Congress to look at Marine experiment
The other day, we talked about the leaked results of a report in regards to the nine-month experiment conducted by the Marine Corps which put male and female Marines in combat arms roles together. The supposed conclusion was that women didn’t quite live up to the standard through no fault of their own, but rather they were limited by nature. The Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus dismissed the report out-of-hand, he hasn’t read it nor has he been briefed on it. The Hill reports that some members of Congress want to get their fingerprints on it.
“We will be gathering folks together who have been part of that study and having a briefing on it soon,” Rep. Susan Davis (D-Calif.), the ranking member of the House Armed Services Military Personnel Subcommittee, said Thursday.
[,,]
[Rep. Martha McSally (R-Ariz.), a retired Air Force colonel and first female to fly in combat] said lawmakers have not seen the study, which has not been released yet, but that she has similar concerns to Mabus.
“I echo some concerns by the secretary of the Navy related to, ‘Do we take a bunch of combat trained men and a bunch of non-combat trained support women and put them together, and just wonder how they’re going to do?’ ” said McSally.
“You can study anything and get the results you might be looking for, or have some flawed assumptions in how you’re setting it up. And so we want to make sure we understand where the study was and what the results are from it, and then what to conclude from it,” she said.
So we’re supposed to prejudge the results of this experiment without actually seeing those results? Isn’t what the Navy Secretary and the Congresswoman are doing is exactly what they’re accusing the Marine Corps of doing during this Grand Experiment?
These people have no skin in the game, their lives don’t depend on the results of this experiment, it only matters to them for political reasons and social justice reasons. The Marines who took part in the experiment do have their skin in the game. Skin and blood. They have no other reason to play the game other than getting home safely after the next war.
But, yeah, the social justice warriors in the Pentagon and in Congress were heartened by the Ranger School thing, you know the women who were recycled through the course until they got it right. This isn’t me being against women in the military, this is me worried about them coming in the same number of pieces as when they left.
Stars & Stripes reports this morning that the Corps may exclude some jobs from women in infantry and reconnaissance, but that move is subject to veto by Mabus, you know, the guy that has more experience in combat than everyone else combined from his two years as a surface warfareofficer in 1970-1972 aboard the USS Little Rock. According to Wiki, 1970-1971, the USS Little Rock spent the time in a Boston dry dock undergoing repairs resulting from a collision with a Greek destroyer. So, he has lots of experience watching someone fix his boat – which is just as physical as being in the infantry.
Category: Marine Corps
Raise your hand if you didn’t see this shit coming.
Not even slightly.
The latest flap goes to the conflict between Navel Gazer Mable and the USMC regarding excluding women from elite combat units. My take? Tough shit. The door was cracked with DADT, opened fully with its repeal, and blown off its hinges with gay marriage and the new transgender welcome mat. No exceptions now. You wanted it. You got it. Of course there must be women Rangers, PJs, SEALS, PJs–all authorized for combat assignments. standards are arbitrary. Worse, they are exclusionary by design. People die in war. If some die because their fellow soldiers, Marines, airmen, or sailors are too weak or stressed to save them, that’s a price Mable and the social engineers are willing to pay. So, get with the program. Don’t fight it.
I’m not sure what you are getting at. The standards weren’t changed for women in either the Ranger or this experiment. Yes, the units with women did worse in this one, but assuming that one day there will be women who manage to live up to the standard, why shouldn’t they be allowed to serve in combat? Why should having a vagina or, for that matter, a preference for a different set of private parts have anything to do with your effectiveness in combat?
I guess you missed the whole recycle thing or the fact that the female Marines who were part of the study were the ones to cry foul.
Crap…accidentally hit “Report.” My bad.
Anyways, you should probably read this article GT.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/08/20/ranger-school-officer-combats-rumors-about-how-women-passed-in-pointed-facebook-post/
I saw it.
Interesting how Batt is taking to social media these days. Anyway. Moving on.
