later we'll get ordered to. TOTAL BULLSHIT!

"I hope to be commissioned in about 2-3 years. This is something I'm going to have to deal with."

Print these posts and stash them away. Read them 5-10 years from now, because you don't know what you don't know right now. Someday you will start to realize that I am not as crazy or out of touch as you may think I am right now.

"In ten years, the Navy went from women-free ships, to a female CO on a FFG."

What makes you think that that experiment was a success? They also got a few jet pilots very quickly too. One of them is still at the bottom of her ocean with her jet. Substandard in every way, coddled through flight school, she was in no way ready to fly that plane. I guess ships are harder to crash! Been on an Amphib ever? Been on one for 6 months? Want to guess the stats on pre-coed vs. post coed "love cruises?" The Navy sure leaned forward on this and made it a "Navy Initiative". It's a failure, pure and simple.


"In another ten years, I have no doubt I'll be leading female Grunts or Tankers."

I hope not for the nation's sake. If you do have to do that, realize that you are being set up for failure should you have to go stomp some ass. What you are saying is that you accept the fact that the military my sons would enter will not nearly be what it once was.

Tell you what. Write down what concessions you would never make while serving as an officer. Memorize them and WHEN you are asked to roll over on one or more of those issues you'll know that your test has arrived. Rationalize and stay competitive for promotion or remain a man of integrity? The test is coming Snake, oh yes it is! I passed mine, but had to retire, with my integrity intact, to do so.

" My opinion doesnt have any bearing upon it. I'm a Soldier, I do what Properly Constituted Authority tells me to do."

That's correct. But it does not prevent you from having a mind and reading history. This issue is obviously too close to home for you to be able to look at the facts objectively. You have baggage on this subject, whether you realize it or not. I advise you not to let it affect your decision-making process once commissioned. I am sure that you would say it never will. As I said, print this and keep it. Ask yourself 8 years from now if you have or have not. Good luck!

"Oh, an you'll most likely see Female Jarhead Grunts ("Every Girl, a Riflegirl"?) and SEAL's. PJ's too."

That will be the day that those units cease to be what they once were. Maybe Ranger school will be integrated by the time you go through it. Tell you what. If there are Rangerettes in the course with you it won't be the same Ranger School that you apsire to going to at this time. See what the Tab means to you or anyone else at that point.

"No one is gonna get clear of this one. Do you want to ameliorate any damage done, by supporting the -Soldiers-, or bitch about politico's, and take it out on the Soldiers?"

Are you claiming that any damage is being ameliorated right now? Let me tell you something. By speaking out on issues like this officers would be supporting their soldiers!

I am not attacking you personally, so do not take my comments as such. I gather that you have about 5 years of experience. I think that you are a bright young fella. I would advise you to study, really study both sides of this issue, without preconceived notions. You are certainly entitled to your opinons, but I suggest that you get some more depth on the issue. I hear a lot of party line responses coming from you, because I know that that is what you are hearing from your leaders. I post such things on SOCNET so young folks like you have a chance to hear some things you will NEVER hear from a serving officer or politician who hopes to serve another term.

Semper Fi.

[Snake]

JSOC,
what you'r not seeing here is that we agree on the -present facts- of this issue.
Namely: A)Concerning females or not, spineless leadership bodes ill.
B)That no female yet tested had what it took to make the grade for SpecOps.
C)Females recieve preferential treatment as regards physical standards.
D)The Leadership seems unable to draw a line on "One Army, One Standard", while keeping the standard high.

What we disagree on are possibilities existing in the future.
Fo instance, you seem to believe that if enough brass got together and refused to kowtow to the Administration, the politico's would back down, and the specter of Women in Combat would be defeated. Not so!
Every single one of those Officers would be out on his bestarred ass, come monday. Washington has already proven it's ready, willing and able to shitcan anyone who doesnt play ball. All it would do is damage the Army, and challenge the legitimite authority of our -elected- Government.
If they wont do it, someone can be found who will. Thats how Washington see's it.
I understand what you saying, I honestly do.
However, you'r tilting at windmills if you think it aint going to happen. This topics been making the rounds of the Post lately, and everyone, from Batt. CO on down to PL's and Sergeants, is quite certain that opening CA to females is inevitable. Only question is, will we screw it up? Answer: probably.
We'll get backed into it (Again), and some Senator will say "45 Officers, 1200 E's, by October", or somesuch crap. -Then- our standards go right out the flippin' window.
Not yet having seen things from the lofty vista's of Bars/Leaves/Birds n' Stars, I can only guesstimate at the nonsense that goes on up there. I'm a Grunt. I started out at Benning. I spent two years as a Paratrooper with the 82nd. I'm just finishing up 2 great years as a LightFighter with the 25th Infantry Division (Light). I have been awarded the EIB. I am a certified and trained Combat Life Saver. I've done a tour in the Sinai, a couple months in Bosnia. I have been fired on. I've never been wounded.
In all honesty, I'm probably one of the best Infantrymen running around. And I'm mortally certain that there exists, somewhere, a female whocould do this job as well as me.
Lastly, I'll remind you that my Grandfather, on my Father's side, probably had a conversation like this. It might have been about "negra's", and their place in a "white man's army". Less intelligent, and all that.
Why, we even had -reputable- medical reports suggesting that, due to smaller capillaries in their brains, negro's wouldnt make good pilots. Sounds awfully familiar.

Now, maybe I'm right. Females get integrated, they do well, due to strict quality controls, and military bearing.
Maybe you'r right. They get integrated and cause the downfall of the US Armed Forces due to their unfitness, and rampant fraternization. Could go either way. But one thing of which I am certain. They are getting integrated.

Snake
25th ID(L)

[Cree Warrior]

I have to thank you guys for a very educational string. Alot of stuff came up that I have never heard of. I had a few points to bring up, speaking as a platoon commander from a military that has "integrated" our combat forces. I have females in my command, which could lead to me being biased, as I would NEVER treat a soldier differently based on any preconceptions, only upon their performance.
Most Canadians would agree that bringing women into the combat arms has decreased the standard...guys usually say that "well there are only one or two of the lot that can hack it". I don't believe this is true.

I have to say I agree with both of you, and your views are not that different. What you are both saying is that IF woman can meet the standard (whatever that may be)IF, then they should be given the chance in combat arms. Without lowering the standard, which lowers, combat effectiveness, lowers the value of achievement (as do most affermative action projects) and creates division. (I saw this first hand when I went through RIP with a bunch of non 11B guys that the reg't needed...total double standard).

Once again I may be biased, as my relatives have experienced racism in the military and I may be projecting. The most decorated Canadian soldier in the second world war, Tommy Prince, came back to Manitoba to find that he wasn't welcome in any legion, wasn't considered a full citizen, and wasn't eligible for land grants that most veterans were. This was the normal way to treat Aboriginals in Canada till 65' when we got to vote. We still had the highest volunteer rates of any group in Canada in both world wars. So the cry against women in the army, women in the combat arms, gets my ire up.
There was a woman warrior in the battle of Little Big Horn, she was a Cree from Manitoba (a mercenary) she had over ten "confirmed kills" during the battle. I would love to have her on my side in combat.

I know that we all have very intrenched views on this issue, including myself, however if we need to keep this a civil discussion, not an arguement.

Sua Sponte

[Fred]

CW, I'm doing my master's thesis on the Battle of LBH. After reading over 35 books and official accounts on the battle I have yet to read about this female Cree warrior. Perhaps you could direct me to your source, I'm very interested.

[jcollettusa]

CW,

I am just curious, not trying start anything, but how is the morale of the men? Do they seem to focus more on the girl than on the mission? Because I am just thinking, if I was leading an infantry platoon, I know the men in that unit would be thinking "what would be the quickest and easiest way I can sleep with this girl." We are all human and we have sexual drives and urges that are natural, now you can sit down and kid yourself by saying that this will not happen, my men are professionals, are they, or are they human? By integrating a women into this environment you are distracting from the concentration levl and focus of your men. I am not talking about your elite warriors, I am speaking of your average grunts that only cares about getting laid, and getting drunk. Those two elements are what the average 18-21 year old cares about, and by doing this, you are putting a piece of cheese in front of the mouth of a mouse and telling it not to touch it. It is not going to be the professional warrior who does his job without bias or prejudice, it will the young buck who really has no worries or cares in his life and is still very immature.

As citizens we want to kid ourselfs saying there are not pyhsical or chemical differences between male and female, but there are, and there always will be. WE ARE DIFFERENT, we are different physically and chemically.

I was trying to stay off this forum, because this is one topic where I sometimes let my passion take over my reason. However, I have done extensive research on this from both sides, and everything I find and everything that comes up, comes up against women being in combat, except this one issue and this is the big one, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS. Some politician that has never served in a combat unit and wants to stay in office another term, and he is willing to jeapordize his integrity, our National Security and lives of these young men in order to do this. This is a sad day, and for you current military officers that are serving now, I feel sorry for you, because you are in a no win situation, if you say anything to the women (Sexual harrassment), or if you say anything against them being there (kiss your career good-bye), I guess you just have to suck it up and deal with it.

------------------
Semper Fi

[This message has been edited by jcollettusa (edited 06-18-2000).]

[Snake]

Alright,
I've managed to disclipline and counsel females on several occasions, regarding shit I thought wasnt professional. Did it the same way I do my squad, loud and to the point. I ant been charged yet. Also, I am not personally, or professionaly, aquainted with any Officer or NCO that has been accused. It doesnt happen as often as a lot of people think.

