Dempsey to combat arms: Prove it!
Our buddy, Rowan Scarborough, in the Washington Times writes today that Chariman of the Joint Chiefs, Marty Dempsey, has moved past the point from which women will have to prove themselves equal to men in regards to assigning females to combat arms specialties;
ArmyGen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said that if a service wants to keep a job as a male-only occupation because of its high physical demands, the service will have to show why those tests should not be lowered to accommodate women.
Tests of strength are particularly important to special operations. About 15,000 combat positions, a fraction of the 1.4 million active force, are subject to integration.
“The only option now is to offer reasons why they can’t do it,” said an Army special operations veteran who believes U.S. Special Operations Command will cave to White House demands to include women. “I haven’t heard that anyone has the courage to say they can’t do it, either. Maybe the new [military occupational specialty] can be 18P — Special Forces camp follower. Is that PC enough?”
An ArmySpecial Forces soldier said the qualification course at Fort Bragg, N.C., to earn the Green Beret is so demanding that the Army will have to lower standards for some tasks in able for women to succeed.
So, there you go. I’ve said since the beginning of this most recent series of discussions that the generals are going to do whatever it takes to please their political masters and it looks as if none of them have the courage to speak up.
So where are these all-important veterans in Congress? Other than Duncan Hunter, I haven’t heard a peep out of them. You’d think that Miss Lindsay Graham who drags out his commission at every opportunity would stand up for future warriors who will have to fight the next war after substandard training. And where the Hell is John McCain, who understands the rigors of war more than most?
Category: Military issues
Why would we want to improve combat effectiveness?
We have to give the Obama Brotherhood a fighting chance, it’s not enough just to arm them.
And, findip, we’re back to the standards, which I’ve already said should not be lowered to meet some PC agenda.
The people who want this to be politically correct think that these specially trained personnel are getting the advantage for promotions and advancements, which is completely not true. I know that. Everyone here knows that.
This ‘special training’ has nothing to do with being denied or afforded opportunities for advancement, but it does have everything to do with doing an effective job.
@50
Its just that her statement doesn’t make any sense. Women constitute 15 percent of military. In even co-ed support units you don’t get 50/50 representation for women. How is that going to work even if you make standards that a morbidly obese person could pass?
@52
Ok..
But you still haven’t answered my question.
Destroying the combat effectiveness of the US military is the goal (not for everyone who supports this, but for the feminists who are driving the agenda). Women in combat arms, EO/SHARP training, etc. are simply the tools they are using to achieve that goal. The actual women service members?? The feminists don’t care about them. They don’t care about getting them killed in combat, and they don’t care about the ones who are legitimately victims of sexual harassment or assault or rape–in fact they welcome those crimes, because it helps them achieve their goal of emasculating the military.
I’m currently deployed in RC-South (I’m on an MWR computer right now–this site is blocked on the government computers). I recently learned that weightlifting competitions are banned in this AO and that squatting and deadlifting are banned in at least two base gyms in RC(S), including at least one of the gyms at KAF, all in the name of safety. Additionally, units are not allowed to conduct combatives training because it’s, and I quote, “too aggressive”.
It might seem like this has nothing to do with women in combat arms, but they’re related issues–both point to the liberal elites’ goal of emasculating the military and destroying its combat effectiveness.
Findip, the obvious answer to your question is to require that women register with Selective Service, which should have been put into effect 40 years ago, and to reinstate the draft to include women, which Norway has already done.
Women are required by the Israeli government to put time in the IDF. Why should we be any different than Norway and Israel? IF these progressive morons really want this to work, then they have to accept the process of making it work, which is to REQUIRE military service of women.
Ex-PH2: the problem with putting 50% females on an ODA (Special Forces Operational Detachment – Alpha) is that it’s not workable. You’ll never find enough that are physically qualified under the current standards.
Based on athletic performance, it appears that the male mean for physical strength and stamina is roughly somewhere between 1 and 2 standard deviations higher than the female mean. For argument, let’s say 1.5. That puts the female physical mean somewhere between 1 and 2 standard deviations below that for males.
Special Operations forces do not use average males. They take their “cut” from the top fraction of male military applicants with respect to physical stamina and strength – I’d guess from around the +2 standard deviation or above point (top 2.5%, roughly).
