Woman Marine drops during the Infantry Officer Course
Chief Tango and Bobo send us links to the story that the 30th woman to attempt the Marine Infantry Officer Course dropped this week after she didn’t complete two hikes – one was nine miles. She has recycled to the Marines Awaiting Training (MAT) Platoon and she gets to start again in July along with the males who were dropped and chose to try again. The unnamed Woman Marine made it 11 days into the training out of 84 days – further than any of her predecessors.
Secretary Ray Mabus has said that he won’t lower the standards, well, unless he lowers the standards of the military training for anyone. From the Military Times;
“I will never lower standards,” Mabus said during an April 12 town hall at Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, California. “Let me repeat that: Standards will not be lowered for any group! Standards may be changed as circumstances in the world change, but they’ll be changed for everybody.”
So, basically, the standards will change eventually. I wonder how they can justify all of this mental masturbation seein’s how half of the Marine Corps’ aircraft can’t get off the ground.
Mabus still hasn’t told us how this will help the USMC kill our enemies better.
Meanwhile, the Army announces that Captain Kristen Griest, one of the women who completed Ranger training last year will be it’s first female infantry officer when she graduates from the Maneuver Captain’s Career Course on Thursday and earns her blue cord.
The blue cord doesn’t piss me off. It’s knowing that some poor Captain who has been eating dirt and shit for the last five years as an infantry platoon leader, special platoon leader and as an infantry company XO is going to get bumped from his company command so the Pentagon can show the SJWs how diversity-minded they are.
Category: Marine Corps
There’s a very simple answer to your question, Jonn. Killing our enemies, accomplishing the mission, and winning wars is not a priority. Pleasing the SJWs is.
I don’t know if you recall, but in the wake of 9/11 a particularly ignorant cunt was screeching about how the “real tragedy” was that 343 *male* FDNY firefighters died, but no women. She claimed that female firefighter fatalities would have furthered the feminist cause…somehow, and that would have been a wonderful thing.
This obviously drew a collective “Are you fucking serious?” from pretty much every firefighter of either gender (there were only two in 2001, it was a simpler time…) across the country. First, there have been a lot of female firefighter fatalities over the years, just none (thank God) that day. Second, as a gal in NYC put it, “343 of us killed wasn’t enough for you? You want even more firefighters dead? What the fuck is wrong with you?”
SJWs don’t care about reality. They only care about their agenda, which is based entirely on the delicate feelings of a few special little snowflakes. Their agenda is all that matters, consequences be damned. And Mabus is a good little minion working for the SJWs in the White House.
Their agenda is all that matters, consequences be damned.
The entire left-wing agenda is that no one (except for all those nasty straight white males) should ever have to face a consequence for anything.
Generally speaking, firefighters do not become firefighters so that they can die on the job. They become firefighters so that they can put out fires and get people out of burning buildings to safety.
It is definitely not a job for the faint of heart.
Whoever the bitch is that said that – oh, you don’t want to know what I really think of people like that.
Liberalism is a mental disorder.
Nonsense.
Yes-leftism is complete and utter nonsense.
Yes, and Sanders is a perfect example of it. He has no idea where money comes from. He didn’t ever hold a job until he got into politics. He thinks money falls out of the sky or grows on gooseberry bushes, and it’s just there for the taking. He’s a bum, and he encourages that in everyone who follows him.
The Army is trying to get a lot of people killed playing politically correct games wish they would stop and see the light
Keep your list o’ names up to date.
When this proves out as it so obviously will, heads will need to roll. The head rolling may well even end up being literal rather than figurative.
Might as well make sure the targeting data is correct and accurate.
I used to have this framed on the wall in 10th Marines:
We the willing, lead by the unknowing, have done the impossible for the ungrateful. We have done some much for so long with so little…We are now qualified to accomplish anything with nothing.
Semper Fi.
Secretary Mabel is doing a great job at the helm. Marine Corps aircraft that are unserviceable, commissioning useless naval vessels, lowering standards across the board. Great job SECNAV Mabel. Keep up the good work, dick.
Don’t forget his penchant for naming warships after politicians who never sacrificed a damn thing for their nation.
See what his two full years of service has accomplished? Can you imagine if he had gone for 4?
So by changing standards we also let unqualified men into those positions as well.
Good job, Ray. Sleep well knowing how many good people your shit’s gonna get killed.
9 mile hump?
That’s a warm up!
Does the Corps still do MCCRESS?
If so, that 25 miler is going to be a real eye opener
During WWII those were called Conditioning hikes. When those started the Marines knew they were headed back to the combat zone.
Hey, I have a question. How many of you want to see those near and dear to you enlist in this military? Just wondering. I have urged someone close to me to stay the hell away from the Army (and that hurts), the AF (easy) and the Navy (easiest to advise against.) My advice to this red-blooded young man is that if he wants to go, go USMC. It seems to me that they may be the only branch with some balls left–but I may be wrong. That’s why I’m asking.
Bobo Jr. is far to young to contemplate his future, and I doubt that he will have many memories of me in uniform. I’m glad that I retired from the Infantry when I did, and I won’t actively encourage his enlistment in anything. The best that he could expect is some tacit support if he mentions the USCG.
All the balls in the world are useless if your airplanes don’t fly, your equipment won’t run and your Secretary would rather foster planned mediocrity through forced equality rather than supporting the best warriors with the best training and equipment.
When the real agenda of the DoD is to turn the military into a hangout for antisocial freaks, I would never advise anyone to join up.
But that will change.
I pray you’re right Ex, but for now it’s a brutal choice. I taught high school for a spell and it was always tough to council a young guy on going in. All you can do is be honest about what they’re facing.
It is always honorable to serve if done right, but in addition to the “hurry up and wait”, careerism and general bs, they now have to face a considerably less meritocratic military than the one I served in.
Nope. The USMC eats their young. They chew them up and spit them out when they make a little rank, so that they can save money by enlisting a younger E1 for the same job. I’ve seen it happen to a number of Marine friends and relatives in the last few years.
Air Force (my former branch) is a disaster of micromanagement and backstabbing. Spend a little time reading John Q. Public’s blog to see what I mean. It started in my own career field, and went on to infect the entire Air Force.
The only former sailor in my acquaintance is my father, who did the kiddie tour (3 years, straight out of high school) and got out long before he met my mother. As a result, I have nothing current on which to base an opinion.
The Army isn’t ideal, but from what I’ve seen (several family members currently serving, both officer and enlisted), it’s a good deal better than the USMC and USAF these days.
You should not comment on a subject you know nothing about. I am a US Marine. Retired US Marine. Been there done that. If you have not, been there done that it’s best you STFU.
I’ll go out on a limb and say they probably got chewed up and spit out because they weren’t putting up the effort or were faint at heart.
“Nope. The USMC eats their young. They chew them up and spit them out when they make a little rank, so that they can save money by enlisting a younger E1 for the same job. I’ve seen it happen to a number of Marine friends and relatives in the last few years.”
I’m not sure I understand. I was career Navy, but had several tours with the Marines as a Corpsman. OK, I admit that was eons ago, but I never knew of the Marines (or Navy) canning a good troop simply to make space for a new recruit in an attempt to save money. FWIW, I never knew of any canning of troops by those in their chain of command simply to save money. If so, it’s false economy. The cost to locate, recruit and train a newbee is substantial. It simply would not be cost effective. Now, I have know troops, both Navy and USMC, who were canned for cause. The cause? They were shitbirds.