Snake
25th ID(L)

[recce_o]

Here's my direct experience on the issue. The introduction of women in the military has necessitated the introduction of a comprehensive anti-harassment regime. Basically, the mere suggestion of harrassment is sufficient to get someone removed from their chain of command and placed in limbo until an investigation is completed and appropriate disciplinary action been taken.

In Canada the army is so sensitive to harassment that every time it happens they want to make an example of the poor trooper who happened to say something that the PC police deem to be inappropriate. So the system comes down very hard of people for the slightest infraction.

Now the problem is that everyone has it in their head that everytime they get jacked-up or disciplined that they are being harassed. "Sir, you can't say that to me... It's harassment!" Commanders are afraid to administer discipline or render negative evaluations for fear of becoming the next target of the anti-harassment witch hunt.

And the problem is further worsened by snivelling commanders who will err on the side of caution and come down hard on the poor trooper, rather than trying to resist the political correctness pressure that the system exerts.

Now don't get me wrong. Harassment, either sexual or otherwise, is a bad thing and is highly disruptive to unit cohesiveness. But The net is being cast WAY too broadly such that even the most minor infractions are getting people in trouble.

[JSOCMarine]

Recce-o is right on the money. The inmates are running the asylum!

Snake, we'll see if your perspective changes once you OWN the females and YOU have to recommend not promoting one because she is 40 lbs. overweight and fails the PFT. She will go to the chaplain, her congressman, women officers OUTSIDE your chain of command, and this will cause weak bastards above you to look at your unit and say, "what kind of outfit is that Snake running down there?" Before you know it YOU are being grilled and you'll see very quickly that somehow the tables have turned and you are now being seen as the bad guy!

After you show documentation out the ass that this hog is lazy, fat and generally does not give a shit, you will be overruled and she WILL BE PROMOTED (the fat men are simply out of luck, they actually will have to meet standards)! You WILL complain and you WILL be told to shut up and don't make waves. What you do next will be a sentinel event in your career. If you fold and rationalize, you will become one of them. If you stand up for what is right you will be endangering your career. Make no doubt about it; the decision will be yours.

Don't think so? Think that your battalion commander and company commander will back you and make a stand? Maybe so, but don't bet on it! I guarantee that this or something like this is going to happen to you within a few short years. This is what I mean when I say, "the test is coming Snake....oh yes it is!

Prepare yourself for battle. Semper Fi.

P.S. Snake, ever hear of a unit called the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI)? If not... YOU WILL!

[Snake]

JSOC,
essentialy what your telling me is that we should abandon/resist any movement in that direction, due to that fact that "such and such might be able to get preferential treatment...". Well, having been a newbie at Bragg during the "Skinhead Wars" and the ensuing CID Seach-and-Destroy mission, I've seen exactly the situation you described...not happen. There were shitbag soldiers who wear black/jewish/latino. They -could- have accused their Squad Leaders and Platoon Sergeants of being racists. The CID would descend upon said NCO, and the burden of proof would be on the accused. It -did not- happen. Why should I believe it'll be rampant with females? Plus, what would "motivate" an -unmotivated-
female to enlist with the Infantry? She could be a pogue, get the same benifits, and less physical misery. Care to call that one?

Snake
25th ID(L)

[JSOCMarine]

Snake,
Your relative inexperience and youthful idealism is showing. First of all, when the integration of women into combat arms happens, as you say it will, you are naively thinking that only qualified women who want to be there will find themselves in a grunt unit. That won't be the case and there are many integration case studies that will show you such precedent. There will be many fat, unfit, single parenting and demotivated women joining your platoon.

See, you said that you fully expect to have them under your command. What your relative inexperience with social programs has let you believe is that you'll only see good ones who want and deserve to be there. WRONG! What you see will in many cases shock you. I guarantee it.

Let's use your wife as an example. She sounds like a good soldier, and I assume she is fit and motivated. She also may be very happy in her Intel niche and has no desire to be a grunt company commander or platoon leader, but guess what? When the decree goes out there will be a great need for females period and she stands a very good chance of being ordered to the grunts. Her choice or personal beliefs will not matter a bit.

She'll do what she is ordered to do,you say? Great. If she is a small woman prepare to see her ruin her body. Her back and hips will take a beating that will ensure that she will suffer a good bit during pregnancy and when she gets older. Unless of course, the standards are watered down to prevent such from happening. Hmmmmmmmm.

By the way, you may be thinking that your 1stSgt and squad leaders,etc., will be mostly qualified infantrymen and mostly male at that point. Therefore integrating a FEW women should not be that hard. Keep dreaming! When the integration that you have embraced as inevitable comes the infusion of women into the units will be the number one priority, quality will take a distant second. DACOWITS will demand, as in past cases of integration that females are represented at all levels of the chain of command.

Shit, you may report in from Benning and Ranger School to meet your new company commander. The XO may say to you, "come back later this afternoon LT, the Captain is at the obstetrician getting a sonogram." Magnify scenarios such as this across your entire battalion, brigade, division, the ARMY as a whole....you get the picture. Sound far fetched? We'll see. If you have not thought about scenarios such as this you better start right now. I have seen things like this happen and many others reading this post have too. . That in itself does not mean that you will too, but I would be willing to lay a bet on it!

See, you simply have not been around long enough to see the military pull this kind of stuff on a repeated basis. In fact, many of the more classic escapades happened before you came in so you have no first-hand knowledge of them and may only be operating from what you are given by official sources. Remember that most of the dissenters of integrated boot camps,etc., are long gone; they left in disgust.

Your experiences and views from one shot in the 82nd and your current tour are great and I do not mean to diminish them at all. However, it is simply not enough perspective for you to be able to start saying what will and will not happen or "it did not happen" with enough perspective for it to mean a great deal.

Concerning your example of the skinheads and race problems, and the lack of the scenario I illustrated in my previous post; they are completely different in the eyes of EVERYONE in the chain of command, military and civilian. Who in their right mind does not hate racists and all they stand for? What Senator will come out and say that racists have a right to be in the Army too? Things like this are easy to deal with because ALL camps agree on the outcome.

They'll let you throw a klansman in jail and give him a BCD, no problem at all, and in my opinion rightfully so. Nobody gives a shit what a scumbag like that says or alleges, NOBODY! But, trying to enforce standards, however reduced, on the women is not nearly as easy. Do you think that the problems that support units encounter will not be present in combat arms that has been given the "Estrogen Shot"? If so, I wonder how you can make t=such a conclusion.

You probably do not know that EVERY officer promotion list in the ENTIRE DOD is first sent to Congress for approval before it is publicly announced. The last stop in each service is the JAG's office. Whÿ? The JAG screens the PROPOSED list and figures out the percentages of women and minorities on it. If the percentages are not in line with the quotas , oops...sorry, the goals set for the board , guess what happens? You are correct, the list goes back down, the board reconvenes and the numbers WILL be made right. Do some people get taken off the list to make room? Yes, they are. Are they ever told about this? Of course not. This is a fact, and anyone who says that it is not is either a liar or is completely ignorant of what goes on. So much for promoting "best qualified", eh? If you notice, the Army says it promotes on the "needs of the service". Hmmmmm.....who defines the needs?

Sorry to piss on your leg, Snake. Better that you hear these things early vice later on. Again, no personal attack here. As always, you are free to dismiss this post as the ramblings of an old man stuck in the past. Semper Fi.

"Only the dead have seen the end of war." Plato

"Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it."

[Snake]

JSOC,
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. You'r quite right, in that politics has the capability to screw us all. I hope we get it right. As for
-ordering- females to the Grunts, how do you figure that? The Navy didnt order women to the Aviator community. Remember, we serve the Republic. What the Republic wants, it gets. Now, if we made the Army and Air Force all male, and made the Marines and Navy all female....(ducks as Jarheads howl in rage...)

Snake
25th ID(L)

[JSOCMarine]

Snake,
The Navy did not have to order women into the PILOT pipeline, as there are more than enough of them who want to try to fly. They did in fact order women into aviation related support specialties in order to populate the field in the manner I described above.

You may not be aware that the assignment of what aircraft they fly is highly political and gets reviewed at the highest levels to ensure that PC quotas are met. All services do this. DACOWITS and DEOMI; two acronyms that you will unfortunately have to deal with far more during yur career than I had to during mine (I ain't complaining!)

Next time you get near a Blackhawk ask the pilots to tell you about favoritism and double standards they saw at Ft Rucker. If they trust you and level with you it will be a great learning experience for you.

The Navy also did this with the surface warfare community in order to populate ships with women quickly. The Army and Marine Corps also did it whenever an MOS or institution was hit by the integration wand. Your apparent belief that the services would not order women to the grunts is in my opinion quite unrealistic. Why will this integration be any different than others? Time will tell...time will tell.

I encourage you to print this entire string and save it. Show it to others over the next few years, you'll learn a lot by the discussions that ensue. I have already saved it as a WORD file. It will save me time when we are both on SOCNET 8 years from now and we can review what happened vis a vis my predictions and your desires. Should be interesting to say the least!

I realize that I have highlighted some fairly unpleasant and uncomfortable issues and scenarios within my posts in this string. Understand that I have personally witnessed every single scenario in one form or another. I consider it my duty to pass on my experiences and opinions to younger folks like you. You are intelligent and will form your own opinions. If I have caused even a small degree of "that won't happen" or "they would not do that" or "that would not make sense" to enter your thought process as you read my posts, my time was well spent writing them. Semper Fi.