My point was that Mabus seems to be saying that these female Marines were weak, were not trying hard enough or that the data was intentionally altered.
I doubt any of these occurred. The women in all appearances gave 100%. And they called him (Mabus) out.
As for the Army, they took a willing and very talented pool and trained them up over a year or so. And two passed. One picked up yet another recycle. So the SJW should redo years of common sense and policy based on this sample size?
If so, in the future, no additional train up and if you fail, you are out. No second chances. As many on here have echoed, there are no second chances down range.
It is only fair…..and logical.
“Why should having a vagina or, for that matter, a preference for a different set of private parts have anything to do with your effectiveness in combat?” Excellent! I like that standard. It’s the if-you-can-do-the-job standard. So, you tell me, why should one’s penchant for bestiality or just viewing child pornography or a drug arrest when one was 16 or [Fill in Crime Here]matter unless it can be shown conclusively that the matter will have a detrimental impact on one’s military service job?
Those are crimes and show a lack of ability in good decision making.
Last I checked being a woman wasn’t\didn’t.
If they can and want to do the job let them. Just don’t change the standard to make it work. It’s simple.
Good decision making skills being key to any success in the military of course.
“Those are crimes and show a lack of ability in good decision making.” Sodomy was a crime, too. In fact, under the UCMJ it may still be. So, as soon as dog screwing is no longer a crime, I guess that will be an irrelevant consideration too. Or would you consider that bad decision making? A young person drops out of high school and joins the service? Not a crime. Good decision making? How about in those instances in which marijuana is legal or decriminalized. The feds, as you may know, are not enforcing the law in Colorado or elsewhere. So, if a 17-year old is busted for pot possession, not a crime but a bad decision? Please refer me to the list you rely upon for good and bad decision making. Want to try tattoos? A 15-year old makes the stupid decision to get a tattoo on his forearm but wants to join the Marines at 18. That’s a no go, isn’t it? Gotta be on the list. Do you see the problem? It’s arbitrary and it’s capricious. The new standard is whether the individual can do the job.
There is a difference in a “bad decision” that affects others(like child porn, weird example but hey you brought it up…..) and say dropping out of school.
That is to say it’s one thing to victimize others and another to just hurt yourself.
If the child porn is, say, 20 years old, how does that victimize someone who watches it today? I was careful to say “viewing” not producing or otherwise making the relationship closer than viewing. The reason I brought that up, like dog screwing, is to intentionally make it as sick and outlandish as I can. I could have said just porn or gay porn but that would not have had the same effect. So, where’s that list?
So viewing child porn isn’t victimization if said child is now an adult?
I’m not judging where your mind goes first. I just wanted to point out that mine didn’t.
Prior to Lawrence v. Texas (2003), homosexual acts were unlawful in a number of states. If the SCOTUS can strike down those laws, well, why not others?
It’s pretty obvious that 2/17 Air Cav was observing that the law and/or standards regarding what is acceptable change over time. Whether those changes are always positive ones are a different matter entirely.
Just so we are clear, you are not only advocating for child pornographers and zoophiles (I had to look it up) in the military, but would rather have them in than women in the infantry?
I will concede that we can’t seem to get the morality screening right, but you have picked some bad examples, I think.
Swing, and a miss. I’m pretty sure I could feel the sarcasm setting my sarcasm meter off from here. The point was that resetting standards of behavior and conduct in a military environment aren’t conducive to a cohesive military structure. I call it…Historical Perspective. Neat huh!
You never met my ex
‘Just don’t change the standard’ – yes, but the point is that the standard WILL be changed, which is the entire point of the argument.
And if you are going to argue body parts as job qualifications, then men should not have been secretaries or schoolteachers from the Middle Ages up to the middle of the 19th century, but they were, because they were men.
This study was not about body parts. It was about physical capacity to do the job. The women were, if the report is correct, treated exactly the same as the men and the same results were expected from them. It simply did not happen.