My Son is pursuing a degree in Emergency Medicine under a military scholarship. He looks forward to serving, although the branch of his service is still undetermined. He is named after my Father, who earned two Silver Stars in combat. Service still matters, political winds will shift.
Must be nice to get Infantry on demand.
No IOBC either.
I have NEVER seen anyone re-class to Infantry in active duty. Must be nice. Expert in 3 months, not three years or starting at the lower levels and working your way up.
Infantry is a lifestyle, not a moonlight excursion.
Glad I am out.
And potentially taking a company before a platoon.
Nice.
Have fun, fellas.
I wonder when they will forward deploy her so she can become the first to get a CIB?
Its got to be in the works.
Meh, she’ll probably be like most infantry CO’s: rarely seen when shit needs to get done or at battalion blowing the BC.
This guy reclassed to Infantry on active duty.
http://www.benning.army.mil/common/leaders/Bio/pdf/CSM%20Guden.pdf
That would be the first I have ever seen on AD.
Signal wasn’t high speed enough for him.
Between her multiple attempts at Ranger school, undetermined amount of time in the pre-Ranger course, and now the latest iteration of IOAC, just how much time does she have before she’s pinning on major? I’m guessing that she’ll be in command just long enough for that top block OER, then off to staff and promotion to major.
In all fairness, she might make a decent IN Officer. Time will tell.
My point being, an IN Officer can usually step in and run operations in a sister branch or MOS. They do not have the technical experience, per se, but understand the leadership component.
The IN is another story. Branch detail usually works by doing CA time and then re-classing. Not the other way around. I mean, how are you going to command an IN Company with ZERO IN PL time? The SJWs forgot this one.
As far as the time in grade, she will be less than competitive than her peers when it comes to promotion in branch. It is my understanding that she was Aviation before? That should count but it will still be outside of branch. And those ROTC DMGs will be getting a strong look at 0-4.
Branch qual and branch performance are two separate things.
We had several branch detailed guys in my IOBC class. They were going to do their LT time as in the Infantry, then go to a CS or CSS OAC and spend the rest of their career in that branch. I’ve never come across an active component officer who started in CS or CSS and went to the Infantry. I’ve seen it in the National Guard, but I’ve seen a lot of screwy stuff in the NG.
My point exactly.
I believe that CPT Griest was an MP before. Without some experience as an IN LT she is professionally behind the curve in terms of experience with regard to her peers. But, nothing insurmountable if she spends time in an IN BDE/BN before taking a command to learn those things that she missed out on.
It will be interesting to see if there is pressure (as I think there will be) to put her in command sooner rather than later. My guess is that she will do fine as a CO CDR, after all most of the things that cause an unsuccessful command are branch non-specific. I wouldn’t be surprised if she is placed into an HHC or TOW company command as opposed to a normal line unit.
It is rare but not unheard of for Active Component (Regular Army) officers to branch transfer- it’s actually pretty common in the Reserve/National Guard. I served with a Navy and Air Force Academy grad a different times. I also know an Air Defender that transferred to Infantry. It’s done on a case by case basis. The branch commandant and the Army look at each candidate individually and make the decision based on what that Soldier has to offer the branch, and the likelihood that officer will succeed in the new branch. Griest is at a distinct disadvantage because her LT time was in the MPs, even assuming she was a platoon leader and probably a company XO, probably with a few deployments under her belt. However, because she is Ranger qualified, statistically she has a better chance of succeeding than a due course infantry officer without a Ranger tab. Ranger qualified officers are more likely to get rifle platoon time and company command earlier and stay in command longer, and most Infantry Battalion and virtually all Infantry Brigade commanders are Ranger qualified. There are infantry officers in light, airborne, and Stryker units that go to the Career Course without platoon leader time because they are not tabbed. Even though Infantry is arguably the Army’s premier branch, not all infantry officers are the best the Army has to offer. As one of the largest branches it gets a large share of the top performers, a huge share of the competent, average performers, and a proportionate (and therefore large) share of absolute dirtbags (with or without a tab). Dirtbags get a chance to command companies at the same rate as the competent and top performing officers- that’s often how the Army learns that they are dirtbags. So, while CPT Griest is in fact taking an infantry slot, and will presumably someday take a command slot that a male officer might otherwise take, she may actually turn out to be a better company commander than some, if not many of them. She might also turn out to be a dirtbag. The Army rolls… Read more »
The Navy Has officers Reclass all the time it’s usually Pilots that can’t quail anymore and some Officers jobs closing down. I know this is apples to oranges just wanted you to know that it happens all the time.
Possibly.
But paper is not practical application and knowledge based on experience.
You could argue that many IN Officers look better on paper than MD’s or JD’s, but lack the technical training, know how and experience.
But on the flip side, she knows what she is doing. I hope it works out but I have an odd feeling that she is becoming a “show piece” (already is) for what the SJW’s can accomplish.And that will piss a lot of folks who have made it from the ground up off.
Ranger school is the sin qua non of Army Infantry officers, especially in light, airborne, and Stryker units.
You cannot overstate how important a Ranger tab is to an infantry officers career. Many brigade commanders will not give LTs a platoon without a tab, when I was in the 82nd it was straight up policy that a non Ranger would not command a rifle company.
In today’s Army you are seeing the first generation in a while where combat experience is not ubiquitous; the first few LTs Without Combat Patches are becoming CPTs without Combat Patchs (or CIBs). It is entirely possible that Griest will get to a brigade where there are Infantry captains with no tab and no combat experience. If she has both, she will look better on paper, and she could actually be more prepared to command.
Possibly. Good point, though.
In a real IN world, no. Unless the demand outweighs the supply. There are still some “unwritten” standards.
But then again, I left service many years past. Old school, if you will.
Point is, command in the IN is predicated on command experience from the line/ground up. Branch transfers usually go out, not in. Enlisted is the same.
Tab aside, this is kind of like a professional MMA fighter. Are you a pro or expert after six months training within the field of Jiu-jitsu versus a person that has been doing it all their life? Good luck with that fight unless you are bringing the ass-kick.
She might be one hell of a Commander but in the realm of combat changes things. The intangibles, if you will with respect to the environment. Aviation, MP, Engineer, and IN are all different based on practicum and application. Tactics may be similar, but application is a whole other ballgame.
My only hope is that she does not become a badge collector. Not to mention 2+ years in school. HI hope she realizes the timeline. The ring is tough to beat but as I said earlier, those DMG’s are about to get a look.
Special Forces in….1…2….3….
Time will tell.
In SJW World standards are never “lowered”, they are “changed as circumstances in the world change.” Forward! To another Task Force Smith or Savo Island. You can be sure the children and grandchildren of Maybus won’t be anywhere near the coming catastrophes.
Or Bull Run. Or Little Bighorn. Or Kasserine Pass. Or Schweinfurt-Regensburg.
Especially Schweinfurt-Regensburg. Hundreds of lives sacrificed in the name of a flawed philosophy (in that case, that heavy bombers didn’t need fighter escort in an environment where air dominance hadn’t been achieved, and that strategic bombing alone could win the war), sixty B-17s lost with their 10-man crews, dozens more damaged beyond repair, and ZERO MEANINGFUL EFFECT ON TARGET.