"I am more afraid of our own mistakes than of our enemies' designs."
Pericles, in a speech to the Athenians, 404 B.C.

[mdb23]

JSOC Marine and Snake-
Cheers on an exceptionally well articulated and civilized discussion of what is often an extremely sensitive issue.

[wcollar]

After four and a half years of sea duty and three 6 month deployments on Amphib ships, I think I should be able to respond to what JSOCMARINE has said about the US Navy. The only thing I can say is "You are absolutely correct sir".

I did an all-male deployment and then served on the ship when it went coed. Many of those first female sailors were not volunteers but a critical mass was needed so the navy sent them anyway. Makes them some happy campers. There also was pressure to make this work. It was much more noticeable for officers than for enlisted. When some of the first group of female officers started to be spent back to Group (run by an Admiral who is under great pressure from his boss to make this work) under less than honorable circumstances, the word went out that things better change. Ship Captains (our O5 & 6's) are ranked against each other on many things but the most important thing is how they please the admiral. It suddenly becomes in their interest to make this experiment work. The threat of career suicide (coupled with the typical military can do spirit) is enough to get most of midlevel management in a frantic dash to be the ones to make this thing work. After a time as a junior officer, you start to wonder if you are supporting the wishes of the republic or the wishes of a couple of two stars bucking for a third.

If you don't believe JSOCMARINE's future gender-friendly scenarios, then try this one (these were just some of the experiences that occurred during my sea duty. Most of them occurred during a six month period) : You show up to morning muster and find that your boss has a couple of hickies on her neck that seem to have been caused by one of other officers (both married but not to each other). One of your fellow 1st LT's just got booted for horizontally counselling one of his female corporals and a platoon seargent from another company just got removed from his post in a sexual harassment investigation. You're getting ready to deploy to Australia (I read your 25ID posts Snake) but one of squad leaders just got knocked up and two of your privates are having difficulties finding care for their children (single mothers). Try getting serious training done in this environment. It can and has been done but each blow takes a little more spirit out of your unit and morale will find a comfortable home in the sh#tter despite everyone's best efforts. Never underestimate the power of the human sex drive. Even the most professional of sailors/soldiers will fall prey to it.

As for JSOCMARINE's quixotic quest against the feminization of the military, you must remember that the jury is still our on this experiment. The opposition to women on ships rested on two factors: (1) problems in combat situations and (2) insufficient strength to adequate perform damage control duties. The last navy ship attacked (a sustained attack and not single Silkworm shots like in the Gulf. Tomahawk strikes don't count either) was the Liberty in 1967(1973?) and the last Navy ship to have fight a combat casualty and nearly sink was the Samuel B. Roberts in the Persian Gulf in the 1980's(all male ship). As long as we steam around the world doing nothing, this debate from a Navy perspective won't be settled. From what I've seen, I'm not going to hang around to find out the answer. Look at Israel's experience with females as your guide. They disbanded the dual gender Palmach units immediately after the wars for independence. Their current feminization is due more to court decisions and a public that hasn't seen a major war in years than to any functional requirement.

Snake, JSOCMARINE is trying to prepare you for the future. From your posts (and I have read many of them), you seem to be a very intelligent, level-headed warrior. Our military is becoming less about war and increasingly about politics and, as you become a junior officer, you will be thrown into that maelstorm. If you're officers in the 25th and 82nd were any good, then they shielded you from all the nasty politics that goes on. It will soon become your turn to do that and that situation will force you into decisions and choices that will severely test your conscience and your self-beliefs. I've only been in 7 years and I can tell you from experience that JSOCMARINE is no rambling old man but rather an astute observer of both the old and the new military. We're in the forefront of the gender revolution in the Navy and it ain't a pretty sight. I'm not anti-female and do believe that females have a role to play in the military but what we're doing is not the right way. JSOCMARINE is just telling it like it is.

For Cree Warrior: I've been impressed with your posts. You're very calm and quite willing to see other people's points without necessarily agreeing with them. However, I may be reaching with this one, did you ever wonder why JSOCMARINE posted this article on the Canadian forum and not on the USA SF forum like it should be. I think the old man read your post on women in the military on a seperate thread (I think from two months ago) and was using this article to start a little discussion with you. Its an old Marine trick. Its a seldom known fact that they occasionally use their heads for thinking and not catching bullets. By the way, I still have my University of Alberta pullover (it was even fait a Edmonton).

For JSOCMARINE: Your efforts are appreciated, sir. Now I know why I enjoyed deploying with Marines so much. That's something in the Navy you don't advertise much. Fair Winds and Following Seas. Very Respectfully, wcollar.

[JSOCMarine]

wcollar,
Thanks for the kind words. You are correct about my reasons for posting on the Canada forum. Though I had seen Cree's earlier post, I also knew that Canadian forces had already gone through much of the integration issues that the U.S. will have to. I also know many Canadian soldiers and most of the older, pre-coed era ones are in total agreement with my opinions on the subject. The younger ones tend not to be as opposed to the concept. I feel that there are two reasons for this. Young people today (for the past decade or more)are indoctrinated right from kindergarten that females can do whatever males can. They grow up with coed little league, gym classes,etc. Both would have caused a scene in my youth! The other reason is that they do not have actual first-hand experience with the "pre-coed" military and thus do not have a personal perspective of how it was vice how it is. Not their fault, but it is a limitation that many of them are not even aware of.

They see their present unit and feel that things are OK, and they wonder," how much different could it have been pre-coed"? It's easy for them to think that old-timers are just talking shit about the "old days", because old-timers do that far too much anyway!

I can tell by your post that you have truly seen some of the filthy shit that I am trying to bring to Snake's (and others) attention. You know exactly what I mean when I say that the minute you inject young women into the presence of young men the situation degrades almost immediately. It is inevitable. I cannot imagine being on a ship with women. I just cannot conceive of how anyone thinks that the Marines down in the berthing area are not adversely affected by it.

If Snake had just one WESPAC on an Amphib under his belt he would have a great deal more perspective on this issue. I am confident that he will gain this perspective on his own, but I felt it only right to let him know that there is an entire range of issues and problems out there that he may not be aware of but will in fact have to deal with as soon as he is commissioned. In fact he'll start to see the ugliness as soon as he gets back into ROTC and starts seeing how and why decisions are made for commissioning and branch selection,etc. He's a smart fella, he'll figure things out quickly. He's an idealist however, like me, and idealists always take it very hard when they see people lying about important issues. You and I both know that he will in fact see senior officers essentially lie through acts of commission and omission. I think it's going to hit him hard.

Finally, I know that a lot of people read the board and never post. If the discussion we had caused some folks to hear and think about some things that they had never heard about before, that's a good thing as I see it.

I know that some of the young guys do not want to hear that the military that they are in or aspire to join is less than perfect. I think younger folks today are starving for leadership and discipline and they view the military as one place that they will get it for sure. I think that they become disappointed and perhaps disenchanted when they join and very quickly realize that the military, fine institution that it is, is not free of the politics and social pressures found elsewhere in life. The military is not, and never has been perfect or even close to it.

My respects to the Gator Navy. I have spent many years of my life riding the tin cans enroute to war and peacetime ops. Semper Fi!

[wcollar]

JSOCMARINE,
I completely agree with you that those coming in to the military today have biases that they haven't completely figured out yet. I think that the problem will only get worse before it gets better.

I do have a problem with the argument that if we only have one standard then everyone will be happy. Here in the Navy our standards to go to sea are quite low for both sexes in terms of physical ability and strength (don't tell me that you Marines didn't have numerous conversations about that while you were out on cruise). One could then surmise that since so little emphasis is placed upon physical strength/fitness, if females could do the other aspects of the job (drive the ship, fix engineering casualties, operate the radars) then everyone onboard would be fat, dumb and happy. Many females can do these things yet ships are still a floating high school in terms of sexual hijincks but with all the political correctness problems of a Northeastern liberal arts college. Why is that? Because, while the standards may be a non-issue, the sexual dynamic is still present with an amazing force. We are not talking about a desire that can be quickly unlearned. We are talking about something that is hardwired into every living male and female. The one constant in the human experience is the quest for love/sex/companionship. To think that if a female can stay in a 12 mile timed march then we'll all be magically neutered and suddenly get along in our unit is a crock. If the female next to you in formation can fulfill all the physical standards of your unit, you may respect her and have no problems working with her but if she's a little hottie then you still want to have sex/date/fall in love with her. The major problems then still haven't gone away. If someone tells me that they're too professional to cross that line then I'll laugh at them for their naivete. I know numerous people that were sh*t hot officers and senior enlisted, military professionals that were at the top of their game, who threw away promising careers because they couldn't control their hormonal urges. And you know JSOCMARINE that the special operators have had that hit their ranks too (I'm thinking on the Navy side and I know you know of the case(s)). One standard may reduce the problems and perceptions that come with our reduced standards but it will not solve the problems that come with male/female relations. We haven't figured that one out in our thousands of years of existence so why should it change now because everyone can do 100 pushups in less than two minutes.

