Elliot Ackerman; The case for Female SEALs
TSO sends us a link to an article written by Elliot Ackerman. First I should say that Elliot Ackerman is an authentic hero of the war against terror. he was a Marine, earned one each Bronze and Silver Star and a Purple Heart. But this thing that he wrote for The Atlantic is garbage. He says that instead of sending women to infantry schools to find out what they can handle physically, they should send women to SEAL and Special Forces Schools.
Last month, three women became the first of their sex to graduate from the Marine Corps’ famously grueling Advanced Infantry Training Course. The Marine Corps was asking a simple question by running small groups through these courses in experimental test batches, two to five women at a time: Can the female body withstand the rigors of infantry training? The answer, these women showed, is that it can.
Ackerman is misrepresenting the process – the Marines asked for female volunteers, only 14 volunteered and throughout the course all but four dropped. The fourth injured herself after she completed the course requirements, so three showed up for the graduation ceremony. There were no “test batches” – that was what they had.
So far much of the debate surrounding integration has focused on the physical capabilities of women, as if this were the singular issue. Admittedly the strain of infantry training, or even combat, is relatively easier for a 6-foot tall, 180-pound man, but there are women fit enough to survive these punishing courses. As for combat, well, if we’ve proved anything over the last decade of war, it’s that women can sustain its rigors.
So if the barrier to integrating women into the infantry isn’t a physical one then what is it?
It’s cultural. And that’s why the infantry may not be the best place to start in military gender integration. Instead, as counterintuitive as it might sound, the military should begin with its Special Operations Forces: elite units such as the Green Berets and SEALs. Although not the obvious move, starting here would likely make for a smoother transition over all.
No, Mr Ackerman, it’s physical – that’s why ten female Marines didn’t finish the course, it has nothing to do with the culture. You don’t understand the discussion because you think that the Marines are sending though “test batches” of women. They’re sending all they have and two thirds dropped out. Sending them to tougher and more vigorous isn’t going to change that.
If you think it’s a culture thing that’s holding women up, you might make sense, but it’s nature that’s holding them up from completion. 56% of women Marines graduating from boot camp can’t do three F’n pull ups – at a time in their lives that they’re more in good physical shape than ever before.
The women who pass through the Marine Corps Infantry Officer Course or the Army Ranger School are going to be pretty tough—they’ll have to be. The problem won’t be them. The problem will be convincing the 19-year-old grunts to accept their presence. Grunts are trained to believe they’re the toughest thing wearing two combat boots, a conviction that helps them withstand the brutality that is the very essence of their job. But most will concede there is one thing tougher than them: the special operator.
And therein lies a solution.
The culture of our Special Operations Forces values physical toughness, but it puts its highest premium on attributes such as creative thinking and maturity. The average special operator is in his late twenties. In fact, women already serve in significant, albeit restricted capacities, among the most elite and secretive special operations communities in the Joint Special Operations Command and Central Intelligence Agency. By contrast, in an infantry battalion, women aren’t even allowed to have their names on the rolls.
Yeah, and if we all close our eyes, click our heels together three times and wish real hard, companies of women are going to show up for Ranger School and graduate. Because that’s what Mr Ackerman is asking us to believe. He doesn’t want to recognize women’s physical differences, he only wants to blame the macho culture for their failures.
Category: Dumbass Bullshit
He can’t possibly believe what he wrote. It plays fast and loose with reality to the extent that I have to ask, when and for what political office will he be seeking? As for “batches” of women, is he likening women to sugar cookies?
All this idiocy is a done deal. You know it. I know it.
We might as well admit it.
And, keep our powder dry. This will turn into much reduced unit combat effectiveness, greater casualty lists, and much, if not most, of all things bad.
The same peeps whining for it now will be accusing everyone else for letting such a known stupid thing to happen in the first place.
So, stay ready to shove their share of the bloodshed right back into their intellectually inbred faces.
You can not handwavium away basic biology. Only those stupid enough to believe that humanity can be perfected, and through that, the perfect society can be created, fall for this crap.
In my mind, there’s no doubt a few women out there who have both the mental and physical toughness to pass ranger school, but what does it cost to find them, how many will wash out along the way, and what do you do with them once they graduate?