Turns out the vaunted Billy Mitchell really was full of shit, but American airmen had to pay rivers of blood to prove it. We can only hope that this little flight of fancy won’t cost as much.
Was that “Black Tuesday”? BTW, I hear HBO is coming out with a new histori drama next year about the 7th Bomb Wing.
“Black Thursday”, actually. The second Schweinfurt raid by the 8th Air Force occurred on 14 October 1943 – which was a Thursday. That was the day on which nearly 80 aircraft were lost: 77 B-17s and 1 P-47.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Raid_on_Schweinfurt
Not really following you here.
None of the battles you mention were lost due to lowered standards. Little Bighorn and Savo Island (and arguably Task Force Smith) were failures due mainly to the hubris of the leadership. Kasserine Pass was due partly to bad tactical leadership and partly to inexperienced troops.
I will give you that the airpower theories of WWII were flawed, but I would point out that the aircrews were highly trained and the aircraft were technologically advanced for the time.
In other words, I don’t see how a list of military failures relevant to a discussion of women in the Infantry.
The point of the Schweinfurt-Regensburg analogy was that lives were lost by the hundreds in the name of a bullshit ideology that ignored common sense. Billy Mitchell and his acolytes (especially Hap Arnold) may not have advocated riflewomen, but they were every bit as fanatical as the SJWs. They ignored common sense, and American kids bled and died for their folly.
The point of all of the examples is that lack of preparedness cost lives on the battlefield. Failing to recognize that war is brutality is foolishness, all the previously stated examples stem from that.
Not really.
Mitchell was anything but a SJW; he was advocating the absolute destruction of Germany (and later Japan) from the air. Custer was killed in the process of trying to obliterate a village.
At Kasserine Pass and Savo Island we were simply out fought?
There were some flawed tactics and doctrine, but in none of these cases did ideology per se have anything to do with the outcome of the battle.
The only one that comes close to a SJW type ideology was Bull Run, and of course the ideology was freeing slaves.
I didn’t intend for the sentence about Kasserine and Savo to be a question- we were outfought in both instances.
Again, the analogy was not that Mitchell, Arnold, et al, were SJWs. Especially Arnold, who was an outspoken racist douche. The analogy is that they were *similar* to modern SJWs in their dogged adherence to a flawed ideology about how wars should be fought that flew in the face of common sense. The ideologies themselves are not that similar, and I never said they were. The similarity lies in both ideologies being based on a fantasy and pushed by leadership that didn’t care how unrealistic their ideology was.
BTW, despite the disagreement and misunderstanding, I’d like to thank you for not being a Larsist douche.
I try.
You missed Smaj’s primary point – which was that poor decisions that result in lower training and readiness standards end up costing blood and lives. The reason for those poor decisions is often political.
Kasserine Pass was an example of an unprepared, insufficiently trained force meeting one that was indeed prepared and better trained. Hubris was the reason for the poor decision here; at that point in World War II, the US Army simply wasn’t well enough trained to meet German forces. It was a few months later.
Virtually all of the engagements in Korea were the result of a poorly trained force (one that hand been on occupation duty for 2 years, was as a result ill-trained in tactical operations, and which also had equipment and maintenance issues) being thrown into battle unprepared – and meeting a trained force. Political and economic decisions (post World War II demob and return to peacetime economy) drove that.
Bull Run was arguably also an example of a poorly trained force meeting a (arguably) marginally-better trained one and getting a beating as a result. A perceived political need to “teach the Confederates a lesson” was IMO the driver here.
I agree that Salvo Island and Little Big Horn are IMO not particularly appropriate examples.
Schweinfurt/Regensburg is an appropriate example also, but for different reasons. There, tactics that had been proven ineffective were retained because of misguided political desires on the part of the AAF leadership (we must do this to prove that the “bomber will always get through” and can win wars by itself – and thus the AAF needs to be an independent service). History shows that the only case where that might possibly be true is in a general nuclear war. And even then, someone will need to occupy whatever is left.
There’s at least one tidbit of good news that I hadn’t seen before (don’t know how I missed it when reading that issue of Marine Times):
“However, Mabus was persuaded by Marine Corps leadership to allow male and female recruits to continue to train separately during boot camp.”
“The Marines did a very good job of showing … that the way it’s done now sets both men and women up for greater success,” he said on Feb. 2.”
No screaming eagle shit, Sherlock.
Aww, no coed gang showers? Come on, what could possibly go wrong with that?
CPT Kristen Griest, one of the first female Ranger grads is about to become the Army’s first infantry officer.
http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/careers/army/officer/2016/04/27/meet-armys-first-female-infantry-officer/83591066/
And unlike Green Thumb claims, people do reclass infantry on active duty. For instance many non-infantry SF officer candidates pick up 11A when they do their career course.
Do they?
I just saw my first above.
I would call that pretty rare.
As far as the SF angle, that is not what I am talking about.
Rare is a fare description.
I just read your statement as implying that it is something unheard of. As though she is setting a “special snowflake” precedent.
My apologies.
Interesting. Seems to me that a “fare description” is something more along the lines of, “The bus ticket to Berkeley costs $12.75. They only take cash.”
LMAO!!
Lars graduated from the Derek Zoolander School For Kids That Can’t Spell Good And Wanna Do Other Stuff Good Too.
Commissar don’t know me either!!!
When I was a young captain going to IOAC, the only OAC for SF captains was IOAC. And, they didn’t go to OAC until after they had completed the SFQC and been branched SF. If they bolo’d the Q, they went back to their branch and completed that branch specific OAC.
So, you’re partially correct, Lars. Some officers who are, technically not Infantry officers, attend IOAC, but they are exclusively 18A officers. Also, they don’t “pick up” an 11A MOS. They remain 18As.
Nice try, though.
The way it was in the 2000s was they had to go to the career course before going to the Q-Course. Many non-infantry officers went to the Infantry Captain Career course.
You don’t know me, Commissar.
Currently, prospective SF officers attend the SF-specific captains’ career course between selection and the Q course.
The SF specific career course is new. Makes sense that they added it.
Non infantry officers going to SF retain their branch until they complete the Q Course, if they don’t they get reassigned within their branch.
If you were IN before, you can still attend any combat arms OAC.
They go to the next available career course that they were eligible to attend. Often that was their branch. But very often it was the Infantry (now maneuver) course.
This is something I have direct knowledge of.
Commissar does NOT know me.
Nothing that Lars says is ever relevant. He just bangs away at the keyboard because he likes the sound it makes. He’s a typical liberal – the world is the way that he imagines it, whether it resembles reality or not.
Yep, Lar’s keyboard opinions remind me of the following quote:
“We’ve all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. Now,thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true.”
Except what I said was true.
Rebranching infantry is unusual but not unheard of. I spoke of cases for which I personally have direct knowledge.
You don’t know me, Commissar.
Except thats not what you said. You originally framed it as “many” or “often” now its “unusual but not unheard of”. Nice backtracking Lars. No wonder you get beat up like the fat kid in PE class.
When Commissar was in high school I bet the Jocks flushed him halfway to China every time he set foot in a rest or locker room.
Yep, I bet he received “Swirly’s” on a regular basis.
I don’t think they considered him worth the effort.
Pedantic bullshit. “Many” is more than a few and more than a few do.