I also think an area that we seldom think about is also taking a hit with the current feminization and that's the espirit de corps of units in all areas of the military. I think the Americans military is noticeably deficient in the attention to the mental side of warfare (I'm talking about the dismantling of the regimental structure, the individual replacement system, officer career progression, flight jackets, unconventional warfare, etc, etc). We acknowledge and respect the spirit found in our units but we don't really see how the little things that build up that spirit are affected by what we do. A case in point was the thread about everyone's first day in the 75th Ranger Regiment. While some of the stuff found in the late 80's and early 90's may now be gone, I guarantee that very little of any of that would still exist in a coed military unit. In the Navy, our shellback ceremonies at sea and the micromanaging of our Chief's initiation are just two examples of cohesion/character building events that are pale imitations of what they used to be. While they're may be some good points in that, the end result is that people think less of their profession and bring a little less of the necessary passion to their job. If you think about it most of our little rituals and traditions are designed to appeal to young men, the primary fighting machines for the past three thousand years. As even the sh#t hot female soldiers think differently than males, it stands to reason that those rituals would not appeal to them. And in today's "hope no one gets upset" climate, those rituals will go and the unit itself will begin to suffer. I got to see that first hand too, though, in all fairness, I think things might have been moving that way even before our current wave of feminization. If you think that unit pride and espirit de corps doesn't matter, then I suggest you read Fehrenbach's 'This Kind of War' to see the damage that occurred because we forgot about it. And it's hard to see that kind of stuff surviving in this era of political correctness and heightened sensitivity.

Sorry for my long windedness but when you see an institution you love start to take a nose dive then it tends to fire you up. Thank God for the healing powers of beer. Semper Gumby, wcollar.

[MH]

I think that women use their head more than the guys so it could be an advantage however they are physically weaker then males.

[jcollettusa]

wcollar completely reinforced my stating of mans sexual drives and urges. Although, I might of came across a little more harsh than I meant to, I did not mean to disrespect you in any way "snake," because I like a good debate and argument. I was once an idealist, thinking that if women could meet the physical standards like men than they should be allowed to participate, but after spending some time aboard a ship, seeing some very unprofessional acts committed by highly respected NCO's, SNCO's, and officers, and also doing a thesis paper on this subject, my opinion changed drastically.

Like I mentioned before, I think the biggest problem is going to be the young bucks, who might respect their female comrade, but still "wants" her. As memtioned before, there are several cases of unprofessionalism, and if you haven't seen any than that is great, but I have seen several, on ship and on mainland. I even seen two different cases at an Army base when I was there doing a training op; two of the instructors were dating two of the students. Which I really think creates a major problem with the morale of the troops. I mean even if the instructors were professional and did not show favortism, the other troops will still be thinking that their peers are getting things easier because they were dating. It was not being done overtly, but people are not stupid, and word gets around pretty fast.

Snake, you are smart, and I am in no way trying to degrade you. I have just seen some unprofessional acts that I did not approve of, but I do think that if this is going to happen than "you" have to have a positive approach on it, because if I was still in, I would not want to go into situation such as this with a negative attitude. So I commend you on that and I wish you the best of luck.

------------------
Semper Fi

[Snake]

Guys,
we have the same problems of favoritism within the Grunts at the present. It's called cronyism, or sycophancy if you like. Hell, I got preferential treatment from my first PSG back in the 82nd. He was from the same neighbourhood as me, and he managed to swing me some cool activities, to broaden my horizons. He helped me to develop the skills that have led to me trying for a commission. In this case, it was more a mentoring-thing. However, we've all seen -that- get out of hand, and become favoritism. Having a PL slipping it to a squad-leader is pretty much on the same level as the PL going out to play pool and poker with a Squad Leader, and favoring him over the others. It's called favoritism, fraternization, and innapropriate behaviour. We have dealt with that under the UCMJ. What makes this different? Other than the squealing of "but no one will have the guts to enforce it on women".... That implies a leadership problem, and not a problem with integration.

Snake
25th ID(L)

[JSOCMarine]

Snake,
We are in BIG DISAGREEMENT on your last post!

1. A PL knocking the bottom out of a female squad leader if FAR MORE SERIOUS THAN GOING OUT AND PLAYING POOL WITH HER! Go ask your present company and battalion commander which violation they feel the Army considers more egregious. Ask them!

One will get you a good counseling and increased awareness on your role as a leader. The other will cost you your career IMMEDIATELY, at least in the Marine Corps it will. We do not give second chances for this type of violation. They will throw your ass out ASAP, and I have seen it done many times. The instances of this have greatly increased with the introduction of women on ships and in previously all-male units. That is a fact, period. And the facts also show that is is affecting the Army (and all services)in the same manner.

2. Your mentor was obviously trying to develop you. I assume he was male. What some of us are trying to say is that if he was a man and you were a woman it is human nature for him to become attracted to you and want to take things to a new level...the horizontal level! This happens every day! It's human nature. Does not happen in every case, but it happens far more than you obviously know or will admit. It's what wcollar is talking about. Good men fall to this every single day whether you realize it or not. In fact if he was male and you female I dare say that an observant 1stSgt or Captain would have counseled him to stop being seen with you so much lest the mere PERCEPTION of an improper relationship become known in the unit. Because perception is all it takes to ruin someone nowadays.

three more questions..

3. Did your mentor prefer blondes?

4. Have you dyed your hair yet?

5. Do you still keep in touch with him? You know...send him pictures of you via email, that sort of thing?


Just kidding......really ....just kidding Snake! Semper Fi.

[wcollar]

Snake,
Good point about the UCMJ and the leadership problem however things are not that simple out there. You just can't say that we're going to go out there and crack down on any perceived fraternization/ improper relationships/ doing the lambada (the forbidden dance) in the barracks after dark. Several factors will come into play that will limit what can be done about the burgeoning hanky-panky. The following is taken from the Navy's grand social experiment of the past 5 years.

You're in an all-male unit and the first batch of females arrives. It's a small group and most are eager to blend in. Most of the males happen to notice that several of the female soldiers(sailors) are attractive (for sailors that means that they have a pulse). Everybody is walking on eggshells but determined that things will procede smoothly (out of both the military spirit and the spirit of self-preservation). As time moves on, you start to notice that various signs of flirting are going on and some sailors are beginning to couple. They're always walking around talking only to each other, giggling and generally annoying everyone else on the ship. The command notices it (because everyone is looking for it) and immediately takes action. The offenders are brought in, counseled and given a stern warning that any possible future romantic behavior will not be tolerated. At this point the happy couple will say "We haven't done anything wrong and we're being the victims of a witch hunt." That concept of innocent until proven guilty still has a place in the UCMJ and no command wants to be called on the carpet and ask why they ruined a sailor's career over a "perceived" infraction. The command knows its limited in what it can do so it bides its time. More cases pop up because people know that unless they get caught doing the event then nothing bad can happen to them. Believe me, if people get caught exchanging body fluids, they will get slammed by the UCMJ. However, until they're caught nothing will happen and the command's options short of that are severely limited these days. Everyone has rights in the military these days, both perceived and actual, and no command will risk getting caught in violating those rights. At this point, the command faces a dilemma: either they can continue on in playing the role of the sexual police and expend precious time, resources and dignity in fighting a losing battle or they can basically decide to prosecute only when somebody is a witness to carnal knowledge (a witness or one of the participants in the act testifies). At that point the command closes it eyes and hopes nothing too bad happens. Once this occurs, then the unit becomes a soap opera. People who get caught are prosecuted but everyone else gets away with it (you will find that many soldiers will get caught but not turned in because no one wants to be known as a fink). From the command's perspective (CO & XO, they can't afford to spend all their time chasing down rumors (many are just rumors though many are accurate but you can't ruin a career over a rumor)so they decide to spend time on training, operating, etc and let the chips fall where they may with sex. Some ships even allow dating between crew members but not onboard the ship (this leads to ships' couples getting hotel rooms in foreign ports). However, once you let the genie out of the bottle then he ain't coming back in.

I posed something similar to your point when I was talking to my old XO after we had both left the ship. He was and still is an excellant officer who was no ticket puncher or ass kisser. He told me about all the ship's efforts to try to catch the ship's first love couple (we all knew about the two). After all the searching, the numerous counselings and the heated screamings at them, the command could still not prosecute them. They were also up to their ears in people approaching them about sexual escapades between crew members but who could offer no immediate and unassailable proof. With all this running around, they were getting nothing done (and looking like the Keystone Cops at that). At this point, they decided to get on with the business of running a ship, only prosecuting when they had definate proof of carnal knowledge. The rest made for a very happy cruise for a number of people. This was the case of a proactive, strong leadership that took on the whole atmosphere of male/female sexual relations and got their lunch handed to them. You just can't fight human nature. If you try, then it will take all your time (a precious commodity in the military).

When you get in your ROTC leadership class, they'll tell you (more like read it straight off of the teaching guide)that strong proactive leadership will solve all these problems. It will help but it won't solve all those problems found in the magic land of Hormonia. As with most things, you'll just have to find your own way through these things; I'm just trying to show you what to expect. However, when all else fails, just remember about the amazing healing powers of beer. Semper Gumby, wcollar.

[Snake]

JSOC,
wasnt trying to equate the two charges. Merely showing that they were two levels of the same offense. Fraternization #1=Bad. Fraternization #2=Worse.
Also, NOT FUNNY with the rump-ranger jokes. Yours truly (mis)spent his youth from 12-18 in a Military School. Having the dubious fortune of being slender and fine-featured, proto-Snake fended off unwanted attention on a regular basis. My wife, who was banished from her home to go to school at Adm. Farragut Naval Academy in Tampa, can tell some chillers as well...
And no, I havent bleached the hair yet. Waiting 3 more weeks for ETS. PSG would flip if I showed up for PT with the white-blond H'n T.
I really loathe moving. All our stuff is somewhere in TN, and we're sleeping on Futons and Tatami's...