So get off the internal/external organ crap, OK?
We have to study the study to see whats in it.
The Marines did it the right way, followed their in-place methods, and have valid results.
Enough said.
I do not wish to see any senior heads roll over not kowtowing to the ignorance of SJWs.
Everybody is only talking about the GCEITF and completely ignoring the 2 year initial study done at ITB.
Those complaining that the ITF was rigged due to experience levels, the ITB portion was as fair as it gets. Marines of both genders straight from boot camp, with the exact same experience level and knowledge. In fact, I would say ITB was stacked in favor of the women, all of which were volunteers selected due to their superior physical performance and mental toughness.
With that being said, the attrition rate of our entry level females 52% as opposed to less than 2% of males.
The injury rate was more than double that of the males.
When held to the male physical standard, female PFT scores averaged a paltry 165 out of 300 as opposed to males averaging 230. CFT scores were even worse.
Marksmanship scores were consistently lower by a large margin, with some of the females unable to keep the M16 at the high ready for extended periods from the unsupported standing position. Firing the M27 on full auto from the standing normally resulted in 10% hit accuracy.
Combat conditioning hikes of 15k or more normally saw the majority of our female students fall out or break. The 20k required our weapons MOS students to carry crew served weapons split amongst teams. Not a single female that I trained was able to carry the Javelin missile simulator for their required 10k of the 20k hike.
I saw to many women have their careers end before even beginning due to hip injuries and compound stress fractures. They showed heart and determination, and I respect them for that, but through the desire to prove they had what it takes, they were medically separated from the Corps.
This cherry picking of data for political expediency is frustrating.
Excellent summary Rerun. To add on all they have to do is collect discharge data from Army and Marine Recruit Training Centers. For the last 40 years. The single biggest medical reason for discharge for female Recruits is pelvis fractures caused by carrying too much weight. Of course the weights carried in basic training / boot camp are nothibng compared to a line unit.
RErun0369.
Some of that data was included in the Experiment EXSUM. The injury rate for women as actually 6 times that of males, not double.
You are correct, sorry was just quickly summarizing based off of memory, which isn’t always 100% accurate (I have aken a few blows to the head :)).
Thanks for the SITREP, brother.
I prefer to see the REAL results over fantasies, ReRun, as in your summary of them.
I don’t live in a fantasy world, nor do I want to see budget money for training wasted on experiments. I would actually expect to see more spinal injuries from excess weight loads than the other kind. If I can accept these results, there is no excuse for the assumption that they were skewed.
There are ways to make it easier for anyone to carry heavy loads for long periods. I don’t mean exoskeletons, either.
But there is more to infantry than just carrying heavy loads long distances. Even I know that. It is something the SJWs do not and never will understand.
Thanks for your input, ReRun.
Anytime. Two of the best SNCO’s I have ever had the pleasure of working with just so happened to be females. Both of them were instructors here at SOI, assigned as “advisors” during the study. Both were intelligent, hardworking and professional. I would serve with them anywhere and at anytime, and they earned all the instructors deepest respect.
I’m only going to question one thing, and that is the conditioning hike. 15K is 9.3 miles. That should be doable, even with a load, in 2 hours or less. You didn’t specify what the required time was, or what kind of load they carried for that, but if this is something only required a standard pack weight and these women were presumed to be essentially fit, why did they fail?
You can’t just categorize it as a strength issue.
Here’s my reason for asking about it: I am well past their age. While I normally hike a lot, for various reasons over the past 3 years, I have been out less than usual, so I am basically out of shape, period, BUT I managed this past spring to make a 3.5 mile hike on a rough trail, carrying my camera in front as always, in less than an hour, and I was dawdling while I did it, stepping off the trail, shooting pix of frogs and off-trail flowers, etc. I know what the distance was because I have maps that measure the distance.
The 20k hike is the roundtrip distance from a parking lot to a specific cross road and back, on a rough trail. I used to do this frequently and I’m going back to it this fall, with a loaded pack and my camera.