“Often” is undefined in this context. But since it happens to several every single year I would say “often” is accurate as well. At any given time an officer somewhere is transferring or recently transferred to infantry.
You need to stop posting comments when you’re high, Poodle. You don’t make any sense.
Lars, despite your bullshit, you and the written English language have a tenuous relationship at best.
“Often” would be the opposite of “seldom” or “rarely.” “Several” is generally defined as “more than three but less than twelve,” since twelve is the accepted threshold for “dozen.”
How many junior officers (O-1 through O-3) does the regular Army have? I’m guessing the number is somewhere in the thousands. 3-12 per year out of even one thousand is barely one percent. If you think that meets the definition of “often,” then you’re the poster child for the failure of American public education.
I really do not see women in the military as a “liberal vs conservative” issue. While conservatives seem to overwhelmingly be the demographic that opposes the change the fact that it is a political divide is entirely artificial.
Women are Americans. Under the constitution all citizens are supposed to be treated under the law. This disparity has been an issue that needed to be addressed for some time. It was inevitable.
The answer is simple; set a genderless standard and those that qualify serve.
But for some reason it is a political debate.
If you want to make it political then try to get a 2/3 amendment stating that women are not equal under the law.
Best of luck in that.
*treated equal under the law.
Dumbass liberal shit, Lars. The conservatives are pro-defense and against the government wasting money. Things that alter those two subjects rub us the wrong way. Nature makes women different from men – national defense needs the best people in the best-suited positions. If women can’t perform the same physical tasks as men because of nature, why screw with the way things are to make accommodations for the women? So people like you who have opinions but are resistant to the facts can feel better about yourselves? Fuck you! This is not about equality, no one is saying that their votes should count less at the ballot box, you weasel.
I reported you…”Nature makes women different” is offensive.
You reported the blog owner to the blog owner? Seriously, Dave!
!)
Shhhh…no way he is sober right now, I figure he will ban himself.
(then we can take over)
PSSST. . . TOW. . . It’s Dave H, our resident master of sarcasm. . . 😉
I know. I should’ve probably added my own /sarc tag.
The standard is genderless.
It just so happens that the first 30 women to try and meet the standard have come up short.
You don’t know me, Commissar.
Mom, stop flirting with Lars.
Well, since this is the Marines we’re talking about, the fixation on weight to height ratio is not well thought-out. I don’t know this young woman’s height but I’ll use an average height, thus for the average height of 5’4″, the minimum weight is 110 and the maximum is 146 lbs for women Marines. The unhealthy fixation on weight is the real problem, because it assumes that if you are a 5’4″ female with a high muscle mass and low body fat ratio, you’re fat if you’re over the maximum weight by even a pound. You guys are always complaining about ‘being taped’, which means that if you have some serious neck muscles that are OUTSIDE the tape allowance, you’re fat. Since women generally have a lower muscle mass volume than men for the same height (5’4″ in this case) SHE may be quite fit at 150 (over the limit) but HE’ll still be able to outlift and outpace HER even if he’s 140 (well under the maximum). You really do have to train up to these things long before you go into the actual training regimen if you expect to last through it. Not knocking this Marine’s effort, but unless she spent a year ahead of the class start date, with an aim toward actually completing the course, she was not prepared for what she would face. Frankly, the burst of adrenaline you get when you have to dodge bullets is never in force when you’re going through a training program, either. Adrenaline does things like propel a slow runner to break a speed record and jump a fence to get away from a charging bull, or lift an extremely heavy weight in an emergency. The ‘extraordinary’ things you read about are the result of that adrenaline burst. This whole thing is just stupid. If Raymie Maybe really wants women to be part of this, they need to be training into it about a year ahead of the class start date and the weight requirement has to be ignored or changed to accommodate increased muscle mass in an adult… Read more »
“Not knocking this Marine’s effort, but unless she spent a year ahead of the class start date, with an aim toward actually completing the course, she was not prepared for what she would face.”
Not sure about this Marine officer, but the women who attempted Ranger School did EXACTLY that, as their sole job for six months, while their male counterparts had to do all their Ranger School prep on their own time, while fulfilling their normal duties.
Which begs the question of how they will physically hold up when all they’ve had to eat are MRE’s when they do eat, little to no sleep, have Saddam’s revenge, and dehydrated for an extended period of time.
That’s what I said, Animal: scant rations and no REAL rest, and whatever else goes with the real, in locus business in the field.
Precisely! So they make it through Ranger school, Infantry school, whatever. Big hairy deal. What happens when they have to actually function in a combat environment for an extended period of time? They have NO clue what they’re asking for. Not only that, but women do not have the bone density of men, and they will be injured far more quickly (and painfully and disfiguringly and permanently) than their male counterparts, even those of the same height, weight, build, and PT scores. That’s JUST from carrying a normal combat load-out for a normal combat tour, IF they don’t get themselves and/or their Soldiers/Marines killed first because they can’t hang.
Nine recycles is not the same as nine lives.
I should’ve added longer than Ranger school, plus the stress of combat.
I’ve heard that story too, but it is a little misleading.
I started to write a rebuttal, but this guy did a pretty good job of it , and he has more credibility:
http://rhinoden.rangerup.com/the-problem-with-every-dumb-ranger-school-conspiracy-theory-peer-reviews/
In the end it is a moot point about either the Ranger tab or completing IOC. I didn’t go to Ranger school, but I did complete IOC. I also fought in Iraq as an infantry officer. With good chow halls from Haliburton and living in cans with haji A/C I still lost almost 40lbs in 4 months before I got hurt and medevac’d. One of the other officer’s loss almost 100lbs in his 7 months. Mine was a combination of stress and a hellacious parasite I suffered from for a couple of years after I got back. My point is if the women can’t complete IOC under ideal conditions what level are they going to perform at under combat conditions?
The dude that lost 100 pounds in 7 months must have been one big muldoon to begin with.
I lost 20 or so pounds each time I was in Iraq myself. No doubt that stress, heat, and constant activity combined with body armor (and no beer) will drop the pounds pretty quick.
I don’t think there is any question that an officer that can’t complete IOC or IBOLC shouldn’t serve in the infantry.
Is your point that women simply graduating from qualifying courses does not necessarily mean that they will succeed in operational assignments?
I agree, but I respectfully submit that it holds true of men now.
The question is, if the course certifies you to be an infantry officer, are you qualified to serve in that capacity?
If it does, then shouldn’t women who pass it be allowed to serve, just like men?
If it doesn’t, then set the new, higher standard for qualification, and hold men to it as well.
Completely agree with you about increasing the standards across the board. I fear we’re in danger of running into an enemy that is well schooled in small unit infantry skills and are mentally and physically hardened and capable of committing great acts of violence and getting our assess handed to us. Marksmanship, land nav, and physical endurance standards have been declining for years. So yeah, we better go back to being able to shoot, move and communicate and training our trigger pullers to be hard as woodpecker lips before the next generation pays for it.
And you’re right about the guy that lost close to 100lbs. He played defensive tackle in college.
There are a few studies out there that indicate the services are looking at the wrong aspects of weigh and body fat. The height/weight tables and BMI are focused more on appearance than performance.
As a result, we encourage troops to be thin, but they don’t have the strength, power, or muscular endurance to function in the long term.
What we should be looking at is lean muscle mass, and not worry about body fat until it becomes unhealthy. In other words, you would be better off with a slightly fat person muscle than a lean person with low musculature.