Snake
25th ID(L)

[Cole]

Sorry to stir the pot and change the course, but reading the general concensus of these posts has brought an interesting point to mind. I think there is a general agreement that certain females are capable of fullfilling combat positions, the only problem is that a bone-headed leadership is cramming incapable females down the chain of command to appear PC. The main push against feminization of the military seems to be that the constant, natural, sexual aspect of a coed unit is destroying unit coehesivness and effectivness.
Now, my question involves homosexual soldiers. If I am correct, C-in-C Clinton abolished the "don't ask - don't tell" policy and homosexuals can now serve openly. (If this is not the case, I apologize)
If sexual adventures between male and female soldiers is the cause for decline in unit cohesivness, then wouldn't a male-male relationship be just as bad?
It seems silly that a talk on military affairs has evolved into human sexual tendancies, but the friction of both hetero- and homosexual relationships in the strict, regimented environment of the military creates an impact on armed services which must be dealt with.

[This message has been edited by Cole (edited 07-04-2000).]

[Enfield]

Well, there is a precedent for homosexual soldiers - the Spartans, Alexander the Great, the Sacred Band... They were sleeping with their comrades and it didnt seem to slow them down any, but that 2500 years ago in a different culture, so perhaps not totally relevant to modern armies. I think the problem is not the sexual relations between serving personnel, but the emotional ties that go with it. That, and commanders giving preferential treatment to a loved one (what lieutenant is gonna put his girlfriend on point or scout?)

Enfield

[JSOCMarine]

Question: What is the motto of the Greek Special Forces?

Answer: "Death From Behind"

[LRSC Grunt]

Did anyone hear the news about Gen. Clark, Ret. 101rst Abn. Division commander? Some gay rights association is suing him because they feel is responsible for the gay bashing death of one of his troops back in July 99. BTW, it happened in my battalion. Luckely I got out three months prior to the incident.

[Mike]

The general was assigned (or moved) to a prestigious job at the Joint Staff, which doesn't required Senate confirmation. When Governor Bush become President Bush, all will be quiet and the general will be promoted upwards rather than sideward.

[Mike]

Here is an article:
Women in Combat - Time for a Review
Placating gender-based agendas should have its limits.
By Elaine Donnelly
http://www.legion.org/pubs/current/index.htm

[Ted]

What the hell was Rocky thinking when he proposed this?

[Asskicker]

I'm not sexist. I'm neutral to the idea of women serving the armed forces. Let them try but they're should be no exceptions for them because were talking about combat and for combat you don't make exceptions. In some ways i think women shouldn't because the way boys and girls are brought up. Boys are brought up to be tough and keep everything to themselves. Girls are the exact opposite. Sure let women in but don't mix them in with men and only let them in if they can do as good as the men.

[andyboy]

Sorry to resurrect this thread but I just stumbled acrossed it and the quality and lucidity of it really blew me away. It has been/is being discussed on the Canadian Army Forum but aswith most "Politically Sensitive" subjects in Canada it is virtually impossible to have a serious debate.

I have some experience with this issue as I am in the Canadian Army and have had to deal with "gender integration" since I joined. This thread has verbalised many of my beliefs and experiences which have gotten me virtually crucified in Canada in the past.

Time and again I hear the refrain "if a women can do do the job then let her", unfortunately a soldier does not exist in a vacuum. Their technical abilities as a soldier are no more inportant than the effect they have on others around them. Having seen the effects of mixed units ie. jealousy, competition, mistrust, fraternization, perceived fraternization, distraction, etc. I can honestly say that gender integration was the worst thing to ever happen to the Canadian Army. When the descision was made it divided the Army into two camps, those who disagreed and felt the only honorable way to protest was to resign, and those who disagreed but would say anything to get ahead. Now we have a generation of leaders and troops who learned from them don't know any better.

Standards have been reduced and in places dropped altogether until we have weak training, easy exercises, and sensitivity training up the yazoo.This means troops and leaders see women serving in the Infantry with with ease with seems to prove the point of "if they can do it". It's a downward self fulfilling spiral that has left us in the position we are in today; unable/unwilling to commit even a Battalion of troops to Operations.

Now just so that I don't misrepresent my self let me explain that I am not anything special. I'm not reg force, I've only been on one Operation and I only have a few courses (Recce, Mortar, Comms, ISCC). I am but a simple Militia soldier who once aspired to more. But in ten years I have seen things slip from bad to worse to pathetic to the point where so many of us don't even know what it means to be a soldier anymore that we don't see the problems around us.

In case anyone is interested there is a pretty good book an the subject called "A Kinder Gentler Military". It's a pretty scathing look at the US Military policy on gender integration that pretty closely reflects what Canada has already gone through/is going through just on a different scale.

Thanks for your time.



[This message has been edited by andyboy (edited 11-20-2001).]

[Doc]

This would give new meaning to the term "Team Queen".

[JSOCMarine]

Bump for Gracie.

Gracie, lots of posts in this thread, some great discussion, different perspectives, etc.

Snake is the guy I mentioned in my previous post. I'll try to find his other threads, but look at his views in this thread. When he went to college for a commissioning program it was really his first time in a co-ed environment of any real magnitude.

His views changed completely, and though we tried to talk him out of it, he withdrew from the program and returned to the 82nd.

I always thought he was one of the brightest young guys on SOCNET. I hope he is doing well overseas and makes it home alive.

S/F

[UberCree]

My views have changed 180 degrees since this discussion as well.

[Infanteer]

I've only met one female infantry soldier who was able to keep up with us boys, and she didn't think that girls should be in the combat arms, because of a host of other problems.

[Mav]

*meekly adding her thoughts*

I consider myself a headstrong, go-get-'em, and relatively "hard core" female. I, however, know that my body has limits and unfortunately they don't reach as far as the average man. I will give 150% until I drop to complete a mission given to me, if necessary. But my 150% and theirs differ. And they rely on me being able to give just as much as they do in any situation. I couldn't, in good clear conscience, force my teammates to rely on me in that situation whether or not I wanted them to.

I honestly don't mean to keep at a previously discussed conversation but it is a hot topic, that keeps getting touched on in other threads and I wanted to add my .03 cents, and maybe get my change back or something. :)

[TonyM]

It's not about "if she can do this or if she can do that". I know lots of shitpumps that couldn't even keep up with my grandma on ruck march. And she's dead.
The problem is in mixing young males and females in close proximity. In 100% of the cases I've seen, the games begin. Anyone that doen't realize this is a good candidate for CDS.

[garett]

Whats worst is when things happen between members of the opposite sex who are of different ranks. That causes even bigger headaches, which significantly reduces efficiency and effectiveness. Commanders simply don’t have time to baby-sit and/or deal with soap-opera type bullshit.

[Royal Highland Fusilier]

I'd like to know how does support trade units in Yankland deals with copulation in units.

Yeah, combat and support trades are very different, but there are enough similarities for at least a worthwhile study, esp. in terms of unit efficiency and morale.

[Mav]

Originally posted by TonyM
It's not about "if she can do this or if she can do that". I know lots of shitpumps that couldn't even keep up with my grandma on ruck march. And she's dead.
The problem is in mixing young males and females in close proximity. In 100% of the cases I've seen, the games begin. Anyone that doen't realize this is a good candidate for CDS.

I do agree.. I hadn't touched, yet, on the "other" reasons why it isn't a good idea. I wanted to start out with cold hard fact.. this other reason is often considered "disreputable", despite the almost constant evidence of its truly undoubtable truth.

[garett]

Theres some shit in this article about how the Yanks handle the male/female shit. I think there is anyway...........

The March of the Porcelain Soldiers (http://www.hackworth.com/article04032002c.html)

The March of the Porcelain Soldiers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following is a piece I wrote for GQ Magazine that was accepted, edited, but blown out of the magazine because of 9/11. I thought the message so important -- especially after our conventional Army troops poor performance in Afghanistan -- that we should eyeball this and get the word out to our lawmakers asap. Keep Five Yards, Hack



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nothing is more basic than Basic Combat Training. Basic to the ways of war. Basic to national security. Basic to the very survival of the United States. So how come Fort Jackson, the single largest producer of Basic grunts, male and female, is under the command of a general who piled up more friendly fire casualties than anyone else in Desert Storm?

The Victory Tower looms up like a gallows, its timbers and planks cutting off the sun. It's a huge thing, three stories high, girdled with ropes and rope bridges, and fitted out with ladders. Next to it rises an awesome rappelling wall with a sheer, 40-foot drop to a sawdust pit. A line of young recruits are lined up, ready to leap, rope in hand, out over the edge.

WHUUUMP....WHUUMP....WHUMP...boots hit the wall. Three or four thumping steps followed by four dick-shriveling swings and the grunts are back on the ground. The first fewtwo or three male recruits take it as a rope-burning rite of passage that leaves their asses hot and their spirits high.

A fat guy stands frozen on the ledge above. The drill sergeant has to wet nurse him for 10 minutes before he flops over the side and drops like a bag of rocks. Then I spot the first female. Up there at the rim of outer space, she peers over her shoulder, her jaw quivering, tears streaming down her cheeks. She backs off until the drill sergeants surround her, talking quietly, gently cajoling her back to the edge, and this time she's out there flying, WHUUMP...WHUUMP...WHUUMP, tear-stained but game. "I'll be damned! Well done, soldier," I mutter to myself. The next female appears. This one collapses. No amount of friendly persuasion gets her to take the leap. Sobbing, she's led from Victory Tower in total defeat.