Let’s suppose a female qualifies as a long tabber and gets sent to a SF group. Forget for a moment that for that first graduate, likely dozens or hundreds washed out, taking spots away from men who statistically had a much better chance of passing. Forget for a moment that so e of those women didn’t really want to live that life, they were either pushed into the course because of their PT score or a dssire to get the jewelry, serve a token tour or so, then move onward and upward.
She can’t be held up as a shining example of gender equality because identifying her is a huge OPSEC risk. Just the publicly disclosed fact that one, or a few, graduated and are now in operational missions will change the risk assessment of every mission and reduce the effectiveness of SOF missions because the brass would insist on meddling with mission planning to push the females into glamor missions and then micromanaging those missions to make sure the precious porcelain doll they insist is tough enough to hang with the best of the best doesn’t get kidnapped or killed.
Right now I can see just where this blog is going to go, and its not going to be in favor of those that still think the female’s place in the Marines is to be a “COMBAT” Veteran. Off hand I think their trying to set their standards a little higher then expected, this is only my point of veiw, to each his own.
why is it that when I read comments about women in combat, a lot of the comments sound like insecure men?
jeez… most females are physically weaker than males, that’s a fact. but there are exceptions. like the three marines that passed the marine infantry training.
when a female joins infantry or special ops, you’ll have to know that she passed the same stands the males passed (I hope). So she’s just as capable. I don’t know how that female joining will “lower combat readiness” pff.. more like lowering your ego.
MissFrostJaws, no one here is insecure about their manhood. What we’re insecure about is the fact that the social scientists won’t be happy until ALL women qualify for combat arms, and all women can’t meet the physical standards (ten enlisted Marines of the female variety didn’t make it out of the class that graduated four), so the solution will be to lower the standards. But the current standards are what keep people alive in combat, as proven over the last 200 years or so. We have no problem with women who can meet the current standard. We just don’t believe that lowering the standard to meet the expectations of the social scientists is in the interests of men or women who will serve in the combat arms jobs of the next war. That’s always been the position of this blog and many of it’s readers.
@ #5: We who have watched the dumbing down of everything take issue with your statement about this being about ego. It’s not. (Of COURSE there are some egos involved. There is nothing that human beings can do that does not involve ego.)
Those concerned with mission effectiveness always want the best of the best on any mission. The most physically capable, the best trained, the ones who are best able to think on their feet. Doesn’t really matter what the mission might be.
Whatever our mission, it makes no sense at all for us to have to carry some of the participants TO the mission site. After completing the mission, some of us might need to be carried back. Personally, I don’t care whether those folks are male, female, or what have you, as long as they are strong, well trained, and able to complete the mission.
But, whatever. We won’t settle this here today.
@6 *shrugs* ok then
I’d like to see if Mr. Ackerman would have been so gentle, kind, and loving knowing that a “quota” female was in his unit and putting most of his troops at risk.
I scored excellent or outstanding on every single PRT in my time in, and I have no qualms admitting that I would have needed a LOT of extra PT to be qualified to hump the gear in an infantry unit, to say nothing of a Ranger/Recon/SEAL position.
@5 “when a female joins infantry or special ops, you’ll have to know that she passed the same stands the males passed (I hope). So she’s just as capable. I don’t know how that female joining will “lower combat readiness” pff.. more like lowering your ego.”
Here’s the problem. The standards WILL NOT be the same. The Marines have already put off the enforcement of the 3 pull up standard for at least the foreseeable future. It will never be enforced. For me it has nothing to do with ego. It has to do with who is watching my back and were they held to the same standards as me. In other words, can I count on them or are they, in turn, a liability I have to pay additional attention to for my safety in combat as well as others.
Females held to a lower standard equals lower combat readiness and effectiveness. Combat is life and death. It is not a damn game and not the place for social experiments at the cost of lives. When, and I say when, females are held to exactly equal standards for combat infantry, leave aside SF, Rangers and such, then we can talk. We can talk about the different needs of men and women in actual field operations.
MissFrostJaws, I have been in combat and it was not fun. It was deadly serious business. For many reasons it is my, perhaps antiquated, opinion that women should not be in combat jobs, whatsoever. There is simply too much at stake. The military should not be the social platform for a lot of liberal female and some male politicians to push a social agenda. If you want to talk about ego. Whose ego is on the line in these arguments. Sounds to me like the egos of women who have had to face the truth about the way things are genetically. As much as they don’t like this truth that they are indeed, different from men. Otherwise, why the gender norming at all?