Can’t speak for the other services, but the Army’s height/weight standards have been focused on appearance for at least, oh, the last roughly 35+ years (and probably longer). Hopefully you’re not just figuring that out.
No- as a guy who was taped twice a year for 22 years, I have some passionate opinions about the height/weight tables.
My point is that the tables are based entirely on appearance, not on performance. We know that ground combat requires a high level of general fitness but also strength and power. Smaller stature Soldiers who have neither of these will pass ht/at screening with no problem. Larger, stronger Soldiers who are still fit are better prepared for combat, but they will be on the edges of the screening if not over.
The Marines realized this a few years back and adjusted (horrors) their standards to allow for bulkier (more lean muscle mass, not fat) Marines. In fact, they want to get away from the tape test altogether
Why is the tape test required in the first place?
I’m asking because none of this occurred during the Vietnam War. If you look at photos of many of the men from then, they were skinny with no real defined muscle mass. Men the same age now are somewhat bulkier because they have access to weight training that wasn’t popular back then. I’d rather see a man with solid muscles than some pale, flabby chowhound who sneaks past the ‘inches’ barrier, because one is fit and the other is not.
Based on his previous arguments and how he backed them up, I’m guessing he thought he overheard one half of a phone conversation about something like this. Thus, in the lars’verse, it happens all the time, Lars is right, actual infantrymen like yourself are wrong, Lars is a genius, and everybody who doesn’t kneel before the intellectual pillar of Lars is an untermensch.
Lars, I’ll be glad when you finish gathering research for your little school paper. You are probably the worst spokes”person” for the liberal cause that has ever existed. Even if you had good points to make you are such a f*cking a*shole that nobody listens to anything you say. It’s been so long since I called someone a f*cking a*shole that I don’t even remember when it was, but that is exactly what you are. Forget your arrogance, your pretentious condescending manner, your overly inflated self image of intelligence in the end it boils to down to the fact you are just a f*cking a*shole.
Because none of you listen does not mean “nobody” listens.
None of you are relevant to my life in any way.
None of us are relevant to YOUR LITTLE LIFE?
Then why the bloody fucking hell are you here, Poodle?
If we are not relevant, why do you keep showing up? Can’t get attention or sex from any of the underclasswomen???
Lars can’t even get sex from his hand.
That is definitely worth a prolonged ‘SNRRRKK’.
Yeah, when Rosie and her 5 sisters won’t even “make you happy” . . . you’re in a world of hurt. (smile)
Then why the hell do you keep coming back here, dickhead? You get your ass handed to you in every debate, often walk back your claims, occasionally lie about having ever made them, and generally make a drama queen of yourself. Yet despite your frequent declarations that you are “done” with TAH, you continue to show your ass, and your complete lack of integrity, around here.
LOL! We’re not relevant in your life, but you keep coming back for more verbal ass kicking. You remind me of the “Hunter”
LARS was excited about his new rifle. So, he went bear hunting.
He spotted a small brown bear and shot it. There was then a tap on his shoulder, and he turned round to see a big black bear.
The black bear said “You’ve got two choices. I either maul you to death or we have sex. “Lars decided to bend over. Even though he felt sore for two weeks, Lars soon recovered and vowed revenge.
He headed out on another trip where he found the black bear and shot it. There was another tap on his shoulder. This time a huge grizzly bear stood right next to him. The grizzly said “That was a huge mistake, Lars. You’ve got two choices. Either I maul you to death or we’ll have rough sex. “Again, Lars thought it was better to comply. Although he survived, it would take several months before Lars finally recovered.
Outraged he headed back to the woods, managed to track down the grizzly and shot it. He felt sweet revenge, but then there was a tap on his shoulder. He turned around to find a giant polar bear standing there. The polar bear said “Admit it, Lars, you don’t come here for the hunting, do you?”
With that and a gigglesnort, I’m off to the Land of Nod.
Nope. Lars ain’t coming here for the hunting. Please correct my grammar Lars and how much I truly despise you these days.
ok…so she is the 30th woman to give it a shot and made it the farthest of all of them at a whopping 11 days? Are these woman not training correctly or just not suited for something that they were talked into to make a point? It will be 2054 before a female graduates or until Hillary becomes President and mandates the Marines look like America and have 50% Female Infantry Officers regardless of how many they get killed along the way.
As for Greist, I have heard from someone very close to the story that she was…helped quite a bit along the way and the instructors were told in no uncertain terms that a female would pass at the expense of their careers.
‘Not suited’ is the most likely answer. The physical strength and endurance required to make it through this is lacking, unless I’m mistaken. I don’t think that is being tested ahead of time.
That, and you have to really want it to win it.
Hit report by accident. Sorry.
I report her all the time. I just get that stupid “We will look into it” message. Still trying to figure out who “We” is.
I think that Hobo guy is behind all this anyway. The Hillbilly in the bunker is just a figure head.
You are such a flirt. Good to know that you care, Dave Hardin.
Not suited is what I thought, too. I’m wondering what this is proving. Putting woman into a course they can’t complete just to prove a point hurts future efforts of woman, if they are out there, who can do it. When they do they will be looked at the same as affirmative action grads.
I’ve heard just the opposite from people close to the Ranger school.
But, if you are right, this means that RIs are more worried about their careers than upholding the integrity of the Ranger tab. I wonder how many sons of generals and other VIPs really earned their tabs over the years.
RIs are generally accepted to be some of the best and most technically and tactically proficient NCOs in the Army. If they are corrupt, then the NCO in general must really be in trouble. Sad.
Unless the spotlight is on them.
The October Revolution would have failed if only the telephone operators would have stayed home, but people have families to feed so they go to work and do the bosses bidding.
I keep hoping that some FBI agents will resign when her cankleness inevitably beats the rap, but I doubt that it happens.
What did Gomer Pyle use to say?
“Surprise, Surprise, Surprise!!
I tell people there’s a simple litmus test to determine whether or not women should be allowed into combat arms slots. It is:
Do you advocate the forced integration of the NFL, NHL, and all professional sports teams so that they men and women are represented proportionally to their percentage of the population? Do you advocate the elimination of all “men’s” or “women’s” sports programs in College in favor of a generic “sports” program which is open to all?
If you don’t, you are telling me that you consider the lives of the military to be less important than the outcome of income producing commercial and college sports events.
After all, combat-arms specialties are actually “ultimate sport events”, AREN’T THEY? After all…failure in these events results in serious injury, death, or the failure of your team to accomplish the mission…which if you’ve forgotten is “WINNING”.
They usually shut the hell up after that.
HEAR, HEAR!!
Let’s see Rhonda Rousey fight Chuck Liddell. Any takers? How ’bout you, Lars? Don’t you think that would be a perfectly even match? After all, she demolished the annoying guido pussies of “Entourage” in a scripted scene, so clearly she should have no problem with that one.
There is actual video of her sparring with a much larger pro fighter guy, he tosses her around without too much trouble. He was going maybe 40% against her.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=o9xjs2fWJEs
40% you say? He wasn’t even breaking a sweat. Poor little Rousey, though (and I can’t stand that egotistical bitch) was red-faced, huffing & puffing, and getting tossed around like one of my daughter’s toys. Imagine if he actually threw a punch! She’d wake up sometime next month.
One wonders why Mousassi even bothered to do it.