What that means is that you’re looking for women who are at least 3.5 standard deviations above the female mean. That’s the top 0.02325% – or about 1 in 4,300.
An SF battalion (we have 15 active and 6 reserve) has approximately 21 ODA/ODBs. Each ODA is authorized 12 personnel; ODBs are larger if I recall correctly. All require full qualification. For 50% female fill, that means you’d need 21 x 21 x 6 = 2,646 qualified female soldiers.
Good luck with that. Personally, if current standards are retained I doubt you’ll find enough qualified female volunteers to fill one ODA at 50% female. I’d guess the total would be closer to 1 or 2.
Anything 3.5 standard deviations above the population mean is pretty damn rare. Add the volunteer aspect, and it just ain’t gonna happen.
Here is where I think they will go with this. Again, this is just a guess. I think they are going to expand the role of CST’s with designator. So, women can have their own pipeline and mission augmentation for special ops.
It will probably work similarly to Air Force Combat Controllers who augment other special operations units.
Thats where I think its going to go more likely than having women going to BUD/S. Where, realistically, you might get a women through once a decade if standards are upheld.
There’s some strong women out there, but. Mckall does not discriminate.
#56
I’m not following you. What does drafting women have anything to do with getting large pools of women into infantry/special ops?
Not to mention, even with selective service, we are not a conscription based military anyways.
I’m not trying to pick on you or anything. But your not answering my question.
Let the TACs at McKall sort them out.
@57
You get what I was saying.
flindip: yes, I do.
Early in my career, I had the great good fortune to serve in a support unit for one of the SF groups. I have an idea – and, I stress, only a vague idea – of what the folks on the ODAs go through in training.
I do not think I’d have made it. And if I had, I’d never have been as good as the vast majority of them.
In my 30+ years of service (active/reserve), I believe I’ve served with one female who might have made it physically. She was 6′, about 190 lbs, and could literally lift me off the ground and carry me in her arms like bag of potatoes. Even then, stamina might have been an issue.
There are a few women out there who might be physically able to make it. But they’re exceedingly rare, and we’re having enough trouble as it is getting enough qualified males trained. To train females, we’ll have to displacing some of those males in order to to put through a group that can be expected to have a much higher washout rate.
@60 Findip – Well, you could stop pretending to be obtuse and understand that a draft generates a larger general pool of candidates than a volunteer service.
If both men and women are required to serve in a revival of the draft, those most likely to be able to pass quals for SpecOps/Inf form a larger pool than is available in a strictly-volunteer service. Numbers add up.
And if we’re going to talk about infantry, I’d like to remind you that the majority of men who were assigned to infantry in Vietnam, as opposed to during VN, were generally wiry, skinny shits who could probably lift about the same dead weights I could then, maybe a little more – which I’ve discussed elsewhere – and when the platoons and squads went on patrols they were not carrying 98 pounds of crap with them. I knew some of those guys, so don’t try to blow me off on that. I know what they carried, because they told me.
And quit trying to play games with me. I was quite clear and if you choose to be intentionally dense, that’s your problem.
Ever since their inclusion into the military women have been held to a lower standard than males. For decades we’ve allowed this to fester and now it’s infected and we still won’t acknowledge there is a problem. The inclusion of ex ph2’s multiple comments here is a perfect example of the overall issues of the problem with seperate and unequal standards coming back to bite you in the ass because you ass because you were foolish to do it the first time.
The marine corps has shown how bad the idea is but who cares we’ve been doing it for decades so why not continue? It’s going to end up badily just like pfc Jessica lynch but even then that was celebrated.
Even the marine corps has an increadibly awful double lower standard I can’t even begin to imagine how atrocious that would be when pfc sparkles gets a spot at infantry training battalion. What a great way to increase decent and resentment further into the military though. Nothing says positive social and work environment when you’re carrying others weight because they are a protected group that could possibly get you killed.
I want to know how General Dumpty is going to make sure that bullets hit women softer than they do men, or how he’s going to slow their impact for all sexes.
Because if you have different standards for each gender, you need to be sure the soft bullets hit the women and the hard bullets hit the men. It’s only “fair”.
If you lower the standards overall, you better be able to be sure the bullets hit softer overall.