Ackermans a rich kid whos daddy personally financed his think tank “Americans elect” and set the kid up as COO of it before he became a White House fellow. Is he actually MARSOC? he was 2/8
@9 haven’t the higher-ups repeatedly said that the standard will not be lowered. As in the same standard for combat jobs, no matter the gender? Why do people keep insisting that they will be lowered?
you speak as if no female has ever been in combat. They are not in combat jobs, but they sure have been in combat. Just search for the woman that was awarded the silver star.
and sure, we can speak. I mean, the three female marines did passed infantry training with the same standards as males. so what do you want to talk about?
@5 Three HAND PICKED females out of FOURTEEN passed the course to be a basic grunt. What the ignorant people behind this idiotic social experiment fail to realize is that it’s about WOMEN being placed in Infantry, not SELECT WOMEN.
It’s simply not feasible to waste time and school slots on a group that has a 75% failure rate from an “elite” selection of candidates. Its also a waste of good female soldiers and Marines who could be training in an MOS they could be productive in. Also what’s this crap about gender fairness when you allow women to go to the infantry on a volunteer only basis? Male Marines who are open contract or fail MOS school can be sent to Infantry School based on the needs of the service. Why should Susie be given a pass. While we are at it lets start waiving GT requirements for MOSs and send service people who scored in the bottom of the ASVAB to linguist, crypto, or Avionics school.
@9 You are hopelessly lost. There is a huge difference in having women serve in a capacity when they are in a static position and have to employ weapons and having them ruck up and hump for miles looking for the bad guys.
My family had this discussion yesterday when the 3 pullups article came out. My son-in-law is currently in Army BCT (he’s home for Christmas) and said he doesn’t want women in infantry AT ALL. He said that out of their entire platoon, there is only one woman who can keep up with the men – one. That’s out of 187 troops.
And that’s Army, not Marines or Special Ops.
Personally, I’d prefer that the person next to my loved one be strong enough to carry him out if it came to that.
In another comparison, I’ve been on a self-improvement program since Sept – low carb diet, working out, power walking/running, hiking, etc. My 27-year-old son who does none of the above is still FAR stronger than I am. Mother Nature wasn’t fair when it came to passing out strength, but that’s how it is.
Oh, and it may be a few months, but I’m determined to beat those female Marines and do 3 pullups.
@old dog aaand we’re going a full circle. I already answered what you’re still going on about.
@14 I understand. What I don’t want is for them to lower the standard. that’s all.
“Last month, three women became the first of their sex to graduate from the Marine Corps’ famously grueling Advanced Infantry Training Course. ”
Ok, I nearly laughed so hard I spit coffee on my iPad. First, I was an instructor at the SOI (west, so no, I didn’t deal with the females) and I can tell you that Advanced Infantry Training is a BATTALION! With multiple companies (Recon, Infantry Unit Leader Training Company, LAV Company, ect) and the “famously grueling” course is Infantry Unit Leader Course, and you already have to be an 0369 (Infantry SSgt) to go!
What the ladies were sent to was just reagular plain old, Infantry Training Battalion.
His first sentence, basically, and I already knew this guy was an idiot. “Hero” or not.
Sean: the note at the end of this article says he was with 2nd Marine Special Operations Battalion after Fallujah.
http://www.tufts.edu/alumni/magazine/spring2007/features/fear.html
@ #11: Yeah, that’s what they say. Unfortunately, “they” frequently lie, or tell the truth today, but tomorrow’s truth is quite different.
Have you been in combat? I have. I have also met standards which were later changed to accommodate more females. Sometimes I failed to meet standards, and did not whine about it. (I was content to have been given an opportunity to try something new.) My male counterparts all knew that I had met the same standards that they had met. And had even excelled in them rather than to barely pass them.
All to say, I resent being told that standards (which I met) are no longer valid. Especially when the people telling me this have no idea what is required emotionally, physically, or technically to do a job. Any job.
