"Female Marines on women in combat: 'We're ready'" Topic

"Special operations forces overwhelmingly opposed opening their jobs to women, according to a study that explored integrating the forces under U.S. Special Operations Command.

Why would the politicians listen to the advise of military professionals about military operations, missions, etc., etc. … now ? In the US we follow lawful orders given to us by elected officials, that is a good system.

However, sometimes the elected officials could/should think about listening to the advise of their military leadership. When it comes to readiness, combat ops, etc., etc. … This new move by the politicians, as many have said here, and I agree, is about PC, not combat readiness, etc. …

In 100 years, people will be arguing that allowing humans to serve alongside droids will be undermining morale and combat readiness.

True, but we all know that those combat droids will turn on us.

Yes a 100 pound female cannot hump 40-60 pounds of gear for eight hours but then again quite a few men can't either.

And those men don't make it in the infantry.

Here's a scenario: let's say we extend huge enlistment bonuses to female Olympians and other top-level athletes to attract them to the infantry.

-We throw money at them until we get 5 Ronda Rousey's in every battalion. $$$
-Are we going to add female berthing/hygiene facilities to every infantry battalion? For a handful of personnel? $$$
-Add in the higher medical bills of female grunts due to the already-proven increased incidence of injuries. $$$

Overall, it means the per-person expense of fielding an infantry battalion will increase, with a commensurate decrease in funding availability for other warfighting purposes such as, ya know…training and ammunition. At best you've replaced a man with…functionally, a more expensive man. At worst you've replaced a man with an expensive liability.

And there is little or no data to suggest that an infantry unit's core competence, which is the controlled and organized murder of other human beings, will improve with the inclusion of women.

So from the perspectives of economic/budget/resource efficiency, or combat efficiency, how is it in any way the correct decision to make?

All other things being equal, wouldn't it make more sense AND cost less to get additional infantry bodies by simply putting some motivated but overweight men on a diet and enhanced PT program?

Oh and if they get deployed to a real combat area guess what they will not be humping 40-60 pounds of gear either day in and day out.

You have the precognitive ability to guarantee that no light infantryman will ever hump loads in a warzone…ever again? Can I get you to pick my stocks for me? Should we really be setting training/selection standards based on the easy, expected COIN situations instead of the high-stress worst-case-scenarios?

For reference, some combat engineers in A-stan:
( link )

In addition to the 100-plus-degree temperatures, Marines lug a full combat load: flak jackets, kevlar helmets, ammunition and packs.
"We're in full gear the entire time," said Schrick. "It's an entire 50 to 60 pounds of gear on your body. It's not your every day construction project. Your mobility is slim to none and it is awkward trying to move in it."

If equipment or tactics need to change make those changes. If the capacity to fight is diminished get used to it and find another solution.

You're British so I'm sure you understand having a military with severe budget constraints. If Royal Marines had their basic ammo load cut in half due to funding, would you tell them "Hey just deal with it, find another solution?" Or would you accuse your political leadership of criminal negligence? If you are unwilling to accept a reduced warfighting capacity due to ammo, why would you accept it due to female integration?

Israel currently allows women to be in 92% of all military positions. As for their effect on the ability of units ( link )

We've discussed the Israeli female infantry battalion here recently before but I can't find the thread now. They don't carry anywhere near the sort of loads that US infantry do. The Caracal battalion (70%-female) didn't participate in the 2006 Lebanon War or in the 2014 Gaza conflict. It mostly guards the Egyptian border.

In that linked article, an IDF female Brigadier General asserts: "Wherever women are present – [the IDF's] operational effectiveness rises." Oh yeah? Show me the data.

Here's a PopSci article ( link ) that claims:

So is there any science behind it? Does nature hardwire men to be incapacitated by female pain?
"There is no evidence for it," says Janice Laurence, a psychologist specializing in military issues and a principle researcher on the 1999 Congressional Commission on Military Training and Gender-Related Issues.

Again….show me the data.

For reference, here is the actual research paper from 1991 that covers most of the unit cohesion issues regarding female combatants: ( PDF link )

All of this stuff has been covered, *with citations*, 25 frickin' years ago…

Commander in Chief Barack Obama promised an even stronger military, as "our armed forces will draw on an even wider pool of talent."

What specific talents amongst females are being drawn on that will make an infantry battalion more lethal? How do our elected officials get to spout crap like this without being jeered or heckled incessantly and called on their BS?

In addition to the 100-plus-degree temperatures, Marines lug a full combat load: flak jackets, kevlar helmets, ammunition and packs.
"We're in full gear the entire time," said Schrick. "It's an entire 50 to 60 pounds of gear on your body. It's not your every day construction project. Your mobility is slim to none and it is awkward trying to move in it."

Just to double tap that thought, in Afghanistan just my gear: helmet, body armor, weapon(M4 & M9) and ammo weighed 55lbs(I weighed it on the medic's scale). I didn't weigh my ruck but it was similar to my gear.

As an MP we had females, but guess who mainly stayed with the vehicles(manning the MG's) when we did dismounted patrols? Or which plt had the highest percentage of females…the patrol plts or the static plt which basically manned our COP's towers?

We accomplished all of our missions, but it wasn't without some clever "personnel management" decisions. I seriously doubt an infantry unit engaged in High Intensity combat would have the same luxuries.

Agree completely with Noble and Blackhorse. Again, Vets who have been there, did that, got the T-shirt …

Weasel

In 100 years, people will be arguing that allowing humans to serve alongside droids will be undermining morale and combat readiness.