Welcome to Basic Combat Training. Welcome to Camp Snoopy, the U.S. Army's let's-play-soldiers theme park tucked in the piney hills of South Carolina. Does the idea of an obstacle course scare you? Hey, no sweat. The one they've build down here is called the Team Development Course. If you can't make it over the wall someone nice will lend you a hand. Do guns, bayonets, fists upset you? No problem. At Camp Snoopy you stick two marshmallows on a stick and duke it out with someone your own size. You say, you're no Hawkeye? Relax. If the drill sergeant can't get you through rifle training, the Chaplain can. At Camp Snoopy, they've invented a whole new meaning to "Praise the Lord, and pass the ammunition."

It's just past 0800 hours at Fort Jackson and I'm sitting in a small conference room waiting for the commanding general. The general's running late because he's at a prayer meeting. The delay is fine with me. I use the time to review the e-mails that led me down here to South Carolina. on a fact-finding mission. The private who wrote "Basic training stinks" pretty much sets the tone for all the rest. A colonel who's hotter than Chili Red over "gender-neutral training" writes of a drill sergeant from Jackson whose take on coed basic training was, "Frankly, sir, they're screwing themselves silly." My favorite is a sighting from an old Vietnam chopper pilot who passed through the small service airport near Fort Jackson not long before I got there. What he saw shocked him one hell of a lot more than a paddy full of Vietcong. "The females were all carrying little teddy bears dressed in mini jump suits and cammies and the guys looked like they'd spent three days sleeping in their Class-A's."

Like armor piercing rounds, these e-mails now riddle the protective shield the Army has thrown up around a real disaster in recruitment and basic combat training. Over the past year, the signals from the field have been coming louder and stronger. From squad leaders, platoon sergeants and company commanders out where the rubber meets the road, the word is that basic combat training is producing soldiers who can't shoot, salute or scoot. Their physical shape is deplorable and their discipline stinks. And since Fort Jackson is the single largest producer of Basic grunts, I had come down to South Carolina to see for myself if things had really gone to hell in a bucket.

An aide comes in and tells me the general's ready to see me. I follow him through a maze of polished and dustless corridors, the wooden floors of the old building sagging after so many wars, their creak familiar under my heels. The last door opens and I'm facing General Raymond Barrett, a tall, lanky man with the beginning of a spare tire and thick, dark brown hair styled to a Ronald Reagan wave. He's looking at me as if I've just come out of the tree-line wearing a straw hat and rubber sandals, a wild old man who means to take a dump on his program and then frag him personally.

That's not the mission.

Go slow, Hack, I'm telling myself. Be fair. In fact, I'm so busy reminding myself that the stupidity of my own Greatest Generation filled a mountain of body bags that a few minutes go by before I realize the 'war' in the war stories General Barrett is telling me is Desert Storm.

Desert Storm? That 100-hour blow-out?

"I had the Third of the Fifteenth," he's saying. "Audie Murphy's old outfit."

I'm probably the only guy left alive in Fort Jackson who served in the same army as old To Hell and Back. But the outfit sounds familiar for another reason.

"We had the highest casualties of the war," General Barrett says in a practiced, John Wayne baritone. The two stars on his shoulders glow with the sanctity of command.

Suddenly it hits me.

"Excuse me, General, but weren't your troops shooting each other?"

General Barrett's handsome face goes redder than the clay at Fort Benning. But what can he say?

"Yes," he snaps. "We had the highest friendly fire casualties of the war."

If you're wondering why the Pentagon would put someone with this particular combat record in charge of its single largest basic combat training installation, I'm right in there with you. Last year, 80,000 men and women, most of them between 17 and 25, signed up to serve in the United States Army. Of these, almost half went to Fort Jackson to learn their basic soldiering, and nearly half of these Jackson High Fives were women.

The Army still has separate training for infantry, armor and artillery line troops--the bayonet-in-the-guts guys go to Fort Benning and the heavyweight shell humpers to Fort Knox and Fort Sill--but it's General Barrett who's become the point-person for the Pentagon's politically correct, squeaky clean, "values-based" Army. And if things keep going the way they're going now, Jackson will set the cadence for everyone else. "They want us to be the Army starship," one hardcore drill sergeant told me the night before my meeting with General Barrett. "Valhalla, man. Fucking Valhalla. You know what I think of these commanders? I'll tell you what I think. They can't take a piss without a Power Point presentation."

Sure enough, the General is now leading me back to the conference room, where a staff officer fiddling over a projector is getting set for the official Victory Starts Here slide show. When the officer finally nods that he's ready, the lights go off and down comes the snow. Here's what happens when you turn basic training over to art directors: you get a photo of three rock-hard drill sergeants and a quote that says 'Prove to us you're good enough to be in our Army and we'll let you in.' This is followed by a chart that shows a man has to do a staggering thirteen pushups to qualify for today's army--a woman, three. I learn that to graduate Basic in 2001 requires all of six foot marches, the longest being ten miles. Good thing these boys and girls weren't joining up with George Washington and the Continental Army' think about them hoofing it from Boston to Valley Forge to Yorktown with no way to hitch a ride.

There are slides on the Quality Management program, the Motivational Enhancement program (where recruits 'having second thoughts [are] salvaged'), the See It Through program that includes seminars on anger control and stress mmanagement. Today's Basic has remedial programs galore, including one with a 'Master Marksmanship Trainer--for anyone who can't hit a beer truck at ten yards with an M-16. All of these are great successes, General Barrett is saying.

"They've dropped the attrition rates to single digits.." I'm getting the feeling that the graduation rate for blind marksmen at Jackson would be 100 percent.

The "Down on your belly, dogface," approach to boot camp has given way to something called the Soldierization Process: a three-stage behavior modification program that follows a patriotic color scheme. The Initial Values Training is calledthe Red Phase, the transition toward combat is the White Phase, and the culminating three weeks of more rigorous combat training, culiminating in a program called Victory Force, is the Blue Phase.

Next to me, my wife Eilhys is scribbling notes even faster than I am. I brought her along to correct for my own bias against coed training and to make sure I'm fair to female recruits. She's writing on a small pad of General Barrett's personal notepaper, which she liberated from his desk along with one of his pens. The ballpoint is complimentary, a give-away souvenir, but the note pad, with its two red stars isn't. Each time she jots something down and rips off another sheet he smiles tightly. When she tells him the chow on post is "despicably unhealthy," he heaves an Al Gore sigh and the projector guy quickly picks up speed.

"We are here to provide these young people with opportunity," he says sturdily.

"Whoa, General," I say, "I thought we were here to prepare them for war."

I can feel Eilhys pulling on my choke leash. Okay, I tell myself. It's not about General Barrett. The Army has a real problem. It has to find those 80,000 people every year to do its job and they're hard to come by right now because the job market's been so target rich. Why sign up for the military and stand in the rain and get blisters and maybe get yourself killed when you can earn good money elsewhere and even MacDonald's is offering management training programs? If you're not from an old-fashioned family with a strong tradition of military service, if you're not a jock or someone born with a warrior's soul, you'd have to be nuts. So you don't have to be a genius to understand today's pressure for maximum bodies, minimum attrition and a triage training philosophy that says: Fuck it. If they don't get it in Basic, we can square them away when they reach their units.

The problem is, war's not a three strikes and you're out game. One strike, a single mistake, and you're in a body bag with the rest of your squad, your platoon's short, your company's crippled, the battalion's fucked and at Division HQ they're wondering why the battle's being lost.

A lot of first-rate kids, males and females, go through the recruiting office door every year, tens of thousands of them. But so do a lot of slugs. The problem at Fort Jackson and all the other Basic Combat Training posts starts right there. In peacetime, with an all-volunteer army and a good job market, quotas rule, not high standards. It's all too easy for the slugs to ooze through. When recruitment fell 6000 bodies short two years ago, the military spent --$113 million on advertising and $105 million in enlistment bonuses. Walk through that Recruitment Office door and even if you're holding a busted flush, you can leave the table with $3000 for signing up and $50,000 from the Army College Fund.

Nearly 10 percent of the trainees at Jackson are single parents, 4 percent male, 6 percent female. A great opportunity, as General Barrett says. But what happens when they get to their units and say, "Reporting for duty, First Sergeant. Where's my quarters, where's the day care center? I'm gonna need Food stamps to supplement my pay, and, uh, I won't be able to deploy to Bosnia

because my mom's sick of taking care of my kid?"

The bottom line is the big bucks, the college money, the job training, all the rest of the enticements--they draw, but they scramble a soldier's motivation. If you don't get off the bus at the Reception Battalion because your dream, however adolescent, is to be a warrior, or your moral vision, however retro, includes the duty to fight for your country, as soldier material you're starting two bricks shy of a load.

In the past, facts of life like the draft or a world at war solved this problem. If you didn't have a martial spirit, you went because you had to and you trained hard because if you didn't you died.

Today, the flip side of buying recruits is that the Army becomes just another job. It bugs you, you split. One joint in the latrine when the First Sergeant comes in, one trip to the Chaplain--"Uh, Padre, I think I'm gay" and you're home free. Happens all the time. The Government Accounting Office, the non-partisan numbers cruncher for Congress, reported that 36 percent of new recruits fail to complete their initial commitment. Instead of facing this crisis straight on, the Army seems to be trying to wish it away.