It’s a simple, three-phase formula for me: First, prove that you have an aptitude for and an ability to learn a job. Then, prove that you can be trained to do the job. After all that, prove that you can apply the theoretical to actually accomplishing the job. If you can, welcome to the career field, whatever it is. If not, be on your way.
I have argued the point more than once in favor of my sex being in combat, long before Miss FrostJaws arrived en scene.
First, there was the ‘disruption because men are horndogs’ response, then there was the part about women not being able to meet the standards for infantry training, then came the stuff about the politically correct BS, which is what is actually behind putting women into combat infantry training.
The assumption and the whine by women in the military is that if these positions aren’t opened up to them – REGARDLESS of the consequences to a unit’s effectiveness in real-world combat – they won’t be able to advance to positions that men are getting.
That’s what it’s all about, NOT whether or not women can be effective troops in a combat unit. The only way to find out whether or not they’ll be effective fighters is to put them into a firefight in a hot zone and see who comes out alive. PERIOD.
However, when the training is voluntary, not required, and the volunteer trainee women have a dropout rate of 75%, the time and money spent on training them could have been better used to train them in something they are physically better suited to do. And frankly, there are men who don’t make good fighters in combat, even when properly trained.
This is NOT about weak or threatened egos. It is about whether or not this is an effective program. I don’t think it will be effective unless women of the physical size and strength to carry out the required tasks and meet the requirements without lowering standards are put into this program without being asked to volunteer. And if those women don’t want to go, what then?
When someting like this becomes a political platform, the reasons behind turning it into that are so flawed that they can’t be excused. And these decisions are made with no thought to the actual consequences to unit effectiveness in a real-time, real-world firefight in a hot zone.
http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal
This should be what all the social engineers are paying attention to.
#5
As I stated above, I was an instructor there (West Coast, they went through the East Coast) and I can say that what they went through was the easiest thing in the world. I have seen males complete it with messed up legs, backs, and other injuries. They didn’t do anything special. It’s about the 4 years AFTER they graduate that I am worried about.
@13 Old Dog, did you mean this post for me? “@9 You are hopelessly lost. There is a huge difference in having women serve in a capacity when they are in a static position and have to employ weapons and having them ruck up and hump for miles looking for the bad guys.”
As I wrote I have been in combat, LIB. We had to ruck up and move out for long distances sometimes, just to get to the fight. Then live in the field until the objective was met. I think you were writing to someone else perhaps. At least I hope so. I agree with your point that you can give a weapon to anyone trained to use it and PUT them in a static place and let ’em shoot any enemy who moves. Far different from humping a rucksack for miles and then going on patrol or setting up an ambush or farther patrols still.
Maybe you were writing in response to MissFrostJaws.
At any rate…we are all good, you and I.
Because of this foolishness men will die who otherwise would have lived-bottom line, interpret that as insecurity as you wish.
@20 Thank you Ex-PH2. Well thought out and well written. You wrote out my points better than I did or could.
As I said, as long as they don’t lower the standard I’m happy.
There’s something else that most people don’t know about or understand. When a ‘boot Hershey bar’ officer (O-1) is sent into combat, he is usually given an experienced SSGt platoon leader and if he doesn’t have enough common sense to listen to his sergeant, he’s going to get himself and his troops killed.
The women officers who manage to make it through combat infantry training had better put their egos in the sock drawer and listen to their sergeants, if they want to stay alive.
This comes, not from any recent vet from the Gulf War or Iraq or Afghanistan, but from in-country Vietnam vets that I knew who said they had no use for officers whose egos and rank were more important to them than surviving in a hot zone.
Rank is something you wear. Respect is something you earn. If you don’t respect your damned platoon sergeant, you’re toast. Period.
If you don’t like gayhood, you’re homophobic. If you don’t just accept women in combat arms, you’re an insecure male. If you don’t either praise OBAMA, or, at least, abstain from criticizing him, you’re racist. If you don’t regard Islam as the religion of peace, you are a bigot. If you like guns, you’re a gun nut, if not a closet redneck. If you earn a living a pay taxes to support those who won’t get off their butts, you are merely lucky. You see how this stuff works? Sure you do.
Reminds me of my F-15 Eagle Squadron flying mission in Mig Alley on Korea back in 1953
Me and some of my buddies from that unit were reminiscing of it at my 41st birthday party last year
Like Tactical Trunk Monkey said above, worried about the next four years.