Mithmee

True, but we all know that those combat droids will turn on us.

I would have been very glad to have a couple of T-2s in each of my Infantry squads. Whether those T-2s were female of not !

@ Noble

That was a great PDF!

I disagree with, Wolfhag and Legion 4. Change is coming no matter how much you fight it.

Not all change is change for the better.

I would hazard a guess that, within 20 years, a few women get into hitherto all male combat units, including and indeed probably starting with special forces.

Women are already there on the deep-cover units, because few people look at a half-dozen "married couples" moving in but will notice a dozen hulking males showing up all of a sudden. They pulled the ladies from the support teams.

We let individuals achieve all that they can based solely on their talents, capabilities, and personal motivation.

And combat arms are an intensely physical job. Infantry is like playing tackle football for 8 hours straight while carrying a friend on your back. Armor means carrying 50+lb rounds of ammunition, breaking 100+lb pieces of track, and otherwise horsing around the parts that make up 70 tons of steel. Artillery has all the vehicle maintenance of armor, and ups the ammo weight to 100+lbs per shell.

ANYONE in combat arms needs to be able to do the physical heavy lifting, or OUR people will die.

If this PC move is pushed the real causalities will be the well-meaning, excellent and motivated women that decide to sacrifice themselves to this experiment.

Yup. One good example was a Marine officer in Afghanistan. I think she was engineers, but she was the ranking officer present. The load she carried literally ate her alive. By the end of her tour, her legs had lost muscle due to not having enough recovery time to heal. Her Platoon Sergeant and another Marine literally carried her up hills. She loved the Corps, and hates that she was medically retired because leading a unit of acting-infantry nearly killed her.

Yes a 100 pound female cannot hump 40-60 pounds of gear for eight hours but then again quite a few men can't either.

Yes, most people that are 100lbs can't handle packing 60+% of their own body weight. But there are not many in-shape women upwards of 180lbs, when weighing that much has been shown to greatly reduce the impact of humping heavy loads.

Oh and if they get deployed to a real combat area guess what they will not be humping 40-60 pounds of gear either day in and day out.

No, they will be humping 80-120lbs of gear day-in and day out, only dropping down to 40-60 during combat.

The job and training will weed out the ladies that cannot cut it.

Hopefully. I am afraid that someone will complain about the low numbers of women being accepted into combat arms and claim that it's because the physical standards are sexist. (US law has proved that "you must be at least 5'8" tall to be a firefighter" is discriminatory, but "You must be able to pick up and carry a 6' tall 180lb male in addition to all your other gear" is not).

Are women better able than men to do jobs in the military? Damn straight. It's a short list, but "fighter pilot" is actually on that list of things women do better than men. Faster reflexes, better g-tolerance.

You want to know what a typical day in combat arms is like? Go run a Marathon, stopping every mile to do "world's strongest man" and/or "American Ninja Warrior" events, accompanied by shooting at pop-up targets at random times during all of the above. All while wearing 35 lbs of body armor, ammunition, and personal weapons.

If you will excuse me, I need to take some pain meds for the back I broke while I was responding to a fire drill in the Navy (easy job my ass).

"Remember their are many roles in most of our combat squads, which for the most part are also Mechanized"- Mithmee

Mechanized infantry conducts dismounted patrols just like light infantry. Airborne infantry has almost no vehicle support, you drop in and its all you. I have been in places many a time vehicles could never have traveled… Mechanization is not and excuse by a long shot!

Like some of the guys have said, change is coming. We're seeing lots of it aren't we.

A classmate of mine who is a retired Navy SEAL said he's not going to participate in the selection of women for SEAL tryouts. He's currently a contractor at the USNA where they have encouraged woman but he said no applicants yet. He said it's a fiasco. But then maybe he's really a Taliban sleeper agent that wants all women pregnant and at home wearing a burka and following Sharia Law. The Naval Academy's male graduates maintain about a 90 percent success rate at BUDS, some 80 percent of outside candidates fail the training. Hmmmm

I can tell you that a lot of planning from the administration has gone into this. I'll guarantee you there are already Colonels and Navy Captains ramping up training programs and pushing to get the first woman into some type of Special Forces unit. I worked in DC for one of those three letter agencies and spent time at the Pentagon and have seen it first hand with all of the "change" (PC activities). Whoever gets the "first" will be assured of making general rank as the politicians give their blessing.

Personally I think each branch should have their own specialized all female unit that is qualified to perform many of the duties and responsibilities that special forces type units perform to compliment them and enhance their mission effectiveness. Because of the cultures and geographic regions our military operates in an all-female unit that can augment existing male units that need females would make sense. That includes training, language skills, comm, Sig Int, rescue, disaster response, etc. I think in most cases like this they can operate and contribute to a very high degree without compromising missions. I'm not saying humping 80 pounds of gear up and down 8,000 foot mountains or as part of a bin Laden operation. This way we are putting them in a safer environment where they can succeed. Think of it like tennis mixed doubles (OK, bad example).

Someone told me there is already a female Navy SEAL? He said she's running for Congress. I think her name begins with a K. Anyone have any info on this?

Wolfhag

Mechanized infantry conducts dismounted patrols just like light infantry. Airborne infantry has almost no vehicle support, you drop in and its all you. I have been in places many a time vehicles could never have traveled… Mechanization is not and excuse by a long shot!

You got that right … formerly being both Air Assault and Mech … But based on what some say here. Our wealth of experience on the subject means little.