@65 “…the inclusion of ex ph2’s multiple comments here is a perfect example of the overall issues of the problem…”
Dude, you’re skating on VERY thin ice. Possibly that was poorly phrased, but if not, it came across as an Archie Bunker kind of comment.
Ex PH2 – you might note since Vietnam the combat load has been radically increased. An infantryman goes on paterol now with about the same weight that a Vietnam-era guy PCSed. Apples and oranges.
@64
I’m not being obtuse. Your dodging the question repeatedly. We do not have conscription military. That has never been in the cards as a possible outcome for this. I don’t know why you keep on using that as some sort of answer. We have volunteer military.
You also said, that the “numbers add up” if we go into a conscription based military. Where is your data? If you look at Norway(as you used)has makeup of 10 percent women in its arm forces. A small of fraction of that are probably combat arms and an even smaller fraction of that are infantry. No women are in special operations.
Israel, another example of a conscription military, has a much larger group of female conscripts. But only about 3 percent make up their combat arms. They, also(outside of Caracal Battalion) do not co-ed their infantry. They have no women in special ops.
Your third paragraph is completely anecdotal nonsense. I am sure there are Vietnam-era infantry soldiers who would take umbrage with you speaking for them.
Seems to me your the one playing games, not me.
David: yep. The IBA vest alone adds around 20 lbs – closer to 25 if you include the side plates.
@64
Btw, I tried to be cordial. But your just complete looney tunes.
Btw, wasn’t PH2 the same person who said that marine IOC should constitute 50 percent women in their class makeup? How they hell are they going to do that? They can barely get two women, at a time, to volunteer for one class.
The July class, as well, had initially 5 female volunteers. 3 of them have already decided not to attend.
@71, No you’re not being cordial, you’re being obnoxious.
What makes you think the draft WON’T ever be reinstated? What makes you think that women won’t be required to register with Selective Service?
I am answering your question but you refuse to accept my answer. Instead, you label me as a looney.
Fine. Go bait someone else.
@71
I’m not baiting you. Your not answering the question. Just because they institute a draft or make a conscription based military; it doesn’t mean women are going to be flooding into infantry/special ops jobs or even be qualified for them.
You can look at other conscription militaries currently.
Gents. I think what ex-PH2 is saying is that a cohesive small-unit team would require a 50-50 gender mix, or close. And also to avoid the kind of ‘token female’ syndrome that cost the Navy at least one female Naval Aviator and an F-14 when they started having female pilots. She’s saying they’re gonna have to go all-in on this initiative, or go home.
(Short version: she’s mostly on your side on this.)
Ex, did I get that right?
Let me also clarify something. I’m not against allowing women the opportunity to be in infantry/special ops. As long as standards are upheld, I’m sure they’re exceptional women who can do it to the standard.
The reality is that you have women that have to fit to requirements:
A)want to do the job
b)can do the job
You may get a small amount of women in option a. You may get a small amount of women in option b. But your going to get an even smaller amount of women who fit into both. IF that >1-1.5 percent is acceptable(and can do it to standard), fine.
But making statements like a special ops team is going to be 50/50 male/female is absurdist.
Yes, ExHack, you nailed it.
And I doubt that any of the men who served in and during Vietnam, as I did, would ‘take umbrage’ at my speaking on their behalf, especially since a flack jacket weighs far less than current military body armor, never mind the weaponry and supplies carried by one person.
@75 we will use your naval aviator example. Women aviators, in the Navy, constitute about 4 percent(its probably smaller if your counting just fighter pilots and not radar techs).
How exactly is that representation 50/50?
I thought so. Was wondering how the only slightly subtle point of ‘if you can’t get that many qualified women to step up, don’t bother’ wasn’t computing. You were making the argument against, not for.
Flindip: you’re missing the forest for the trees.
Ex is trying to make your argument for you. Just sit back and let the lady close the deal for you. (If only it were that easy.)
@67
Why is that? The article is about combat mos’ and even after it specifically mentions the inability of some to not put the pussy on a pedestal we seperate lower standards we have a perfect example of that occurring regarding some of the most asinine irrelevant comments from a super pog female that served nearly half a century ago as though it be as creditable or even more so than people that have actually done the job recently.
Are we really going to white knight on theinternet too compounding the problem further? Ph2 isn’t a stranger to commenting on stuff she has no experience with. I see her comments all over the place doing just that. I’m obviously not trying to pal around with Internet people so I’m sorry for my blunt and completely accurate observation here. No I’m not.