So I am questioning what it was that made these women, who are far more fit than I am, fall out and/or suffer injuries, and how that can be prevented in the future.
Not questioning the training methods or the intent, just why it occurred. That’s all.
The hike pace is 3 miles an hour with a 10 min break every 50 minutes. This comes straight out of the Infantry Training & Readiness Manual and is dictated by TECOM.
As for Hike loads, they are as follow (Heavy Weapons are on the 20k only):
0311: 80 lbs Main Pack
31 lbs worn (helmet/flak/SAPI)
8.9 lbs rifle
0331: 80 lbs Main Pack
31 lbs worn (helmet/flak/SAPI)
8.9 lbs rifle
27.1 lbs M240B, 26.7 lbs Tripod, T&E, Spare Barrel split between 3 Marines
0341: 80 lbs Main Pack
31 lbs worn (helmet/flak/SAPI)
8.9 lbs rifle
13 lbs cannon, 13.2 lbs mount, 9.1 lbs baseplate split between 3 Marines.
0351: 80 lbs Main Pack
31 lbs worn (helmet/flak/SAPI)
8.9 lbs rifle
16.92 lbs SMAW, 15 lbs rocket encasement spread between 2 Marines
0352: 80 lbs Main Pack
31 lbs worn (helmet/flak/SAPI)
8.9 lbs rifle
34.16 lbs Missile Encasement traded off every 5k between 2 Marines.
That is the standard that we use, which is well below the expectations of a combat infantryman, as many here can attest to. Conditioned hikes and forced road marches are not comparable to recreational hiking in any way, I used to hike the Pacific Northwest trails all the time back when I was in HS, I never felt as broken down as I do after a forced hike.
It’s all about the load. The sustainment load is only 20-30 pound for an individual. Of course, everyone is carrying something extra (a mortar round, a CIED device, machine gun ammo, NVGs, batteries), so add about 20 for that.
Don’t forget Personal Protective Equipment- body armor, helmet, weapon, basic load, etc. that is at about 85 pounds, depending on the size of the person (large vest and plates weighs more than small). Of course, this is ‘evenly distributed across the body’ meaning that you can’t breathe or make simple movements comfortably a your body can’t dump heat.
All told, no one leaves the wire without about 105 pounds, realistically it is about 120 pounds. Infantrymen carry more.
I remember moving my platoon out to some blocking positions for a major sweep operation. My pack alone was around 210 lbs when including 5 days of water, extra ammo, extra pyro, radio batteries, a shotgun and associated rounds, and I was the platoon sergeant, the guys with the M240 had it even worse.
This was on top of my worn gear and personal weapon which was already at 60-70 lbs.
Oh yeah, we had to walk to our positions, no vehicle movement for us. That is probably the most miserable I have ever been, especially when I only weigh 170 lbs to begin with.
Well stated on the typical loads. Like I always said they’re never going to make water lighter, munitions lighter or batteries lighter. Which makes up a large percentage of what’s carried.
And you didn’t even touch upon doing a tactical movement while breaking brush which is much more physically taxing and excruciating. Taking a knee for a security halt every 50 meters (and getting back up) and getting into the prone (and back up) over and over while the Patrol Leader tries to unfuck himself.
This is what I wanted to know. There is a wide difference between my rec hiking and a fully-loaded troop on foot on a trek into a hot zone, and I know it. I want to be sure that I understand the real issues, which obviously include long-distance endurance carrying the load itself.
Regardless how you or I feel, this is going to be rammed down the military’s throat, because those currently in charge regard the military as toy soldiers, not working men and women.
My feelings and opinions are irrelevant. If the decision is made to allow women in the infantry with no restrictions, it becomes my duty to train them to the best of my ability, just as it has always been.
Exactly, but if the expectation is that they will perform the same as men without some kind of physical assist, e.g., mechanical aid, the women will be at a severe disadvantage that will hinder them. That’s a reality even I accept.