Meh-I was spitballing.
But yes, the larger point remains, if she ever woke up to there would be no denying the reality of what happened to her.. The SJWs are deluded about reality, but where the rubber meets the road we can’t afford those delusions.
So tell me, why didn’t she just knee him in the nuts?
Oh, that’s right! I forgot: no eye-gouging, no pinching and no crotch grabs. My bad.
Rousey did take him down at least once. I don’t think he fell down. Give her some credit. Stop being such divas.
She didn’t knee him in the nuts because then he would have stopped treating her with kid gloves and she knew what would happen then.
Oh yeah, she did manage to get some leverage and get him off his feet once, but he immediately reversed it,. Seriously?!? He whooped her ass like nobody’s business-it was embarrassing.
Wow that was embarrassing. Look at how winded she is and she was really trying hard. It’s like a little kid being matched up with an adult. The strength difference is so large this should be shown whenever delusionals claim in physically demanding affairs women can pull the same weight.
I’m not a big fan of hers as she seems to have “gone hollywood” and like the limelight just a little too much but if people are throwing money at you, you grab it as it is not going to last. That guy could have beat her down in no time flat. Her getting him in a hold and his just lifting her off the ground proves it.
So Rousey going up against something considerably larger than she is would be considered an even match? Have you considered how it might have turned out if Mousassi had been the smaller of the two, OR the same size as Rousey? And are you unwilling to give her even a tiny smidge of credit for going up against someone considerably bigger than she is?
I agree that Rousey is an egotistical snot and picked on someone bigger than she is, but what does any of this have to do with the subject at hand, which is women in combat/infantry training?
Yeah, combat is not about an “even match” either. Roussey is (or at least up until recently was) “the greatest female fighter ever”, Mousassi showed how little that meant. In a fight to the death you don’t get credit for being willing to “go up against someone larger” and not get killed because of it.
Bingo. Last time I checked, the average height for US women was roughly 5′ 4″.
The average height for US males was roughly 5′ 9″. The average weight difference was proportionally larger, if I recall correctly.
Gee, what a surprise. In virtually every species of mammal, the male of the species is larger and stronger than the female. Maybe that’s why every actual human society (Amazons have never been historically documented as a society) has used nearly exclusively males as warriors until recently. Why? Because males are in general bigger, stronger, and can take more physical abuse at the hands of other males and survive than can females.
Sure, but the minimum standard is 5’0″
So, what if you had a male join the army at 5’0″ and 100 pounds, and a female that joined at 5’10” and 150?
The male is joining the infantry because although he’s never played a sport or even did well in school, his Call of Duty game time gave him a pretty good idea of what to expect.
The female was a multi sport athlete in high school, and although her job as a firefighter is rewarding, she wants the college money and he infantry seems to offer the same comradery, level of service, and challenges?
Who would you rather have?
The male. He can build more muscle mass and has a higher testosterone level thus is more naturally aggressive.
In defense of Red-d’s argument, oddly enough, I would take whoever was better at the position.
Especially and particularly for a key task or critical point.
Not necessarily physical, mental or spiritual sense either.
But who could bring what I needed to the table and deliver.
Sometimes its speed or intelligence, and conversely, stupidity, as well as flexibly, experience, coolness under pressure, the ability to make you laugh, channeled and controlled dishonesty, meanness,language ability, sensitivity or just plain guts.
Sex/gender aside.
That is Infantry.
And keep in mind, a good senior NCO or Officer possess all of those traits, right or wrong, or is willing to bring them to the forefront on demand to complete the mission.
I should be clearer. The male if the NCO does his job. If the guy is a slacker and does not perform then he should be discharged. If the male gains the proper attitude then he will end up stronger than the female.
Thank you. I accept your thoughtful response.
However, I will repeat that in a real-time stressful spot, which combat IS and Rousey was NOT facing, adrenaline will kick in to trigger the ‘fight or flight’ response and people can do extraordinary things that they could never do if they were not facing a dire threat.
Combat is a dire threat environment. MMA fighting really is not.
Oh, for Pete’s sake – warfare throughout history has been about breeding rights and territory, not about who was bigger than who else. If it were just about size, then in gladiatorial events, the Retiarius – the little guy with the fishing net and the trident – would never have been able to beat the bigger guys, such as the Murmillon. And since the Romans were notorious gamblers, note that the Retiarius did not always win. And don’t say those were staged. They were death matches, unlike today’s more mild punching and eye-gouging matches. Here’s a little bit on the ‘little guy’. History and Origins of the Retiarii The Romans enjoyed the spectacle of watching the fighting styles of their defeated enemies. As a weapon, the trident was prized for its long reach and ability to trap other long-weapons between prongs to disarm their wielder. The trident was used as a weapon by the Egyptians and in some regions in Asia. However the trident was also well known as s symbol and weapon of Neptune, the God of the Sea. His famous opponent, the Secutor (meaning ‘the one following’), symbolised Vulcan the God of Fire, because fire always pursues.. A fight symbolising the opposites of fire and water. Definition of a Retiarii – Weapons, Armor, Fighting Styles and Opponents What type of gladiator was a Retiarii? What weapons and armor did they use? What was their style of combat? And what type of gladiator was matched as their opponent? Definition: A Retiarius (pl. Retiarii meaning “net-man” or “net-fighter”) was a Roman gladiator who fought with equipment styled on that of a fisherman The Retiarius (Retiarii) were lightly armored so they had the advantage of agility, mobility and speed. Unlike other gladiators, except the similar Laquerarii, they wore no helmets and had no form of anonymity – there faces were on view to everyone Opponent: This type of gladiator fought with the heavily armed gladiators such as the secutor or a mirmillo The Secutores or Murmillones wore a helmet with a stylized fish on the crest (the mormylos or sea fish)… Read more »
It is true that a smaller, skilled warrior can sometimes prevail in a one-on-one fight. That is, however, not the most common outcome – particularly if the two are roughly equally skilled. That’s why professional fighting sports generally have things called “weight classes”.
Regardless of the reason for war, throughout history it has been males doing the overwhelming preponderance of the fighting. There are three good reasons for that.
Those reasons are called “inherently bigger”, “inherently stronger”, and “inherently greater endurance”. As a group, males are all of the above when compared to females. (The “inherently stronger” and “inherently greater endurance” advantages generally also hold for males when comparably-sized individuals of different genders are compared; men have generally a higher fraction of muscle mass and greater cardiovascular endurance than comparably-sized women.) The combination yields “better able to withstand abuse and survive” as well as “better able to kill the enemy in close combat”.
The past hundred years has not changed the fact that ground combat is nasty, brutish, and intensely physical. Neither has the last 100 years invalidated millions of years of human evolution.
Women are well suited to perform most military jobs. In a few, however, virtually any woman is at a gross physical disadvantage when compared to even a relatively average male. And in ground combat, “gross physical disadvantage” often translates into “comes home in a box” – often accompanied by other unit members killed alongside them.
Inherently bigger? Audie Murphy was about my size. He was rejected by the Marines because he was TOO SMALL.
C’mon, Hondo! It’s temperament, not size, that counts.
Take off the feminist-tinted lenses, Ex-PH2. They’re affecting your reading, as you obviously missed the “as a group” phrase in the comment above.
