Services promise combat roles for females by 2016
Bloomberg News reports that “officials” from each military branch promised Congress today that they’re going to open up all occupational specialties to female members of their service by 2016 “without lowering the standards”;
“We’re not going to lower standards,” said Juliet Beyler, the Defense Department’s director of officer and enlisted personnel management. “It’s not a matter of lowering or raising standards. The key is to validate the standard to make sure it’s the right standard for the occupation.”
So I did a Vulcan mind meld with Juliet and discovered that she is going advocate lowering the performance standards and call that a “validated standard”. Um, Juliet, we’re not stupid, we can all read English, FFS. But, that’s fine, I hope you can sleep at night after your “validated standard” costs lives.
“I’m real excited to get this done,” said Representative Loretta Sanchez, a California Democrat, who described the task as providing equal opportunity for women. “Combat performance is an important issue when people are looking at moving up in all of these organizations.”
So, Loretta, you’ll be enlisting – you’re just that excited? I don’t see any of the women who are “excited” about this and the new lower standards being the ladies who are going to place themselves in danger – they’re all a bunch of old hags who will cluck about the failures that result from the implementation and integration and blame men instead of nature. when i see Loretta Sanchez and Juliet Beyler humping a ruck in the EIB road march or leading a squad on a live fire maneuver range, then I’ll believe they’re excited. Until such event, I’ll chalk it all up to political blather.
Category: Military issues
“validate the standard”… in other words the standards are going to change to insure that females will make the cut. Fucking PC idiots.
As mentioned previously, when it comes to leftwing social-reengineering of the traditional military institution such as LBGTs in the military and females in combat, my comments would not be fit for print in a public forum, so I wll not…
Alos, will congress now require Females to register for selective service now that the restrictions are being lifted?
The enemy, mathematics, and reality don’t care, validated or not they will kill you.
If you think “Force Protection” was a crock just wait.
Remember guys, they have “insane strength” because they can give birth.
In the immortal words of Han Solo: “I’ve got a bad feeling about this . . . .”
are they going to “validate the standard” on the bullet speed? we would hate for full speed bullets to be fired at our half speed recruits.
Under the law of unintended consequences this will also mean that all those spindly little males who couldn’t make the cut will suddenly find themselves qualified for combat as well.
My favorite episode of “Cops” that displays this law with great clarity is when two tiny little female officers tried to take a guy in a pool hall down and end up getting thrown all over the bar until some other patrons help the officers….sure it’s great to be fair and offer equal opportunity for all. But it’s also a wise idea to make sure what you think is fair is something that everyone subscribes to. When the police are too small and weak to handle a larger, stronger criminal because the physical standard was altered to allow little men and women into the program you now have situations where officers have to shoot people instead of wrestle them to the ground because the smaller personnel aren’t able to physically control their surroundings.
Similarly a lowered physical standard for US military personnel doesn’t mean our opponents are suddenly adding women and formerly unqualified males to their ranks to even things out. There’s no way this works out perfectly, or even sensibly should that standard be modified to allow formerly unqualified personnel to suddenly qualify or to have a separate standard. Meet the current standard as it’s proven to be correct or stay the f$ck out, it’s not really all that difficult to comprehend.
I broke my back in 3 places on a jump, rucked 3 miles off the DZ, sucked it up for 2 weeks of STX lanes until i finally was incapable of standing on my own. i dont give a damn about giving birth. pain, like schizophrenia, is all in your head.
@10 It’s not politically correct to point out that dropping an 8lb kid out of your love canal is not exactly the same as carrying 100lbs of gear in combat conditions…
I guess some women think serving in the infantry is like lying on your back in a hospital bed surrounded by trained medical personnel attending your every need…..when I served in the infantry I don’t remember the cute nurses offering me ice chips every time it was warm outside….but it was a long time ago so maybe my memory is failing me.
Got no problem with equal opportunity. In any job.
Having an opportunity does not guarantee an outcome. An opportunity is just that – being given a chance to either fail at something or do it successfully. In some cases, it just means proving that an individual has the ability to be trained to do something.
Yes, it can and has been done. I saw it happen about 40 years ago when a physical test was successfully revamped to be job related instead of simply a test of brute strength. It still works because all involved set their minds to make it work. (And that revamped test was actually more physically demanding than the original.)
But, that’s fine, I hope you can sleep at night after your “validated standard” costs lives.
Oh, I’m sure she’ll sleep just fine even then, Jonn. The outrage from those who never suspected what this would lead to will be pretty severe the first time a photo of a naked, dead, American servicewoman in some Third World shithole is plastered on the cover/front page of every major publication worldwide.