I was a 11B and 0311. After graduating 11B OSUT at Harmony Church I went on to Airborne school and my unit. The loads I carried got heavier, the humps got longer and more frequent. After SOI I got to the FMF, and the same thing happened. Loads got heavier, humps got longer and more frequent.
Congratulations for becoming basically trained InfantyWomen. Now your real training starts.
I’ll just leave this here regarding the “advancement” issue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_E._Dunwoody
Seems to me that 4 stars is as high as you can go. But maybe I’m just old and out of touch.
@O-4E
Tell me, What kind of combat did you encounter over in Korea with your tour of duty flying your F-15 in Mig Alley in 1953?????
“when a female joins infantry or special ops, you’ll have to know that she passed the same standards the males”
What you mean to say is that the women passed the same MINIMUM standards as the males. Infantry Marines are expected to max out the PFT with a perfect score of 300. Most do, some fail but still score around the 280s. I doubt the three women even broke 250 (would like to know their scores) and I bet they finished in the bottom three, with the rest of the pack way ahead of them.
I am 100 percent in favor of female seals. They play an indispensable part in seal reproduction and without them the seals would become extinct. Females taking SEAL training is as dumb as training fish to play basketball. But hell, if they can meet the same physical and mental standards as male trainees, fine. It will be up to the teams if they want to serve with them. They must face the same selection process that men do. No accommodations made their size, strength or stamina.
@34, Women are in the Dive Salvage rates. The training platform for that is BUDs. All dive salvage people go through exactly the same training as the SEALs, but since they aren’t going into combat, they don’t go through the combat portion or hell week.
I wonder . . . how much did Ackerman get paid for what the wrote? The things some – most – people will do for money . . .
Selling yourself for cash and other benefits; isn’t that what professional streetwalkers do?
@O-4E: The Eagle first flew in July 1972, and entered service in 1976.
You were trying to be sarcastic, I hope?
@23,
Sparks, sorry I didn’t mean to type in “9” I should have put “11”….
There are so many people arguing in favor of women in Infantry/Special Ops that obviously don’t understand the rigors of combat. There is a big difference between graduating Infantry School and being in combat. If you meet minimum requirements or struggle significantly to keep up with everyone else in training and then get sent to combat, you are in for a surprise. Combat, and I mean serious combat (not small, short firefights), but intense, long contact requires so much strength and endurance that even your top guys get drained quickly. All the weight to carry, maneuvering, and all the other variables in combat do not require “just” passing Infantry School, it requires you to be a fucking complete stud to survive and keep your men alive. So yeah, kudos for graduating Infantry School, it’s tough. But the training at a real Infantry unit is twice as hard then your initial training for Infantry and there’s much more to learn. And intense combat requires much more than both. Most women can’t even charge a MK19 and struggle with a M2 because they lack the muscle mass required for the resistance. I’m not denying that there are some women that have experienced some combat, such as Silver Star recipient SPC Monica Brown. She ran through a hail of gunfire to rescue 5 wounded from an IED that struck a HUMVEE, using her body to shield them from gunfire. That is heroic and she has my deepest respect. And I’m using this as an example only for the argument, but the reality is that she wasn’t even close to performing Infantry tasks. She wasn’t humping 100lbs of gear on a 3-day op with no sleep, while getting in to engagements multiple times a day, clearing a village, running with a wounded 180lb man (not including gear) on her back 50 meters to get him out of the kill zone during one of the engagements — because her body physically cannot endure that stress as a woman. Men are built differently, more in line with the rigorous physical requirements of combat than women. It… Read more »
@3 “In my mind, there’s no doubt a few women out there who have both the mental and physical toughness to pass ranger school.”
Love to meet them. NEVER had met one…EVER! And not even imagining.
@39 – That’s a fallacious argument.
Working out in a gym is not the same thing as hiking for hours and days, maybe weeks in back country with a fully loaded pack and camping gear.
Acclimation to performing a task – in this case, humping a loaded ruck for weeks at a time – is only gained through repeated exposure and increased levels of stress. Either the participants stand up to it, or they don’t, and it doesn’t matter whether you’re male or female.