That said: due to basic biology Audie Murphy likely had 20% better cardiovascular endurance and far greater physical strength than you did. Basic biology virtually guarantees that, as males typically have about 20% greater cardiovascular capacity and a much higher muscle mass percentage than comparably sized females.
Oh, please! Females of all mammalian species have always chosen males larger than they are for reproduction. I definitely do not want someone who is two inches shorter than I am, so that immediately disqualifies Dave Hardin, who is a rancorous midget, and IDC SARC, who barely comes up to my knees.
The late Napoleon Bonaparte might disagree with you.
Napoleon’s personality was bigger than he was. And Josephine was shorter than he was, besides which, he had that hat.
I’m sure IDC SARC would wear whatever hat (or anything else) you like.
100 men go off to war and 20 come back. They bring more women with them to add to the numbers they left behind. More females, more breeding rights. Add expanded territory and there’s plenty of stuff to go around.
Breeding rights and turf, Hondo.
Irrelevant. Send 100 women and I’d wager none would come back. They’d all end up dead or enslaved.
It’s about military effectiveness – plain and simple.
‘dead or enslaved’ – if they’re trained properly, why should there be a 100% decimation? You’re making a false assumption about women, that we automatically cave in and say ‘please don’t hurt me’ if someone points a gun at us.
That is not one bit true, and you know it.
If they face an all-male force capable of inflicting 80% casualties on an all-male unit, that means the enemy was well-trained also. Under those conditions, yes – odds are good that they’ll all die or be enslaved.
Ground combat doesn’t give a damn about gender. It places a premium on two things: training and physical ability. If training is comparable, the 20% difference in endurance and the 30+% difference in muscle mass comes into play.
That is enough of an advantage to turn what was a Pyrrhic victory (under the male-on-male scenario) into a no-survivors debacle under the male-on-female scenario under the same conditions.
No amount of wishful thinking is going to overcome millions of years of human evolution. That simply ain’t gonna happen.
Like I said, Audie Murphy wasn’t a lot BIGGER than I am.
So what if the enemy also uses women in combat? You don’t really know who is shooting at you, and one of the nastiest VC was a woman the troops labeled the Apache. She was a vicious beast.
Most of our enemies use military effectiveness vice SJW theories when developing combat forces. They won’t be using women as ground combat soldiers unless they’re desperate as hell.
The vast majority of VC were male. by the way – even though after TET the VC were indeed pretty well “tapped-out”, manpower-wise. Further, being vicious towards captured enemy in a rear-area or base-camp situation tells you precisely nada about how well an individual can perform in ground combat.
Ex, Audie Murphy wasn’t a large man, but he had a good deal more muscle mass than a woman of comparable size. I need only refer to the incident in which his friend PFC Lattie Tipton (given the pseudonym “Brandon” in the book) was killed. Murphy went apeshit on the gun crew that killed him, picked up their MG-42 (25 1/2 pounds empty) and an assload of belted 7.92 to keep that heavy bitch fed, and proceeded to slaughter the rest of the German platoon to the last man, while routing two more with heavy casualties. He was found sitting on a mountain of brass surrounded by mangled kraut corpses, mourning his buddy. My M1 Garand weighs 11 1/2 pounds loaded. I have taught several females to shoot with my M1, and have seen other M1s shot by females, but I have yet to find a woman who wants to keep it off the bench and shoot it freehand.
As for The Apache, she didn’t operate alone. She commanded a guerilla band of at least a dozen men. She was the brains of the operation, conducted the torture herself, and was an all-around psychotic cunt who would probably have been a serial killer targeting small children had it not been for the war. But her men conducted the actual grabs. She went to town on her victims with a blade once they were already tied up.
You just made my point about adrenaline, TOW. It triggers you to do things you might not be able to do otherwise.
No, the Apache didn’t work alone. But when Carlos Hathcock shot her, he picked her out because she had to squat to urinate. Otherwise, she blended right in with the men in her group.
Gladitorial contests are a simalcrum of combat, not actual combat itself. Generally speaking there was nowhere for the Murmillons (Murmilli?-eh, whatever) to hide and spring upon the unsuspecting Retiarius and so use his superior size and strength to his advantage-that’s not necessarily true of combat. And I see quite a bit about the weapons of the Retiarius, but not so much about his opponent, obviously an armed opponent has an advantage against an unarmed one, but that’s also not necessarily true in combat.
As to “breeding rights” Sociobiology (Evolutionary Psychology) has some interesting things to say about that; first DNA studies have shown that over human history about twice as many females as males have been able to reproduce
http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/05/the-missing-men-in-your-family-tree/?_r=0
That’s at least in part due to greater selectiveness on the part of females (who, after all, overwhelmingly control access to sex-recognizing the reality of slavery and rape throughout history), but also due to the fact that most societies have always recognized that “sperm is cheap, and eggs are expensive”, so while you can sustain your in-group with relatively few males (meaning that males are generally considered more expendable), the same cannot be said of a group with relatively few females. Add in that males are generally more physically fit for the dangerous tasks that most societies have had to face and it’s off to face that danger they go. And the Sociobiologists would argue that male and female behavioral traits have evolved in some ways in response to that. Believe that or don’t, as you like, but it’s at least a coherent theory about how and why gender roles have evolved over time.
Sorry about that. I was making a point about the difference in size between the two types of gladiators, and didn’t want to take up a lot of room with it. The Murmillones had the gladius, a big heavy shield, more armor than than the Retiarius, and were encumbered with a massive helmet and a longer trident with a smaller fork to it.
It wasn’t actual combat, no, but it was a death match, even so. Most of these people were prisoners taken off the battlefield.
Ex-PH2: You posted “… warfare throughout history has been about breeding rights.”
Has IDC SARC been made aware of this?
No. And don’t tell him.
Come on, Lars! You’ve been called out! Tell me how wrong I am. I just dare ya.
Aaaand more crickets from Lars the Limp-Dicked. Hey, maybe he’s finally keeping his many oft-broken promises to go away and not come back.
Can I say, “I told you so!” yet?
You can indeed. However, the SJW crowd will ignore that – just like they ignore reality 24/7/365 concerning this and the other stupid ideas that are part of their agenda.
I don’t think I’m venturing far from the shores of reality with this statement. The standards WILL be lowered at some time. A liberal in a position to make the decision (POTUS ?) will declare that the previous standards have been found ‘unrealistic in the current warfare environment in which the United States finds herself’ or some such gibberish. The SJW twinks will applaud, wear tie-tied shirts and practice their yoga in celebration. After which they will return to Mommy’s basement. The liberal twinks will feel vindicated, until the reality of the changes reveal the disastrous consequences. I sincerely pray this is not the case, but I feel it will be. Sadness if this is the outcome. Sadness, but some cannot accept that the genders are not interchangeable in some situations. Parts are not necessarily parts. Sadness, true sadness.
Sadly, I believe you are correct.
Screw the standards. Set that aside.
If the worst comes to pass, and women volunteer for those positions, knowing full well what they are facing, (which might be certain death, in fact) do you think they should NOT be properly trained and pushed beyond what they think they can do?
If you don’t understand that an implacable foe only wishes you dead, do you really think some phony standards have anything to do with this? Because I don’t.
It is far more important to ensure that women in all the service branches have the same levels of training as men, because they have been and will continue to be in combat zones in the future, whether they are in combat actual or not.
“It is far more important to ensure that women in all the service branches have the same levels of training as men, because they have been and will continue to be in combat zones in the future, whether they are in combat actual or not.”