And as far as Loretta Sanchez goes? I’m REALLY glad I left CA, cause with redistricting in 2010, she’d be my Congresscritter now. To say Ms. Brixey is an idiot would be an insult to idiots. Her staffers have to water her twice a week so she doesn’t wilt and die.
@12: “Having an opportunity does not guarantee an outcome.”
I beg to differ. In the mind of a leftist; equal opportunity does mean a guaranteed equal outcome. They have proven that is what they think many, many times.
Personally, I don’t care. Let them lower the standards. Let the only qualification for a woman is that they can give birth, which proves without a doubt that they’re tough enough and strong enough to be in the infantry.
OWB: I don’t have any problem with true equal opportunity to fixed standards, either. But IMO, the handwriting is on the wall on this one.
The standards will be “re-looked” and will result in “validated standards”. I’m relatively certain that those new “validated standards” will be different – and lower – than the current ones. Frankly, I’m all but certain that a combination of political pressure plus missing vertebrae and/or abdominal cavity organs in selected key individuals will guarantee we will see “validated standards” intended to ensure “equitable outcomes”.
Unfortunately, that raises a problem. Basic biology indicates that – in physical size, strength, and endurance – human males are on average about one full standard deviation above the female averages for those qualities (and maybe more). To ensure “equitable outcomes”, that means the current physical standards will damn well have to be changed in many areas.
For many military specialties, that doesn’t matter. For a critical few, it does. And IMO, that critical few includes many if not most of the combat arms specialties.
So where is are the military women clamoring for the opportunity to serve in combat arms? The fact that all of the Joint Chiefs have not threatened thier resignations over this leads me to believe that the military brass doesn’t care because they’ll never have to command them. While there may a few “GI Jane” types out there, I find it hard to believe that this is what our military women want. What is the perception going to be when a woman finds out that she’s pregnant while in a combat zone? Or what is her unit’s perception going to be when she stays back pregnant while her bretheren go into harms way? Get the Joint Chiefs out of town too……. This is beyond ridiculous
GunzRunner: a female who is pregnant is non-deployable. They don’t go. If found pregnant while deployed, they get sent out of theater.
That’s been happening since at least the first Gulf War in units with females assigned. And yeah: managing that is a bit of an issue.
When I went to OCS we started with about 50 people in our class, and I would say that 35% of those were women. There were three females left at graduation day. That is simply the facts.
Not only do the physical aspects come to mind, but the biological…can you imagine being an Infantry Soldier in a LP/OP, or on a LRRP in hot, humid Panama,or Laos, with a female Infantry Soldier who hasn’t showered for a couple of weeks and begins her cycle? If that doesn’t reduce combat effectiveness and put not only her life but the rest of the Soldiers in the unit at risk…oh Lord, I need my Tums.
Isn’t birth control part of managing the females in theatre?
Guys,
Please keep an eye on this, and when the standards get changed, be sure to point out that there is a change, and its consequences. Because we don’t really have front lines any more, we do have women serving in combat situations, and we will have new specializations that inconsistent with current requirements. That, for me, is the core problem presented, here. The nature of combat is changing in some respects.
Yes, we have opportunistic politicians waving their hands, but the opportunity for them to do that comes from the change in the nature of the combat. The need to re-think what we will need to meet the realities that you and your younger counterparts will encounter is real.
So…. when the changes come, we want to make sure that they are canny.
EIB packing list is set in stone as what is needed for a standard field exercise. in order to “re-evaluate” the EIB standard, wouldnt that mean “re-evaluating” length of all field exercises, which in turn means less preparation and training, thus less combat readiness? now we have a lower standard for combat readiness, so we can drop the initial training standards, and allow more people (I.E. women), to pass the Infantry AIT. good thing we are “re-evaluating” the enemy bullets to make sure they dont hit as hard too.
I know I’ve argued on behalf of my sex several times, and pissed off several MEN as well, but the brain-dead mentality behind this floors me. Combat is NOT about equal opportunity for anything other than being slaughtered by an enemy in any and every possible way.
NHSparky, since there was little to no outrage over the images of naked, dead American MALE servicemen being burned and hacked, unless the FEMALES are blonde, blue-eyed WASPs, no one will pay any attention. Jessica Lynch got all the attention, if you will recall, whereas Shoshana Johnson has had next to none. Lynch was a blonde, blue-eyed white girl and Johnson was African-American.
And I do recall some news item posted last year about women running arond looking for someone to get them pregnant when they found out they were being deployed. If these dumbass congress critters think that won’t happen again, they’re dumber than an owl with a tube sock in its beak.
@valerie when people talk about the “nature of combat” and “there are no front lines” in relation to female infantry, it’s either misinformed or dishonest.