Something else to remember, when a Marine goes down, all that gear he was carrying gets redistributed to everybody else.
120lbs of the best lightweight gear in the world!!!
Girls can do a lot of jobs, but not all of them. It’s been (very disingenuously) claimed by some people I’ve met that the fact that females can be firefighters proves that they can do anything. I posted a couple years ago about that, and how it’s bullshit because one does not equal the other. My job is hard, but I know that combat arms jobs are harder. Other than that, it’s an apples/oranges comparison at best. Even in my job, though, there’s obvious distinctions. Technique is much more important for females, which is why females, in my experience, require more focus and attention in training. Not necessarily more time, but where guys can muscle their way through a physical difficulty (throwing ladders, for example, or the Denver Drill), girls’ technique must be perfect, or else they’re getting hurt. It’s still important for guys, but guys have greater margin for error. I’ve trained plenty of girls, and most of them picked it up. Hell, I’ve successfully taught a five-foot-nothing, 90lbs-soaking-wet Chinese chick to successfully drag my 6’1″, 240lb Irish ass and move me over obstacles–it SUCKS for her, but she can do it. The only problem I ever had with her wasn’t even her, it was getting the new lads with her to stop drooling over the hot asian chick and pay attention to their training. In the field, anytime we got a T/C I’d put her inside the vehicle to get C-spine and start patient care, because she has a much easier time moving around inside wadded-up Honda Civic than I would. At the same time, while she *can* throw 35′ ladder, she wouldn’t be my first choice for the task. Another example is my little sister, also a firefighter. She’s on a US Forest Service IHC crew, having previously been on a helitack crew. My sister is easily in the top 3 percent of physical fitness for female (and doesn’t look like steroid-fueled dude in drag), can cut line with a hand tool up near-vertical slopes for days, and can out-hike my fat ass without breaking a sweat.… Read more »
I think your point is that men and women are not physical equals, but we were never meant to be.
However, this idiotic social experimenting may have some benefits down the road through developing equipment that will reduce OJT injuries incurred from handling weight in excess of actual body weight.
What if there is a woman who can do it?
The requiremnt for being awarded the MOS 0311 is to meet all standards and complete the ITB course. Over 100 women did that. If they were men, they would have been 0311s.
Some of them participated in this experiment. Many of them were injured, as were many men, but at least 2 were there at the end. Did any of the women meet the Marine minimum standard for the event? Did ALL of the men?
I know none or very few of the women met the male averages. However, math will tell you that some of the men didn’t meet the male average. Should they be separated or reclassified, or do they get to stay infantry because they met the minimum standard?
The report doesn’t address any of that.
Rep. Hunter is calling for the resignation of Mabus:
http://scoopdeck.navytimes.com/2015/09/17/congressman-calls-for-navy-secretary-to-resign-as-marines-women-in-combat-feud-escalates/
Duncan Hunter does have skin in this game, as he is still a Major in the USMC Reserves.
About as possible as the survival of the proverbial snowflake in the Hot Place, but still, good on Rep. Hunter.
Hunter is my congressman. I’ve been pretty happy with his performance so far. Hopefully he doesn’t sell out like some RINOs I could name.
I want to read the full report.
I’ve read the full executive summary, but it doesn’t really give you a full view of the exercise. For instance, the EXSUM doesn’t explicitly state what the control groups were and how they faired over course of the experiment. FWIW, Rep. McSally, who is a pretty level headed straight shooter in my opinion, would have had to read dead into the EXSUM to get the information that there were male units of non-MOS qualified Marines who were used as a control to account for the fact that most of the women Marines were coming from other MOSs.
The EXSUM also doesn’t give much specificity as to what the 69% of the task that integrated squads/platoons didn’t perform as well as all male units.
I would also like to read the full report. I wonder if the Corps would be willing/allowed to release a PDF of it to those interested?
