On Women in Combat

First two post over at Victory Girls Blog.  I believe they are MUST READ materials.  Then there is a Comment taken from a discussion of those two articles over on Facebook.

First the articles in their published order.


"All combat positions now open to military women

by Jenny North on December 5, 2015

On Thursday, Defense Secretary Ash Carter announced that all combat positions without exception would now be open to women. The announcement is not unexpected, but is likely unwelcome for most in the military, as well as the general public.
~~~
~~~
~~~
As a former Marine officer, I’d like to think that I have some insight to add to the discussion. I was on active duty for six years and served in Okinawa at 7th Communications Battalion and at Marine Corps Recruit Depot, Parris Island (PI). My experience at Parris Island is most relevant to the discussion. While there I served as a platoon commander for three all female platoons and as a company executive officer (XO) at 4th Battalion, and as company XO at Support Company (Medical Rehabilitation Platoon and Physical Conditioning Platoon) with both male and female staff and recruits.Fourth Battalion is the only female training battalion at PI, and in fact in the Marine Corps. All female recruits come to PI for training, whereas males are split between Camp Pendleton and Parris Island, depending on which side of the Mississippi they are from. At PI, the training regiment, of which 4th Battalion is a part, includes three other male battalions. On the whole males overwhelmingly outnumber the females at PI and in the regular fleet, where they make up about 93% of Marines. When I was at Parris Island from 94-97, each battalion only had drill instructors that were the same sex as their recruits. There is some talk of changing this at present, and other services do not have this restriction."


Now for the Second Article:

"Where women can excel in combat roles – Female Engagement Teams

by Jenny North on December 6, 2015

There are a lot of things to say on this topic, so this is a follow-up to yesterday’s post on women in combat. This post is oriented toward the practical aspects of integrating women into all male combat arms units. There is support here for an alternative arrangement of inserting all female combat arms teams to enhance combat operations. This idea has already worked for the Marines in Iraq and Afghanistan.
~~~
~~~
~~~
Now, we must accept the current state of affairs. There is no more prohibition on women entering combat arms. In order to carry out this idea with a commitment to equality (which is why we are doing this right?), what should happen?

Women aged 18-25 must register for Selective Service, just like men.
Assignment to military occupational specialty (MOS) must be done in the same manner for all service members (currently this is mostly random).
If assignment to MOS is not random, then a fair, objective, gender-neutral system must be in place.
Combat arms units must determine the acceptable numbers of men and women per unit and strive to achieve those goals. It will be impossible for this to be 50-50 since women make up such a small percentage of the military in general. Without close to equal numbers of each sex, commanders must be especially aware of ostracism and potential breakdown in morale. Because of the low numbers of women available for these assignments, it is likely that many units will remain all male. Unless specifically addressed as to the acceptability of that outcome, morale amongst units will drop. (If you think morale is not that important to mission accomplishment, ask yourself why Google and others create boubou benefits for their employees).
No accommodations shall be made based on gender. Therefore all physical fitness tests should become gender neutral, and other physical competency standards must be reviewed for applicability to the job only. Current standards may need adjustment up or down, but whatever changes are made should be solely in relation to the requirements of the job.

The practical effect of these changes toward a gender neutral system is glaring – women will suffer. Not only will they struggle to meet satisfactory fitness scores, but they will also suffer in recruiting generally. The new “opportunity” to join combat arms units may attract some females, but likely not enough to make up for those who will no longer be interested in joining if it means the possibility of being assigned to a combat arms MOS.

If gender-neutral rules are not put into place, there will be a decline in the perception of the military as a place where advancement is based on merit. This is detrimental to fulfilling the mission of national security."

And the comment from Facebook:

"Tim Griggs Thanks Kate Stokes, I would be happy to opine. Bottom line, I agree with everything the author wrote. About 3 years ago another Marine officer related her experiences during a 7-month deployment to Afghanistan. She was a Marine engineer, but supported Marine infantry units for the entire tour, meaning she did, and endured, what the grunts did. As a Marine officer, she routinely maxed the physical fitness test and enjoyed a high level of fitness, stamina and conditioning. But after 7 months in the infantry, her body had been so worn, abused and depleted that her physician voiced serious concerns that she could ever bear children. (IIRC, she was about 26 at the time her article was published.)

So, the new posts reinforce (in my mind at least), several basic truths that do not necessarily mitigate against women in the combat arms, but ought to at least frame and define the nature of their service. First, men and women are different, so let's stop pushing the fallacy of gender equality. To paraphrase Tommy Lee Jones in the movie "Lincoln," men and women are equal before the law, but certainly not equal in capability, barring the rare exception. The fact that there are different scales for men and women attest to that. So if a bunch of smart Army fitness gurus have determined that 30 female push-ups equals 50 male ones, how do you account for 30 pounds of body armor, and 70 pounds of ammo, food, water, and gear. Should the woman only have to carry 70% of that amount?

Second, the "historic" female Rangers this summer proved that they can succeed in a schoolhouse environment, in scripted scenario training events, for at least 90 days. But 90 days is a far cry from a full deployment. (FULL DISCLOSURE -I'm not a Ranger, never even attempted to go to Ranger School, so full props to them for that.) At the height of the Iraq War, Army units deployed for 15-month tours, or twice as long as the one one that wrecked the female engineer's physical condition mentioned above. If you've seen the documentary Restrepo, imagine ruck marching those mountains everyday for more than a year.

Third, many problems arise from forced integration, so I wholeheartedly concur with female units being assigned combat missions, as an alternative to mixing men and women and dealing with that mess. Basically, if one concedes that men and women are different, then the only sensible approach is to expect different things from them. Rather than have a token female in a rifle squad, and force the men to march slower, rest more often, and carry her extra load, it would be better to have an all-female squad with the same range of capabilities, stamina, and strength. So that female squad might take a couple hours longer to finish a 12-mile forced march, but they should all perform at roughly the same level. And missions could be tailored for those known capabilities, rather than accounting for the "weak link" of a woman struggling to keep up with a group of men. And the real benefit is that the sexual politics are far removed. Instead of ten young men competing for the attention and affection of the token female, keeping small units gender-pure avoids all that.

Basically, women are already in combat, but assigning them to combat arms as a social initiative is idiotic. If the purpose is to strengthen the force, expand capabilities and accomplish the mission, then do it sensibly: train and field distinct female units, up to and including Special Ops Forces (SOF), and assign them missions according to capability. As the author notes, female engagement teams are an effective combat multiplier, but they are NOT combat arms.

However, if DoD and the services implement this policy change with the false, and basically ridiculous, assumption that women can generally do whatever men can do, across the breadth, scope, scale and duration of the wars we are likely to fight, then the disgusting political agenda (social engineering) that is driving this fiasco will be laid bare, and the truth exposed for all to see: Obama, thru SecDef Carter, does NOT in fact care about the welfare of the nation or the military, but rather cares only for the fundamental transformation that so dismays us all."

Very good points, and I direct any person who is advocating for women to enter the Combat Arms arena to read them.