The next chalk talk is with Lt. Colonel Scott A. Henry, a water-walker bound for stars. The General considers him his best battalion commander and it's not hard to see why: five years in the Rangers, four years with Mech; at 39 he runs two miles in 12 minutes and 15 seconds. So it astounds me when I hear him drop the word "nurture" into his opening rap. Great Ranger in the sky, I think, who's been brainwashing this stud?

He concedes that the recruits are a mixed bag, but says that's the leadership challenge. He calls it Generation D for Digital. "They're less fit, but they're mostly bright. Their motivation is different. They're individualistic. They come in watching tv, playing Nintendo."

They also come in with an aAttitude the size of Duke Nukem or Lara Croft--that cyber chick with the titanium tits in Tomb Raider I, II, and III--and their attitude all too often is inversely proportional to their capabilities.

On that score, Lt. Col. Henry has no illusions. He says his mission is to sort them without prejudice.- "You have to identify what I call the Titanium Soldier," he explains, "And you have to identify the Porcelain soldier. The Titanium is all-varsity, an athlete, tremendous. You can push him hard. The Porcelain isn't doing so well. Maybe he's very scared, or maybe it's just that Grampa told him never to volunteer. You pound 'em too hard and you break 'em. You really got to watch it. These are good people. I don't want to send them home"

I feel the flashback coming--, the day I got off the train at Fort Knox ("Come here, dogface. Your ass is mine." ). I see myself a few days later trotting around the parade ground, holding the 60-pound base-plate of a 81mm mortar over my head, screaming "I'M a BIG ASS BIRD" at the top of my voice, shouting and staggering until my arms finally give out, the steel plate misses my head by a hair, and I'm lying with my nose in the mud wondering if I'll ever get out of Basic alive.

The point being, of course, that the very ruthlessness of the drill hardened me for something one hell of a lot more brutal.

Combat.

"That's not our mission," Lt. Col. Henry says. The rough stuff's for the shock troops training at Benning. "Here we're inoculating them for the prospect of maybe having a fight, hanging in there until the cavalry or infantry arrives to save the day."

Tough training for the line units, marshmallows for the rear? Talk about denial. In modern warfare, there is no front. Command and control nodes, airfields, supply dumps, logistics units, transport, the hospital, everything's fair game. If anything, in guerrilla warfare and terrorist actions, those targets are even more likely to be hit. A young sergeant I know put it this way: 'That U.S. Army name tag on your chest is the biggest bull's-eye in the world. These young soldiers are going to be in Korea. They're going to be in Bosnia. They are really exposed, man. When our cooks and clerks ran convoys of deuces and hummers through the streets of Mogadishu, do you think the Somalis were not going to shoot at them because they were 'noncombatants'''

Sergeant Orfeo Provost, my escort, watches the disaster impassively: 14 years in the Army, a Ranger tab and a Ranger combat scroll on his uniform, a bronze combat jump star--Panama--in his silver wings, a drill sergeant's drill sergeant who's seen it all, he'd have his jaw sewn shut before he'd badmouth the Army.

He knows General Patton's maxim by heart: the more sweat in training, the less blood on the battlefield. When he was a drill sergeant, it shaped his whole day. He'd roll out of the sack at 3:30, jump in the shower and be slapping bunks in the barracks by 4: 05. He gave his recruits 10 minutes to make beds, knock the dirt off their teeth and get going. Out on the PT field, they had to keep up with his pushups. If recruits dogged it, Provost took them to Bunker Hill out beyond the barracks, using their personal time after evening chow to square them away. He was tough and he was fair. After lights out, when the other drills went home, he stayed an extra half hour, setting aside 20-minutes for gripe sessions. When a recruit had a bad problem, he tried to talk him through it; if he couldn't, he called the chaplain.

By the time he got home at 2200, the dinner would be in the microwave, the kids and wife in bed. He'd polish his boots and hit the sack ("Hey, mama, howya doing?"), but by then she was usually asleep. Five and a half hours later the three alarms he'd set would shoot him into another day, day after day, nine-week cycle after nine-week cycle.

The Army's drill sergeants are not the problem. Like Provost, the overwhelming majority of them really know their stuff. They're a new generation, not like the great old troglodytes I grew up with. My teachers were sergeants like Hugh MacAlwaney. After a few beers, this redneck with his fifth-grade education would roll up his trousers and show you the scars on his ankles from his days on a Georgia chain gang. There was the time in Italy when a jeep of MP's roared up to catch him at a whorehouse. While the MPs were pounding up the stairs, he jumped out the window into the seat of his own jeep, as if he were in an old Western. When the MP's gave chase, he pulled out his .45 and shot out their headlights. End of story.

If anything, Provost and today's drills are better than the Greatest Generation. They come from the three Orders of Gungness: the super-hardcore, the medium-hardcore, and the pragmatists. The first are training fanatics like me; they'll risk their stripes to do the job right no matter how the Army tries to hamstring them. I'd put Provost in the second group: guys who say, 'All right, I'll train whatever you give me, but I'm gonna do it my way. You're gonna fall out 10 minutes early, stand at attention, give me extra PT and come out a soldier." And when they dog it, he'll take them out to Bunker Hill. But the third group does have a go-along, get-along approach and the product's not going to be as good. They say to themselves, "The Army's full of shit on training, and I've got a wife and two kids, I can't lose my stripes, so I'm gonna do my two years and not make waves."

General Barrett has done everything he can think of to hide his super-hardcores, so I've located them myself. Since they're risking their careers to talk, I'd rather fall on a grenade than be seen with them or identify them by name. But each night, Eilhys slips out and brings them through the perimeter wire so they can tell me their stories over a beer.

Very few Vietnam-era combat NCO's are left, but most of the super-hardcore trained under that lost generation of warriors. They tell me about the sergeant who said, "I ain't running no fucking Loveboat," and was shown the way to the door; about the sergeant from Fort Leonard Wood so dedicated he missed his own daughter's open heart surgery to finish a cycle. His reputation proceeded him to Fort Jackson, where the post sergeant major told him, "You won't fit in real good here," and kept him miles from any training field.

The hardcores clink bottles and shake their heads. They say the Reception battalion is sending them recruits with asthma, bad knees, weak ankles, people bearing raps sheets dotted with criminal misdemeanors, a sprinkling of recycled felons, and dim bulbs ('rocks with lips') by the dozens. "You ask them when the War of 1812 was and they say, 'Uh, 1940'' Who did we fight in the Spanish American War' 'Uh, Germanee?'" I had this one gal from Baltimore I asked who wrote the Star Spangled Banner. She said, "Oh, that was Francis Scott Key. The rockets was goin' off and the bombs was fallin' and the Japanese ships were headin' into Pearl Harbor, and...' I'm not shittin' you, man."

I hear stories about road marches with stragglers strung out in goat Rope formation, dropping rucksacks, falling out. The old practice was for every squad, one way or another, to hump its rucks across the finish line. Now, they take a fuckup's ruck and toss it on the truck. "You go out on a march, they kept stickin' the magazine in their pistol belts, cradling the weapon so it'd be lighter,' a sergeant says. ' So I made 'em carry it at high port, ready to go. The Sergeant Major comes up to my buddy and me--my buddy's a 19 Delta, a Cav Scout--and goes, 'Who taught these privates to carry their weapon at the high ready'' I say, 'I did.' And he says, 'We don't carry like that.' So I tell him, 'Sergeant Major, they're not carrying the way they should,' and you know what he says' He says, "That may be the way they do it in the real Army, but that's not the way we do it here.' And I'm like, 'The real Army? What am I in? The fuckin' Boy Scouts?'"

The next morning, I visit the Pugil Pit to get a good look at the training for teamwork and hand-to-hand combat, the true, up-close and personal shit where only one of you leaves alive.

The scene at the Pugil pit reminds me of a fraternity row pillow fight. The Army doesn't scare the trainees with any hairy-chested talk about hand-to-hand combat. One of the sergeants tells me, "If the brass had the balls to say you'll actually have to fight or get killed, no one would show up." Instead, they call these training exercises pugil training, which sounds like something you might want your lap dog to have before trying out for best in show.

The grunts are drawn up in two lines matched to physical size, males against females wherever body size puts them. It's hard to tell the men from the women because everyone's wearing football helmets and vests so stuffed with padding they move at the speed of a sumo wrestler after chow. The weapon of choice today is a broomstick wrapped with tape, the ends fitted out with two thick foam pads.

Thump, thump. The men are laughing. I remember Korea, what a man looks like going into the body bag after a bad guy with a bayonet has explored his guts. Thumpity, thump. Is that a warrior, that little bitty thing coming up on line? Yes, it is it. I admire her grit and feel bad when the miniature male she's paired against steps forward and decks her.

My next stop is the Teamwork Development Course. Near a pair of wooden platforms linked by a crawl line, a team of five trainees studies a jumble of ropes and pulleys piled on the ground next to the dummy standing in for a wounded soldier. The drill sergeant looks at his watch. The team is good. After some initial fumbling, a bright kid dopes out the problem, quarterbacks it for the others and they all scramble up on the crawl line and drag the dummy safely across the chasm below them.

The team across from them fucks the duck. The trainees pick aimlessly at the ropes as if they are trying to straighten out a bad hair day. No one even bothers to check out the other, more together, squad. After a while, the drill studies his watch in disgust and calls on the next team. No one gets smoked. It's just 'Better luck next time.'

In the mess hall later, I study trays piled high with everything from hotdogs to pizza and ice cream and ask the six young privates sitting at my table whether they're being pushed hard enough. They look at each other uncomfortably. To a man and to a woman they stick to the message. All a little too good to be true.