The SECNAV has already gone on record as saying he questions the study. IMO there’s no way in hell he will allow it to be released, so I’d guess that release have to occur through “other than normal channels” – or by someone who’s literally willing to end their career.
…or by someone like me, who has no career to end and doesn’t give a crap what Babs Mabus thinks.
Same here. If anyone manages to get a softcopy (or a link to where a copy can be viewed/downloaded), please post that fact here.
To see this report, someone is probably going to have get an anonymous phone call at 0100, telling them where to pick up a USB drive, under a rock, next to a drinking fountain, in the parking lot of a Whataburger, somewhere in Texas.
Mabus’ name reminds me of an old beer commercial, back when I was a yute growing up on the east coast:
“Hey, Mabel, Black Label, Carling Black Label Beer.”
So, Mabus, shut the f*** up and go get me a beer.
Again, when some female troop gets dragged through the streets of some Third World shithole and the pics are plastered over every newspaper and magazine cover in the world, will people think, “Maybe we should revisit this?”
Of course, by then, the ass clowns who pushed for this will not have to face the consequences of their actions. Other people will do that for them, with their blood and lives.
Re is it Sending women to third world shithole, or sending Americans to a third world shithole with no real objective?
Naw, they won’t revisit it. They’ll just blame it on the leadership and on poor training.
Commissar calls Jonn a sexist, racist pig in 3…2…1…
Pseudointellectuals will pseudointellectualize
That is if he has finished his Call of War game in mom’s basement.
Hey, it’s still before 8:30AM PDT – and he’s in grad school. I’m guessing he won’t show for at least another hour or two.
Because I made fun of Mabus’ career?
Or as we used to say, “I got more time on the shitter than you have in the Navy.”
No. Because his Patron Saint, Our Lady of Perpetual Baseless Outrage, told him that by making fun of Mabus’ career you somehow “denigraded women”. Even if you didn’t.
Please call Jonn a racist, Lars. Please.
I’d like to see that – just once. I haven’t enjoyed watching (reading) a good smoke check for some time.
Oh, you silly boys.
Jonn Lilyea is a sexy, racy pig.
Everyone knows that.
I enjoy being around hard-working female Soldiers. There are a few in my company who rarely complain and who work harder than some of the men. From my experience, though, they tend to be in CMF 25, 35, or one of the Aviation or ADA MOS’. Few of those in S1 and S4 contribute to the mission when things get physical–males and females alike.
But I digress… All but one of the males I put into the Army made it through training; the exception was a guy who got into a fight at Reception and was given the boot. None of the few females I put in made it past IET. One developed sclerosis, one messed up her knee, and the others got severe stress fractures.
I think that Mabus and company needs to spend some time watching a Dover team at work, or an active duty funeral in Arlington National Cemetery. It is a somber affair moving those flag-draped transfer cases to the truck, and it is depressing as hell burying an 18-year-old and watching his mom throw herself on the casket. War is a messy business and there are no recycles in combat. Some Infantry-types can’t even hack it, which is why door gunners and support platoon personnel are usually 11Bs. If and when we have female 11Bs, I suspect the next scandal will involve how few actually serve in line companies as members of a fire team. SSG Sally will be the training room NCO, PFC Christina will be the company armorer, SPC Carmela and PVT Britney will be on profile and unable to deploy, and SGT Rachael will be pregnant and on profile for the next 10+ months.
The results weren’t what the self-coronated pampered royalty in DC wanted, thus I predict they’re gonna go on a PC crusade trying to destroy the careers of anyone who provided data dissenting with their political agenda. I predict RINOs will fall in with the PC crowd as well, Bawler (*OOPS*, Boehner), McConnel, McCain, and Graham for starters..
At least Duncan Hunter is holding strong.
True, and I hope that enough other pols follow suit to counter the SJW/PC Nazis on their agenda crusade!