That’s a good goal, but the reality is that DOD is (and has been) working under huge budget cuts. They have to focus their combat training dollars on the ones that we KNOW will be in combat.
Bingo. It’s simply a question of military effectiveness and best use of available resources.
DoD’s budget is a zero-sum game. Whatever is wasted in p!ss-poorly designed weapons systems (F-35, anyone?) and in furtherance of SJW wet dreams can’t be spent on stuff that really matters to national defense – like readiness, training, and facilities.
Spending an inordinate amount of time and effort (and thus $$$) to find and train that one woman in 50 or 100 who can “hang” in a combat arms specialty to satisfy some SJW’s misguided notions of “equality” is just plain stupid. The time, effort, and money spent to attempt to train (and wash out) the other 49+ who fail could have easily trained the same number of men – the vast majority of whom could physically “cut the mustard”.
Men and women are physically different, with different physical “ceilings” and different sets of physical abilities. Anyone who doesn’t recognize this is denying reality.
The courts have in the past given the military great leeway in assigning personnel based on solely military utility, even when that excluded groups from certain occupations. That has not yet changed. What has changed is that now DoD leadership places a higher priority on satisfying idiotic SJWs than it does on defending the nation.
We will pay for this idiocy in blood in the future – just like we did in the early phases of the Korean War. Or, more precisely, our descendants will pay in blood.
His is a great narrative, but it didn’t really happen that way.
The Army put out an announcement, and some women volunteers, as did a lot of men.
Some of those who volunteered actually showed up, and they went the course same as the hundreds of men.
BTW, although the typical Ranger course has about 250 seats, hundreds more show up to try, knowing that roughly 50% of the dudes in front of them will fail one of the RPA events (usually push-ups).
Those that made it through made it through. The cost was MREs (2 a day) and blank ammo.
The males that attended wer mostly infantry, but there were soldiers from most of the other 17 branches, as well as other services and nations.
There have been AG clerks, cooks, and even chaplains that went to Ranger school.
In terms of bang for the buck, if the skills were that important, the Army would come up with a more efficient course (over 50% failure in the aggregate). What the course really does is create a leader that knows a lot about small unit dynamic in austere conditions.
As far as the Maneuver a Captains Career Course, it has been open to women for years, as well as officers from many branches and internationals
Work on your reading comprehension a bit, Reddevil. Nowhere above was I referring to Ranger School; that is clear if you bother to read the comment without assuming that frame of reference.
Focusing the US military on other than military effectiveness for political reasons has bitten this country in the butt a number of times. It led us into World War II damn near totally unprepared. It led to the near-debacle of the early Korean War (due to a political decision on the Truman Administration’s part to devote insufficient resources to US national defense from 1946-1950, then use the few forces we did have for occupation duty). It damn near led to disaster during the Cold War (we’d have lost World War III in Europe had it occurred in the late 1970s or early 1980s before Reagan’s build-up took effect). Clintoon’s oversized “Peace Dividend” cutbacks, coupled with stupid foreign policy decisions, in the 1990s led directly to 9/11.
The same basic reason led to all of those: insufficient resources devoted to national defense because “the resources were needed for other things”, coupled with some degree of using the military for other than its primary role of national defense.
We’re now cutting back troop levels even further than after Vietnam – to levels not seen since before freaking World War II, if this Administration has its way. At the same time, we’re squandering a huge chunk of what few resources remain on poorly-designed weapons systems programs that will not work worth a damn and chasing SJW objectives that both eat resources and detract from readiness.
Mark my words: one day, we will fight an enemy that is competent, determined, well equipped, and well trained – just like we did early in World War II and Korea. We will then likely pay dearly in blood for these latest inane policies. And it may well happen on your watch, should you continue your career long enough. China won’t be content to play “second fiddle” forever.
Out.
Exactly. Teach the trigger pullers to shoot, move and communicate and make them hard as woodpecker lips. The Marine Corps made a living off of it in every war we’ve fought in since 1775. I can’t speak for the other services because I wasn’t in them. I just know what’s worked for the Marine Corps.
Workmon clarity in your writing, Hondo.
I don’t disagree with your points, but they are a red herring- none of it has anything to do with opening infantry and armor to fully qualified women.
If we hold women to the same standards in accessions and training, we will be fine.
Now, a whole other point is that our standards are too low as it is. We allow all sorts of waivers for physical, cognitive, and moral issues.
The infantry standards are ridiculously low. There are currently no higher physical standards for recruiting infantrymen than for, say, cooks.
I have never seen one person, to include the offspring of “brass” or foreign royalty, get such a free ride. Hell, we had an Italian national get his balled smoked all the time because there was no literal translation for a few words in the Creed. One recycle and he had the English-Italian Dictionary beside his Ranger Handbook. Keep in mind, this was back in the days of hazing and tobacco.
He made it. Group pain is a bitch. Squeaky wheel gets the oil. He learned; as did we.
As I said earlier, I am an old Infantryman. But two “no-go’s” equaled back to your unit.
Bummer.
Especially a non-CA student.
Mighty strange things can happen when the power of the “man” is behind you.
But now, its time to perform and “get it on”.
As an old , burnt and beat up SGM told me long ago as an a young man, “earning the Tab is easy (as we have seen), but now you must live up to it”.
The recycle policy is (and has been for several years) that you can recycle a phase for peers, patrols, or spot reports one time each- theoretically, you can therefore do a phase 4 times and progress.
If you fail for the same reason twice, it is a Day Zero recycle- back to RAP week. Very very few students do this after the Mountain phase.
In other words, uncommon but not unprecedented.
http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/careers/army/2015/09/18/ranger-school-many-do-overs-rare-not-unprecedented/72419032/
Never saw it.
We were sent packing. Especially the enlisted.
No train up time, either.
But hey, its a rarity.
Big Army has do what it takes to make them look good.
Might as well do away with the recycle rule all together. Just hang out till you make it.
That’s my point. I have previously advocated on this blog that women SHOULD be given the OPPORTUNITY to access the same training as their male counterparts. However, under NO circumstances should standards be waived to pacify the SJW twinks. Actually, I don’t believe the women would even want the standards to be any different from those of men. Speaking only for myself, as a man, I would not want to know I was given a pass for any reason. I’m thinking the vast majority of troopers of both genders feel the same way. Peace out …
Serious women will not want the standards to be any different. They want to compete and succeed or fail under the same circumstances as everyone else. The loudest making the argument of woman in the infantry are the ones that will never serve and have no intention of serving. This is a riff on the “ok for thee but not for me” horseshit.
And none of them winking and applauding will have the slightest inclination to join the military.
None will have the slightest inclination to join the military – absolutely spot on, Bobo.
The appeasement has to stop.
Don’t worry, the Cpt won’t be allowed to fail. So she WON’T be placed in command of a light Inf company. My money says she gets a HHC or a staff job.
Or PR.
Well, no MCCC captain goes straight to command. Most- just about all- do a year or more in a staff position
Some do, actually.
The USMC, as a whole, is a “rifle first” mentality.
But the rest are in a “train up/right seat-left seat” ride. Or so I saw in my limited exposure.
Different mentality all together albeit a similar methodological pattern.
Hence the Army looking so weak.
I did as a 1st Lt. It just depends on the needs of the Marine Corps.