The facts of life in the Army are these. Even in a good outfit, ten percent of the soldiers are warriors, the rest are rock huggers. It's human nature. But in a well-trained, disciplined unit, when the warriors get up and go the rock huggers move out, too, if only because they'd be ashamed to hang back.

The privates agree that the worst are not weeded out fast enough. One of the group pushes back his tray and says, "Pretty soon we'll be halfway through our training--we're in basic rifle marksmanship now, and they're still here and we're not making any progress."

Maybe it's just start up problems. To check the progress of grunts at the end stages of Basic, I go out to the Omaha Course, one of the combat ranges. These soldiers are heading down the homestretch towards graduation. Two soldiers shoot and scoot forward toward a large bunker. It's live fire. They hit the ground like two-hundred pound flour sacks; neither can get into a correct prone firing position: their boot heels stick up in the air, their faces say help me, help me. While the first crawls forward and uncorks his dummy grenade, his buddy "covers" him, firing wildly at the pop-up targets, missing at least half of them. The objective, an open sandpit big enough and wide enough to swallow an SUV, lies only 20 paces ahead of the lead grunt. He lobs his grenade. POP. Short. Exercise over. POP, POP, POP, POP. Four more teams. No one hits the target.

Out on the defensive range, it is just as bad. Everyone's hunkered within a make-believe perimeter fighting off the bad guys. The pop-up targets are jumping. BLAOO, BLAOO, BLAO. Once again, half the shots are misses. Sorry, kids, I mutter. You're dead.

On the rifle range, I discover why the marksmanship is so poor. I was taught to shoot by spending three straight weeks on the range. When I flopped down, the range lieutenant stomped my boot heels to make them lie flat; he kicked my arm so hard to align it under my M-1 that I was sore for a week. These recruits have the wobblies.

I remember that chart of General Barrett's, the one that puts the rate for basic rifle management at a perfect 100 percent, and think back to some of the stories I've heard over the past few days: the kid who emptied two boxes of ammo without hitting a single target but qualified after the Sgt Major examined the targets; the female crying because she couldn't hit shit, then qualifying after the Chaplain investigated her aim.

Later that afternoon, I get another clandestine visit from a truth-telling private who discloses the real secret for Jackson's sterling success rate. Out on the range, there are targets at 50 meters, 150 meters, 200 meters and 300 meters. To pass basic rifle management, you have to hit 23 targets with 40 shots. The trick is to hold your fire when the targets farthest down range come up and only shoot at the closest ones. When I ask one of the drill sergeants about it, he nods. "Out there, the 300-meter target comes up, you can hear the crickets singing in the woods it's so quiet. The 50-meter target comes up and its WHAAAAAAAAMMMMMM. Sounds like a fuckin' ambush.'"

Great, I tell myself. If you want to duke it out with greenhorns like these, all you have to do is park yourself in the bushes 51 yards out, whistle to get their attention and blow their brains out.

"Hormones will flow," Lt. Colonel Henry says with a straight face and I have to admire his way with understatement. Beyond the Executive Conference Room, where 38,000 young males and females, most just out of high school, have been thrown together over the past year, hormones aren't the half of it. They've been caught doing the dirty in the laundry and in the mop room, in the Clipper room where machines power wash the mess trays, in the wall lockers, where it takes tight bodies and true commitment for two to tango.

Most of the time, of course, they're not caught at all. "We teach 'em the buddy system for combat and they use it for gettin' down," one sergeant tells me. "One guy says to his buddy, 'We'll be in the laundry. If the drill sergeant comes around, yell 'At ease,' so I can pull my pants up and get outta there."

The game begins the moment they step off the bus. "First day, they tell us the Dumpster Story, the Woods Story, the Porta John Story,"a young woman tells me, choking back a grin. "It's like a How-To-Do-It-Handbook."

The Dumpster Story?

"Yeah, well, it's like, they say, 'If we ever catch you with a person of the opposite sex near the dumpsters you're automatically out. At the field bleachers you can sneak in between the rear seats and the wall, but something always hangs out to give you away. The great thing about the dumpsters is they've got a lid.' When hormones and pheromones reach critical mass, who cares about how anything else smells?

In a losing battle to keep the recruits zipped up and on course, General Barrett oversees something he calls the Safe and Secure Program. In the barracks, females and males sleep on separate floors. The doors are locked at night, and surveillance cameras scan for sleepwalkers. They have so many electronic alarms even Tom Cruise couldn't get through them. Mission impossible, the watchdogs say.

Yeah, right. With a piece of tinfoil from a gum wrapper you can disarm the klaxons. From the windows of adjacent barracks, you signal with flashlights. At chow you pass notes like wiseguys out of Oz. There's always a way.

One drill instructor says he discovered a young woman sitting at Mass one cold Sunday giving a fellow recruit a handjob under the blanket spread across their laps. He ungummed the couple and because the Army's nurture and salvage policy prevented him from toss them out on the spot, he sent them to Bravo 1/28, the post's school for scandal and reform. Once there, the fox was caught at the same handiwork on the bus to special Easter Services. Given a third chance, she went on sick call, where a sergeant made the mistake of accepting her services. Only then was she asked to go home. The sergeant is now facing jail.

I admit this case is extreme. In fact, the significant problem isn't even about sex, it's about distraction. The upshot of coed training is a level of tension that destroys focus and discipline, eats up time that could be spent on more important things like marksmanship'with the rifle, not the short arm.

Sure, a few asshole cadre do get it on with the female trainees. While I was on post, one battalion in recent cycles had lost three drill sergeants and one company commander. A female sergeant described Fort Jackson 'a playground where the drills do everything to get into as many BDU pants as they can." No doubt, that's a gross distortion, especially since the Aberdeen sexual abuse trials. The fact is that the majority of the drills, even the hardcores, are now scared to death of their female recruits. They have to take extreme measures in self defense. One of them tells the females coming in from Reception that he'll yell rape if any of them get anywhere near him without their buddy standing right by.

This begs two questions: How can a scared drill sergeant turn out a good Soldier? And what about equal treatment, the very heart of unit cohesiveness? You can go out to the dumpsters and kiss that one goodbye. "They all talk about equality," one honest female recruit tells me off base. "Then they break the standards. "The drill sergeant scuffs us, the men get 110 pushups the women 20. Everything's like that. If we trained separately in Basic, then integrated in advanced training, it would be better. Both females and males would be Soldiers first before they started working together."

As things stand now, her proposal is not acceptable to the political correctness crowd or to the Pentagon. "They tell us this is a gender-neutral Army," one of the hardcores shrugs. "They say, 'It's bought and paid for. Drill Sergeant, you will make it work. It's total, fuckin' BS. The gain is there, but it's not worth the distraction."

General Barrett has his numbers to prove that all's well in the best of all possible armies. His party line, as old as United States Army itself, is that 1 in 10 recruits will always be fuck-ups. Even with reduced attrition, Fort Jackson does wash out nearly 10 percent of the worst slugs.

But talk to the drills and the recruits, and the numbers change. The sergeants say that when they stand at graduation maybe twenty-five percent of the new grunts behind them are not good to go. Talk to the grunts, the figures are even higher. "Probably sixty percent of my platoon is high speed, low drag," says one platoon guide. "The others don't want to be there. They're not disciplined. They don't care. The brass would rather recycle a soldier eight times than boot him out of the Army."

I'm having one last round with the hardcores. Around the room, the talk gradually shifts from grousing towards what needs to be done. To a man, they say the order of battle isn't hard to grasp: a clearer eye toward quality over quotas at the recruiting office; sharper, faster weeding out of losers at the reception battalion and during the first two weeks of training; a better ratio of drill sergeants to recruits (in better times the figure was roughly 1-20; now a single drill can be looking at 64 gawky grunts); common sense, not political correctness, as the right judge of mixed training.

That's why the stupidity of the recent Army of One commercials is astounding, even for the Perfumed Princes around the Pentagon E-Ring who approved and paid for them. An Army of One is a contradiction in terms, an assault on every principle of success in war known to man. Individuals don't win battles, units do. How could the Chief of Staff ever have let those ads out of the box? Sure, you have to sell the What's-In-It-For-Me Digital Generation on signing up, but the campaign can only increase attitude problems, undermine unit cohesiveness and make life even worse for our best drill sergeants.

After Desert Storm, George Bush I received a blue ribbon after-action report that included a critique of the way mixed-sex Basic Combat Training had played out on the battlefield. It wasn't pretty. But when he lost his job, the findings were dropped down the memory hole. Now we have George II, with Colin Powell, who was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs during the Gulf War and Dick Cheney, who was manning the Defense Department, right there next to him. If anyone knows this particular score, they do. The question is whether or not they'll dust off that earlier report and do something about it. Instead of total obsession with mega-buck Flash Gordon weapons systems like an anti-missile shield that may not work, it would be a better bet to correct Camp Snoopy Syndrome.

The hardcores are hoping for the best. But they are outnumbered, fighting from within an ever-shrinking perimeter. Their only advantage, their only trump, is their combat experience.

"I'll play that card," one of them says as he stands up to leave. "I'll tell these guys, 'Look, I've had the displeasure of carrying a dead American on the battlefield and I don't want to ever do that again. You train harder so it doesn't happen. You train harder because you don't want to send your friend home in a body bag. It's not a pretty thing to think about, not a fun thing you want to talk about, but there it is. If we're not training 'em to be good soldiers, we're training 'em to be dead soldiers."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------