It strikes me that this is something that the Marine Corps can’t give in on because a big part of how they market themselves to young men is by essentially saying “we’ll give you the chance to prove yourself” and that is very powerful to young men just starting out in life. And the truth of the matter is that if that message is also “oh yeah, you’ll be essentially proving that you’re as good as her over there”, well, the truth is that that message isn’t going to resonate all that well with the young men that the Corps relies on in recruiting.
Now, as it happens, I think they are right on the merits and I have argued that on these pages for years-I’m not saying that what I said above is some kind of excuse. I just think that this is why the USMC isn’t giving up on the issue, unlike the Army (who could easily make the exact same case) but which seems to be waiting to see which way the political winds are going to blow and how they can accommodate the wishes of the political class.
You can have the battle of reports all that you want. You can pay academics to conduct purer research, using indisputable methods, with results that can be replicated again and again. You can argue this. You can argue that. And, in the end, none of it will matter. It’s not about research, scientific method, or whatever other nonpartisan, rational issue one can conjure. It’s about social engineering and oBaMa’s promise to transform America. Those who would hold otherwise just haven’t sipped enough Kool Aid yet. So, drink up!
” the Ranger School thing, you know the women who were recycled through the course until they got it right.”
Word.
So, every male that recycled didn’t earn it? That’s a lot of dudes…
I do not know what class you went through, but if I remember correctly, it was two in one phase and then go home.
But my memory is faulty these days….
And you really missed the point.
Two in one phase each phase, or a Day Zero recycle
…I’m not a Ranger, though
Personally, I think it has more to do with a hidden war on women that cranked itself up around 2008, than anything else.
Just MHO.
So, Bush is to blame for this too? For shame!
(I hope the sarcasm above is obvious.)
No, Slickwillie is to blame for it.
Everyone is missing a simple and important fact: there is currently no legal justification to keep women out of any MOS since 2013:
http://archive.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=15784
The Services and Secretries have no real choice. If they ask for an exception they will be sued and they will lose. This puts it on Congress.
Congress or the courts?
Congress first. There is no law or policy barring women from these jobs. Congress would have to write (and pass) one. There would then be an inevitable court battle, which would end up,at SCOTUS, which would almost definitely result in the law being overturned.
See below. Federal law gives the SECDEF the authority to make that call, not Congress.
Since at least 1994, there has been no legal prohibition on women serving in combat. Legal prohibition means “banned by Federal law”. The ban in place since 1994 has been due to DoD policy, not law.
DoD policy can be changed as the SECDEF sees fit. As I recall, current Federal law still gives that individual the authority to determine which specialties are and are not open to females on the basis of the probability of direct combat, albeit with the caveat that Congress must be notified 90 days prior to any such changes. That’s been the case since the early 1990s.
There are laws, and then there are policies and regulations.
As it stands there are no laws or policies in place banning women from these jobs.
SecDef saw fit to rescind the policy, and the subsequent Secs have not seen fit to reinstate it. In fact the current guy has made plenty of comments that seem to lean toward opening everything. Of course Mabus works for him, so I guess we know why he said what he did.
The probability clause went out a while back (the phrasing went from ‘high probability’ to’engages in’ to ‘primary mission of’, and now it is no longer DoD policy.
In other words, the policy was already rescinded and the current guy probably won’t write a new one, so Congress will have to write a law.
Which I think SCOTUS will overturn…
The new law will get vetoed by the head SJW before a need to go to SCOTUS ever shows itself.
That is true. But remember: policy can be changed as circumstances dictate – unless Federal law says otherwise.
My point is that current Federal law appears to give the SECDEF the authority to make that call. You incorrectly referred to that exercise of his administrative authority as “legal justification” above and said that “puts it on Congress”, implying that Congress had mandated this in Federal law. Congress has not. They removed the former legal prohibition on women serving on combat ships/aircraft in 1993. They did not mandate that women be allowed to serve in all military specialties and/or units; the authority to make that call was left to the SECDEF and/or other officials within DoD.