The double standards which have existed since the beginning are just too absurd for a female veteran to attempt to portray that equal standards should apply when they know first hand for decades the exact opposite have occured. After an attempt to hoodwink that utter bullshit everything else is beyond misleading.
ExHack, some people are intentionally as thick as a plank. 😉
I think this article is great reference for discussion. It deals with female firefighters in the LAFD.
http://www.laweekly.com/2008-01-24/news/the-gender-boondoggle/
The article isn’t declaring women shouldn’t be firefighters. It’s saying that gender quotas and social engineering does not work. If we are going to be a mature about these things; it should be completely acceptable that only a fraction of percentage of woman can do the job. Not forcing unqualified people into roles that aren’t suited for.
Saying women should be allowed into infantry/special ops is not social engineering in of itself. Saying you need “x amount” of women in said roles is where this becomes a complete disaster.
Findip, I’m not arguing your point. I never did. I said that lower standards to accomodate an agenda is the road to ruin.
@84-
Fine. But you still didn’t answer my question. How do you get enough qualified women to fill up a special ops team to be 50/50 without DRASTICALLY lowering standards?
You said drafting, but thats a non answer. I’m not trying to be a jerk. I’m asking a direct question and want a direct answer.
I get that you are perhaps being absurdist on purpose to show the flaws in practicality of this directive. But, I don’t really find humor in this subject. I think its very serious stuff.
OK. If the measure is physical strength and endurance, then there are specific standards to be met. Right? Without enough volunteers to fill the roster for one team, what other means is there other than assignment from the existing pool of females? This is ‘the military sends you where you’re needed, not where you want to go’ which was the rule when I was in 40 years ago — not nearly 50, thank you. Unless things have drastically changed and your needs are more important than the military’s needs, that is where you get the women to fill a special ops team: they are selected based on endurance, size and physical strength. And those tests are available at any gym. If this is not clear enough, I’m saying they’re SENT to that kind of training, whether they want it or not. That IS what it will come to if the quotas aren’t filled by volunteers. I certainly wouldn’t put anyone my height into it, unless I could carry the entire load, no special treatment. I did a few of those ’60 Miles for the Cure’ hikes, 20 miles a day for 3 days, with a loaded backpack and a heavy camera. That’s just endurance hiking. You get used to it. But that is not the same thing as special ops training. That article does quote a retired SEAL officer who specifically says that it isn’t how fast you can swim or run, it’s how much endurance you have and what kind of load you can carry. There are already plenty of women currently in all branches of the military who are doing exactly what’s expected of them without special treatment. The Air Force has women in EOD and flying Warthogs. Women are supposed to be assigned to submarines in the near future. If the object of Dempsey’s announcement is to increase the quota of women in all fields of activity in the military, including combat positions, what choice other than conscription is there if the number of volunteers is insufficient to fill the quota? Using the IDF’s ratio is not… Read more »
@86
Ok, now you are starting to answer my question. So, what you are essentially saying is that we will FORCE women into infantry/special ops roles in hopes that you will get a large pool of women into these roles.
Obviously, this isn’t going to happen. First off its impractical. If you start scoping all exiting female service members to the standard; you are probably going to get the exact same amount of qualified women you would get if they volunteered, That is, realistically, fractions of a percentage. The difference is the military(sequestered btw) will spend an ungodly amount of money trying to force qualify women into these roles.
You then write about women performing as EOD, Pilots and serving on subs. That has zero correlation to infantry or SOF jobs. You know that. I know that.
You then bring up Norway as starting to conscript women. Your facts need clarification. Women, already, are conscripted into the Norwegian military. However, the representation is 10 percent.
They want to increase that to 20 percent. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that women will be more represented in combat arms. It could very well mean(most likely will)women having higher representation in support/staff/clerical positions.
Also, I think comparing the needs of our military to European conscription peace keeping armies is completely counter productive. Norway doesn’t have much of a combat footprint nor do they have an interest in a high quality military.
Israel, on the other hand, I would look at on how the integrate women in combat arms realistically. Even though you can’t follow their conscription model, they do have quite a bit of combat experience.
What Dempsey doesn’t say is that this is an agenda with quotas that will be expected to be filled.