Physiology has far less to do with it than building the strength to carry out the task.
Ok here we go, I am an instructor at SOI East. I trained some of the females that passed (the ones that did not get all of the publicity). I am actually quite proud of all my ladies who made it through, they passed all the same requirements that my guys did. The issue though, while they passed, they passed with the bare minimum. The average female PFT was a full 50 points lower than the average male PFT. The ones that could do double digit amounts of pull-ups were 105-115 lbs respectively, so of course they were able to get that many. While I am proud of them, I would not want them in my line companies. People mention all the time how there are male infantrymen who barely make the standard, what they fail to realize is that those Marines are not kept in the line platoons. They are moved to H&S Companies or the Headquarters platoons to do admin and logistical work. While the Marine Corps only mandates 3 pullups, 28:00 3-mile and 60 situps in 2 minutes, if you show up and perform that, you will not stick around. The infantry holds Marines to an unofficial standard, 1st Class or nothing. While training the ladies here at ITB, the physical disparities were glaring. Not a single female was able to complete the obstacle course, there was a much higher percentage of hike drops amongst the females than males, injury rates were much higher than the males, and retention of infantry skills was lower. These females were not ostracized, they were not thrown in a corner or treated differently in any way. We fully integrated them into the platoon, the only time they were separate was during hygiene and taps. These were the best of the best out of bootcamp, volunteers from those that could actually meet the male standards, and they still struggled. Infantry Training Battalion is not difficult, in fact I always tell my guys that this is the second easiest thing they will do their entire careers, boot camp being the easiest.It only gets… Read more »
@42 Thanks Rerun and that is exactly what everyone is saying. They passed at the female PT standard.
Which MissFrost is LOWER than the male standard. Rerun just reran (ha puns are neat) examples of the standard not being enforced in this Basic Infantry course that all these journalists love to talk about, and as we stated the MC also quietly just dropped the enforcement of females having to do pullups because if they had enforced it 56% of the females in the Corps would be getting their walking papers in 2014. You clearly have never served or you would be intimately familiar with why we are confident in saying the standard will not be upheld when the numbers produced are not what the social engineers think they should be. So all your warm fuzzy notions about maintaining the standard is inherently false. Once this door is opened it cannot be closed and standards will go down and people, both males and females will be hurt.
@42 and @43 As a former XO of AITB East, I echo your sentiments and assertions. We all know the standards WILL change. A close buddy of mind working in MCCDC is dealing with this issue daily and it’s a nightmare. The CJCS has already stated that if enough do not qualify then standards will be looked at and “adjusted” to ensure the “numbers” are right. Not the quality mind you, just the numbers. In the long run, all those pushing for all this BS equality will be safe in the knowledge that it won’t be them or their progeny filling the body bags for yet another failed social experiment.
Testing.
@45 Lima Charlie
@46. Thanks. I tried posting a comment twice but it wouldn’t take. I then ran the test. Now I know what happened and it may help others: My comment (in the “Disabled vets…” thread) would not post b/c it contained a link. When I removed it, the comment posted. Lesson learned.
@42-44: Yeppers. As I, and many others, have said all along; there won’t be any winners in this, just a lot of blood so the gender pimps can pat themselves on the back, only it won’t be their blood.
@40: Oh come on!!! Demi Moore proved that women can be hardcore!! I saw GI Jane, ya know!!
@41: I disagree. Physiology has everything to do with it. Load bearing is but one example. Upper body strength is another example, which circles back to physiology.
I know that you are trying to defend your gender (I am woman hear me roar and all that), but it would be like me trying to defend my gender in the realm of childbirth. Physiology is what it is and no amount of wishful thinking is going to change that.
@50 – You left out the part about strength. It is not inborn in one sex or the other. There are plenty of weak, skinny men on the planet, e.g., our little PJ-clad dweeb Ethan Krup with the coffee cup from the obamacare website. Remember him? I doubt he could take out a bagful of trash without help. And even with arthritis as a hindrance, I could probably outwalk and outcarry that little twerp, even on a bad day, with or without a backpack.
Physiology can be modified by training and acclimation.
Are we going to start this argument up again? I thought we had this all settled a while back.
Elliot Ackerman needs to get out from behind his desk once in a while. And for that matter, so do I.