In fact, the current change is due to the SECDEF making this call as a matter of administrative policy – and perhaps as an act of political correctness. Federal law has nothing to do with it other than placing that within his scope of authority.
Whether the Federal courts would intervene if Pannetta’s determination were later reversed is questionable; ditto if certain specialties were kept closed to women. In the past, the courts have given broad latitude to DoD regarding internal personnel matters and administrative policies, even when those policies excluded personnel from certain duty positions seemingly arbitrarily.
My guess is that they would continue to do so, but you never know. My crystal ball is kinda dirty today.
Perhaps. My point remains, a previous SecDef has already taken action to rescind the only policy barring women as a class from these MOSs and the current one is unlikely to take action, so it will take legal action, and since there is no law in place, a new one would have to be written.
The entire policy was rescinded, it was not a modification or partial redaction
A new law would not be required. It would only require the current SECDEF to reinstate previous policy.
Agreed that the current SECDEF would likely not have the stones to do that. I’m rather disappointed in what I’ve seen from Carter.
Then again, he was appointed by the current Occupant, 1600 Penn Ave, Wash DC. So perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised.
I wonder if this legally can be turned on its head. If a female service member could go to court for not being permitted to serve in all jobs, could a male service member go to court to prevent his discharge if he met the female APFT standard but not the male one?
The difference in PT standards would seem to represent some serious equal protection issues if men and women are going to be held to differing standards from now on.
It’s my understanding that these kinds of issues are precisely why the Federal courts have granted DoD great latitude in this area previously, in general refusing to get involved in such cases. They’ve given DoD much more latitude in this area than they give most civilian employers.
And then, there’s always Feres.
Except that Carter isn’t going to do anything. It’s not about stone, it’s about the fact that Carter agrees.
Read Panetta’s memo:
-Everything is open, he just gave the services until 2016!to implement.
– If a service wants an exception to keep something closed they will have to request it through the service secretary.
-The request must be based on the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the job.
-the Chairman must approve, and ultimately the SecDef
If Mabus doesn’t approve it, no exception will go forward. Mabus won’t approve it.
Why do you think Mabus is saying what he is? Read what Carter has said. The current SecArmy has been fairly quiet, but I can guess what the next guy (Fanning) thinks.
No, there will not be any policy changes. If they want to stop this, Congress will have to legislate, , and any such law will be challenged and ultimately be deemed unconstitutional.
If you fail in training you get to try something else, or try again. If you fail in combat you can get killed or get your fellow fighters killed. Such is they way it is in armed conflict. Any unit is only as strong as its weakest member, and only as fast as its slowest. Hopefully the weak and slow get culled early so as to do the least damage to the unit. I may sound cruel, but it is a cruel world and survival sometimes depends on how quickly one can move and shoot.
This all comes down to equality of opportunity versus equality of outcome. In equality of opportunity, anyone has the chance to try and “make the team” but the standards are changed or lowered. The only factors are the individual’s drive and ability to succeed. In equality of outcome, the conclusion is already ordained, the standards are altered to ensure that the outcome is achieved regardless of the individual’s ability to meet those criteria. Equality of opportunity is what America is all about; equality of outcome is suicide to freedom and common sense. Such thinking is dangerous for a society and nation.
Pardon my miss-type, the comment should have been the standards ARE NOT changed or lowered. Too much typing, not enough coffee. Disconnect between brains and fingers …
When I saw the words “Congress to look into” I thought of Gunny Highway’s quote from Heartbreak Ridge…………………………………. ” A committee of congressmen who asshole to asshole who couldn’t make a beer fart in a whirlwind, start telling your basic-ass-in-the-grass, Marine ” No more short time “. We responded in true Marine Corps fashion. We salute, do an about face, double time back to the boom-boom garbage dump where we get the clap, and the drip, and the crabs and a generally poor attitude towards the female of the species.”