The percentage of women in the Navy in the 1960s and 1970s was about 10% of the total personnel roster. I don’t know what it is now, but it’s probably higher.
But if you have to fill a quota of 10 women for BUDs/SEAL training and you can only get 5 volunteers out of a population of maybe 100,000 women, how else are you going to fill the quota of 10 other than by assignment? And if 5 or 6 of those 10 fail, then what do you do?
Unless I’m reading too much into what Dempsey said, that’s what is down the road for all branches of the military.
@89
I saw nothing about direct quotas coming from Dempsey’s statements(although I wouldn’t be surprised). The thing that is of concerns are standards lowering to get a moderate amount of women(not just the exceptional)through training.
Also, to use the BUD/S example. Let be honest here, 10 volunteer women for BUD/S means that probably ALL will fail realistically. 5 or 6 failing is a 50% or 40%(better than the male drop out rate). That aint going to happen if standards are upheld.
What you could see is that for every 10 or so BUD/S classes(if we say 10 women are actually volunteering for it every class…not likely, but still). You may get one or two per decade.
My previous statement above about BUD/S is why I don’t think they are going to go direct integration in special ops. I think they are going to make a specific MOS to augment special ops units.
What happens to the bodies of women who manage to make a career of combat arms, whether it 4 or 20 years? In pursuit of the power and fortune for some US senators and activists who have never served in the ground combat arms, is America okay with shortening the lifespan of women? Or unintentional miscarriages and abortions due to a woman being unknowingly pregnant during a simple month-long force-on-force training exercise?
The operative term is ‘test of strength.’ Many men and a few women can make a one-time lift of great weight – for argument’s sake 100lbs. But, can those men and women carry that 100lbs some 100 miles, while enduring combat (sometimes intense firefights, sometimes just indirect fire or CAS), and for periods of time carrying another person’s 100lbs, or increments of it?
A test of strength is nice. But muscles must connect to bone, and the bones and joints of men are greatly eroded over the course of a 20-year career.
Or, in simpler terms – how much is the fallacy of equality going to cost America in a lifetime of disability of women vets? Will we double our costs? Treble them?
Or are we being asked to restrict women’s service to lesbians, or women who’ve already had children and have had surgery to prevent further pregnancies? The damage done to the body is horrific in a man, but in a woman?
@92
If you read my post about female firefighters. Your issue is answered quite directly, Its going to be terrible.
Now, if standards are upheld, and only like <1 percent actually qualify, its not that big of a deal imo. For the mere fact, that its such a small percentage. But if they are actually trying to force women into these roles thats were this will be a nightmare.
DaveO, one of the things you get from a lifetime of heavy load lifting (not gym lifting) and carrying is arthritis in your neck and back.
That’s not rheumatoid arthritis, which distorts joints; it’s osteoarthritis, which includes bone spurs, bone chips, excessive calcium deposits on joints and bones, and limited mobility. And it’s no fun at all.
Findip, quotas are part of a hidden agenda. Dempsey won’t speak about them publicly, but if he’s talking about this stuff at all, then quotas are buried in there – quotas and deadlines.
They can try to do quotas. But its going to be pretty obvious that standards were lowered when more men are passing these courses. They can fudge that stuff in leg infantry units but its going to be much tougher for SOF units. Those are going to be a microscope.
I’m not even sure they can quota for infantry considering the marines are being the guinea pig it seems for women in infantry. The marines seem to be no-nonsense about this stuff. I think you will get an honest answer from them which will complicate things for the army.
I can see several ways this could play out.
What the army could end up doing is tiering its infantry units. Women could be assigned to infantry are designated motorized or mechanized.
But, will be prohibited from units that designated light infantry.
The problems with that is what happens when you fight a war where you can’t fight with mech infantry approach. A jungle canopy for example.
Now, you have mech infantry units that can’t be converted into a light infantry role.
Whats funny about this whole thing too:
The New York Times, for example, has been a big pusher to integrate women in combat roles.
However, if it comes out that standards have been lowered(and it will come out); the NYT will be first to publish those findings. Even if they have agenda, they gotta sell papers.
#94: Yes, I am intimately familiar with the condition. Heh
flindip: i got distracted reading you and Ex-PH2 writing past each other.
Another f**kin’ reason to tell my g’son to NOT join the military.