and whether you agree with it or not, here's the best commentary I've seen on it yet.
QuoteWomen are now being accepted to combat MOS. What's your opinion about it? IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOUR OPINION IS.
Your personal opinion, mine, anyone else's has been invalidated by history.
The decision has been made and there is no coming back from that. So stop complaining about it like a bunch of teenagers whining why the next installment of twilight has not come out yet and do the only meaningful that you can do. Make sure that the standard doesn't drop.
Make sure that those women that will inevitably come to an infantry unit or armor unit whatever get integrated without the standard getting compromised.
There are men out there in infantry units (and there have always been men like them) that don't belong in an infantry unit, guess what? The unit flushes them out, or the unit shapes them up.
Not everyone is meant for every job in the Army, but when you are in doubt revert to the standard. What are the mission requirements? What do we need to enable the mission?
Also, the women attempting to get assigned to a combat unit will not be the unmotivated "oh man not now" type. They will be athletic and motivated to succeed.
And with those type of people you can work with. You can train them, you can teach them to be as hard as you are, you can pass your experiences to them, you can teach them how to move and how to kill, and you can make them a part of the team.
We need to be hard on the standard, we don't have to be hard on the gender. In a way this whole arguing is as stupid as the integration of African Americans in the Armed forces. It doesn't matter what the color of your skin is, what is your creed, what is your religion and yes that includes Muslims.
There are only two things that matter: are you willing, and are you able? Are you willing to put yourself on the line, to kill and be killed to protect this country? Are you are able to run as fast, to carry as much weight as needed for a mission?
Set yourself and your units up for success. It doesn't matter if you're a clerk company or an infantry unit. Work with every soldier you have, be male or female and never compromise the standard. That's what leaders do.
Quote from: bayonetbrant on December 05, 2015, 12:16:30 AM
QuoteIt doesn't matter what the color of your skin is, what is your creed, what is your religion and yes that includes Muslims.
There are only two things that matter: are you willing, and are you able? Are you willing to put yourself on the line, to kill and be killed to protect this country? Are you are able to run as fast, to carry as much weight as needed for a mission?
I humble disagree on the Muslim creed ...in this times (see San Bernadino, and older events)
(in the time when the cold war was as hot as it got last century, would you have let a self declared 'i am a low-key-communist', an immigrate from the SovietUnion do a job at NORAD or on a boomer?) its like willingly building a spare part in a commercial airliner, that has a certain fatal rate of failure which is knowingly much higher then a spare part build from other manufacturers.
Yes, not all item of that manufacturers fail in the typical lifetime of that plane in question, maybe only 1:1000 or 1:10 000 but some will
Also the reliability of those spare parts are change with -let's call it- (global political) harsher environment. So the failure rate can dramatically rise to 1:100 or worse.
Of course the spare part of all other manufacturers are not immune, but the failere rate is several order of magnitudes! lower, and keep stable in the worsening conflicts in the beginning of the 21st century
So which plane would you board as a tourist?
Sorry Brant, I don't think this commentary is good at all. It completely ignores the actual problem, which is that no matter how mature we leaders are, no matter how motivated the females who join our ranks, no matter how strong our commitment to 'the standard,' we are continuing to push complicated emotional and physical problems down to the lowest level of leadership (E5 team leader/TC, 2LT platoon leader), who, incidentally, are the least well-equipped to handle them. Regardless of how smoothly the integration goes (and the artificially short timeline imposed by the SecDef militates against a smoothe transition), our combat formations are going to come out the other side less efficient and less lethal. The only question is how much less.
I know I'm out of step with the PC view of this in our culture, even with most people here. I've never in my career felt like my superiors were placing politics above my life and the lives of my soldiers until this point. But the fact that the Army made no attempt to ask for exemptions (even though it was obvious from the start that asking would be an exercise in futility) leaves me feeling betrayed.
As to the rant in the OP, of course we are going to shut up and color and make this work. That's what we do. It's not the end of the Army or the Marines, but it does mean an inevitable 1%, 2%, 5%, or whatever decrease in our efficiency, which translates into lives at our end. We're kidding ourselves if we think otherwise. Comparisons to race integration are vacuous. In this case we are talking about real biological, physical and emotional differences that can't be trained away, no matter how enlightened we think we all are.
And the people most excited about this, the people who wanted it the most and the people who prejudged the decision, are never going to be on the receiving end of the consequences or even part of the solution for the problems it will create. They will of course blame us if and when things go badly in any future conflict.
Anyway, that's the last I'll say in the subject. Time to get back to coloring between the lines.
It's pretty damned easy to say how great something is when you will never, ever have to accept or deal with the consequences.
The point is that the decision has been made. Passively-aggressively speeding it thru half-added implementation is a recipe for guaranteed failure. It might fail anyway. It'll definitely fail with whining resistance to implementation.
If you don't like the policy you fight to change the policy thru appellate channels: making your voice heard in the political process. You do not ignore orders/policies just because you have a hair up your ass.
And I'm speaking as one of the first guys to ever have a woman assigned to a tank crew. So yeah, I've been there.
A question to those who serve (or have served), what is the likely effect of women serving in combat units? As someone who has not served, I can only imagine adding estrogen to an already precarious and perilous situation can't be good. Gallant, but foolish, squad mates comprimising the mission because the girl they like is in harms way. Or some after hours hanky panky turns into a pregnancy that diminishes the number of effectives. Or, God forbid, a testosterone fuelled a-hole taking what he wants, because it's in close proximity. I just don't see a good ending for this.
And before any one accuses me of being a neanderthal, I certainly believe that women can do many of the same things as men. Just as well, if not better. And I certainly would not think of legally denying them anything they might put their mind to. I also imagine that there are/have been many situations where a well qualified woman would be preferable to the average sad sack infantryman. I just think that this, combat, is one instance where equality is a bad thing.
And AR, I generally agree with your background points. There's been insufficient proof of an increase in combat effectiveness as a result of this policy thus far
Of course the order will be obeyed, frankly to insinuate otherwise is insulting.
Correction: Its not all MOS's in the US Army. Its all MOS's in the US Military. The problem is actually much worse. My position is if it ain't broke, don't try to fix it. Our military has been effectively fighting its enemies for two centuries. Why add a component that can potentially complicate things in so many different ways. Whatever, my time is passed. If women are so eager to embrace the suck. Good luck.
Honestly, this country is done either way. Destroyed not from the enemies without, but from the enemies within.
After they've achieved the much sought after gender equality, maybe they'll finally perform the "Take Out The Trash", "Fix The Plumbing", and "Mow The Lawn" MOSes, amongst other skills typically relegated to male-only duty.
>:D
Heh.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1108.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fh412%2FRotarrin%2FFunny%2FTerminal%2520Lance%25202015-12-04-Strip_Females_in_the_Infantry_II_web_zpsnampgdyh.jpg&hash=e0c57b5ed24555d6879a7e1459d2f4ff77cbd622)
MD, the only organization that I know of which had women in front line combat units, was the early Israeli military in the 1948 war.
According to an Israeli military officer back around 1973, the women fought very well. However, the units with women in combat suffered heavier casualties. This was because the men in the unit took unnecessary risks to protect the women. (In today's world, I'm not sure this cultural conditioning would still have a noticeable effect.)
Also, many of these female fighters were veterans of the vicious partisan fighting on the Eastern Front in World War II. Schooled in that no quarter fight, they were reportedly very cruel to prisoners and unrestrained by such niceties as the Geneva Convention.
Since Israel needed all the international support possible, the women were put into rear ecehlon work.
I knew that women fought for Israel. I did not know the particulars. Very interesting.