Female infantry isn’t about whether you can execute the leapfrog and kill someone with an 8 lb carbine. Many non-infantry women have done exactly that in Iraq or Afghanistan. It’s about having enough willpower and strength to take the fight to the enemy after many miles with a 100 lb ruck. THAT specialization is NOT going to change.
Our senior leadership has no balls. Imagine if a guy like Mattis was a service chief instead of getting sidelined. Obama and the dems have successfully neutered the force. An amazing triumph considering we’ve been at war for 13 years and should be combat hardened instead of experiencing the grand leftist social experiment that’s currently going on. I suspect that when its all said and done, dismantling the last bastion of American exceptionalism will be Obama’s only real success.
Found this.
Read on.
http://nation.time.com/2013/07/25/the-cowardly-push-to-get-women-into-combat/
At least someone is getting it right.
Also, I wonder how this will fly with the lower enlisted rank and file? Not so much huh? Help 25 female officers and screw everyone else.
@22.
Interesting points as usual.
@20–be sure to point out that there is a change, and its consequences.
And when (not if) we do so, we’ll (again) be labeled racist, sexist, homophobic puppy kickers.
Odie, yeah, what else is there to say?
Ex-PH2, it happens EVERY time some CSB or other Support Unit gets its orders to deploy. I remember overhearing females talking about how just saying “I think I’m pregnant” got them out of a lot of duty obligations when I was Active Duty. Nonetheless, B. Hussein 0bama & Co. are going to force as much social engineering down our throats as they can.
The wonderful Lorretta Sanchez…..
She is also the sexual harrasment nazi as well. The same idiot who was going to hold a re-election fundraiser at the Playboy mansion.
A source close to the Einwechter family has communicated to me that Rep. Loretta Sanchez used her position of “public power and trust to pursue a sexual relationship with a married Army officer assigned to escort her on tax-funded official overseas travel beginning in 2003.” While this might not be perceived as an issue, Congresswoman Sanchez was still married at the time, as was John P. Einwechter. According to the Uniform Code of Military Justice Article 134, adultery is unacceptable conduct.”
You have all said it so well I don’t have much I can add. Except,
“The key is to validate the standard to make sure it’s the right standard for the occupation”.
There is the hidden fly in the ointment. No lower standards for women, lower standards for ALL. When we have as high a washout rate for males in the high speed forces as we do this means both men and women who couldn’t make it before will make it now. When that Jolly Green comes over for extraction, I want a CURRENT PJ coming down to get me. Not little Suzy who was pushed through, like high school social promotion, saying you’re to heavy I need another PJ or just leave my ass and get an Air Medal for trying so hard. Just like firefighters. I am a bigger guy and if I am incapacitated in a house fire I want Buff the Brute pulling my dead weight out. Not Suzy sitting on the bumper of the ambulance getting oxygen while they pat her on the back for the great effort…even though that big guy is roasting in his bed like a luau pig. Thanks for trying Suzy, you’ll get a commendation for your efforts. I guess I had more emotion about this than I thought.
I don’t mean to sound sexist, but I would love to see a 150 pound woman crack a track or load a 155 round. However, this might just be academic, if the Marine Corps is any indication of the “throngs” of women lining up for the combat jobs.
Marine Infantry has been open to females for how long now? And how many hundreds… no, tens of women have applied? And, how many have passed?
@25 Great article, thanks.
Welcome to Crazy Town. The goddamn inmates are running the asylum…..
And don’t worry about lower standards. The enemy has a vote on that too….
@33: Very well stated, Master Guns.
Unfortunately, MGySgtRet., we often don’t see the enemy’s votes on policy idiocy until well after it’s been fully implemented.
Then we deal with burying the predictable casualties.
the idea that there are “no front lines” is horse shit. just because you go on a convoy out side the wire once a month or have heard about an IED going off on a route that you might some day take, doesnt mean ya are in the front lines. The front lines are the guys going on the mounted or dismount patrols that last for days actively seeking out a fight; trying to make sure that the attack comes their way, not towards some 88M.
I could go off on Jessica Lynch for days, but ill just state that she is perfect reason to say women shouldnt be in combat. captured with out firing a round hiding in the back of her truck, and we pretend she is a hero.
Yep, Hondo. We are on the same page on this. There can never be equal outcomes simply because no matter how altered the standards might become, someone will do whatever the test may be faster than the rest. And I simply have no faith that there is anyone involved in this process with the intellectual honesty or moral fortitude to construct any new standards according to mission needs.
@ #37: Then you and she agree. She does not consider herself to be a hero either.
have you seen the videos of her interviews? im not saying she wasnt a hero, im going much farther than that. im saying she was an utter failure as a soldier and should have been court martialed for dereliction of duty, conduct unbecoming, and a slew of other charges!
Not to disparage members of my own sex but where the hell did those two leave their brains? I am not married to someone in the military but I have nephews serving and I really don’t want to think about them having to rely on a female to haul their butts out of danger if they are wounded. THE SEXES ARE DIFFERENT! and no amount of legislating, blathering about equality or training will change that.
I get that that women have something to offer but there are just situations that do not lend themselves to having women involved.
Let the flaying by the feminists begin.
In an ideal world, we’d be forming policy based on the way the world really is as opposed to how we want it to be. Until then, we get to put up with idiots like these Congresscritters.
The only way this can even possibly work is to eliminate current height/weight standards. The reason is this. Hauling a load of any kind requires muscle mass. Most women do NOT have adequate muscle mass, which is why they frequently fail firefighters’ standardized tests.
You can build muscle mass by acclimating yourself to carrying increased loads over time, starting with the max that you can carry now and adding weight to it over a period of several months. I’ve done this. It really builds increased shoulder strength nicely, but it also puts a load on your spine that can lead to arthritis, which I now have. However, expecting someone who has normally only carried perhaps a maximum load of 50 pounds to suddenly carry a 100 pound load easily is ridiculous.
The women who go into these programs will have to have a specific body type that builds muscle mass easily and retains it, without losing too much body fat.
It’s a moot point about women being in “combat” Women are able and should be trained for area and convoy defense. That means that little Mizz Susie who is slapping together sammiches, handing out gear, or doing data entry should be able to bust a cap in Hadji’s ass if he breaches the wire or fires an RPG at her convoy.
Jessica Lynch was a prime example of a soldier who failed at even that. I don’t even want to try to guesstimate how many women in support roles are inept at basic tactics and marksmanship(or males for that matter).
Being in incidental combat and serving in combat arms are two completetly different animals. Sure people die in both and a female soldier who dies from a rocket attack on a mess hall is just as dead as a SEAL who gets shot in an Ambush deep in the shit.
The difference is that Combat arms types SEEK out shit on a daily basis. While they are “seeking out” the bad guys they are loaded down with gear and covering a lot of territory, climbing over walls and crossing ditches etc. There is a total different fitness needed for this as opposed to being a paper pusher or egg slapper.
The numbnuts pushing this crap have no fuggin clue.
Funny how these people voting for radical changes like this are never the ones experiencing it, or who ever atteempted to do so. I would have a lot more respect for Janie Lawmaker pushing for women in combat if she personally had a record of trying to make it herself. However, what we have is elitism of the worst kind – pushing changes in which other people will reap all the hurt and failure.
Smitty: I have talked with her face to face. Given the amount of vitriol thrown at her by people who should instead be supporting her, I am amazed that she still (yes, to this day) chooses to support military families and military units in a multitude of ways. Meanwhile, she got on with her life, such as it is.
Not sure just how bringing charges against her would have done anything more than had already been done to her or the physical disabilities with which she will deal for the rest of her life.
But you and others assume her to be guilty of something based upon a biased media? Not quite sure where to go with that one. Guess you also think that Zimmerman is a racist because the media said so??
To be clear on my opinion Of Jessica Lynch, she has my respect as a bonafide wounded veteran who did her part. She could only react the way she was trained to act.
It was the media ( maybe with some pimping from PC public affairs types in the Army) that pushed the magazine-emptying she-warrior amazon bullshit story.
zimmerman has nothing to do with this and evil canevil couldnt have made that jump.
my opinion of her and he despicable actions (or lack there of) are based off of where i was when that whole thing happened. i dont give a damn about the media, (though they made her to be a hero, not the disgrace of a soldier she is) i care about the fact that 2 men in her vehicle died and she never fired a single shot!
@Hondo, I get the whole non deployable part, we have seen it already in the non-combat roles. We’ve seen them stay pregnant to avoid being put on weight control, get out of recruiting duty and any other non-desirable orders. While I was never in combat arms, I do know that they are very tight. I can only imagine the ostracizing that may occur.
So while I was out pounding 7 miles of pavement at lunch I thought about this scenario:
Woman deploys, woman gets pregnant, woman hides pregnancy from unit, while on patrol woman jumps on grenade to save unit – She survives, but the fetus dies…… I know, I know, highly unlikely but does make an interesting point doesn’t it?
Time to increase the VA’s budget again to cover the life long benefits of massive amounts of females breaking during duties these duties.
Shit, I’m just going to assume the first one to pull a whole enlistment without being med separated gets automatic sergeant major of the Marine Corps.