"Women in direct combat:: What is the price for equality?" Topic

i'm not a military..but it's easy to understand that working in a combat situation it's not the same as to work in whatever other situation…i mean that from a psichological, anthropological point of view, and in a situation of quick/instinctive need to take a decision/doing an action…a group of men that have to take an order and obbey to a woman it's not the best and most safe situation at all…….

Charlie12,
I re-read my post from early this morning. If it came off a little snarky and disrespectful to the females in your family I apologize. I think we both have some common ground but will continue to disagree on the level of implementation. I can live with that.

Thanks,
Wolfhag

wife or daughter were in an infantry outfit as "one of the guys" and was showering naked next to Legion 4 and snuggling up next to him to keep warm in below freezing weather? Get over it.

Whoa ! Whoa ! I never met either of them ! I'm innocent … innocent I tell ya ! I'm being framed !

[I'll freely admit while on active duty I've showered with one or two female service members. However, it was in the privacy of off post housing. Everything was legal, above board, in accordance to the UCMJ, Code of Conduct, etc. And I'm pretty sure none of them were related to C12 or anyone here AFAIK ! ]

Being able to talk to the female population in Muslim countries.

Seems to have been a bit important for the last 14 years (and a crippling lack for most of it).

That's very true, but being a member of the Female Engagement Team isn't infantry soldiering.

"Being able to talk to the female population in Muslim countries.
Seems to have been a bit important for the last 14 years (and a crippling lack for most of it)."

a crippling lack of it you said????????
with what result? did we achieved any success toward freedom for the people of those countries (Afg) or juts permited also our women soldiers from the free World to have imposed also on them the Sharia ?

That's very true, but being a member of the Female Engagement Team isn't infantry soldiering.

Yeah … Fox having been to A'stan[a few times IIRC ?], I'll have to agree with this comment. And yes we all know females in combat, fire back when fired upon, etc. E.g. MP SGT Hester. And I laud her and her "Sisters of Battle" effective and efficient actions under fire, etc.

But Infantry soldiering is more IMO, as Fox and others have pointed out. With many of who have served or are serving in Infantry units. As I have often said, that should add some veracity, credence, etc. to those comments. It should(?) IMO …

And ITALWARS makes a good point too IMO … E.g. recently in a US gov't's visit to Saudi Arabia. The females in that group did not wear the hijab. That really is not generally a tradition in the USA if you are not a member of certain religious sects.

I'd think, it is one thing to be very respectful of other beliefs. But that works both ways, I'd think … or should.

did we achieved any success toward freedom for the people of those countries … ?

I have to agree with that sentiment as well … I'll add … "a crippling lack of it" … Change only really occurs if someone wants to make it happen. For whatever reasons. And no one on the "Outside" can ever really affect change or even try unless the "home team" really wants it, generally.
But in either case, neither should "force" it on the other. Directly or indirectly IMO … I.e. as we see it in the evocative photo ITALWARS posted. I doubt those female soldiers would have worn the hijab unless were told to do so. But I was not there … So I could be incorrect ?

It certainly is lighter than a helmet, but could cut down LOS, and offers no protection from anything, other than insects(?) I'd think …

Wearing a head scarf to gain trust is not "imposed on them the Sharia." I seriously doubt those women soldiers are under Islamic law.

If you want to win a counterinsurgency war you need to work with the local people. You need to – at a minimum – appear to respect their traditions and customs.

"If you want to win a counterinsurgency war you need to work with the local people. You need to – at a minimum – appear to respect their traditions and customs."

i understand your good faith…but what about the umiliation represented by that ?….Extremists want exactly that..
but there is another point…can you tell us just a single winning example of that approach in a counterinsurgery war…possibly in a third world country?

but what about the umiliation represented by that ?

I'll bet the extremists are even more humiliated by the presence of women with assault rifles in their town.

Extremists want exactly that.

Maybe. But I'll bet that extremists want the US mission in Afghanistan/Iraq to fail even more.

Refusing to engage with the locals will do more damage here.

but there is another point…can you tell us just a single winning example of that approach in a counterinsurgery war…possibly in a third world country?

Check this out:

link

There's an article that mentions a recent book called "Winning Counterinsurgency War: The Israeli Experience." Note the first condition a state must address in order to defeat a counterinsurgency:

- Understand and accept the political and public relations challenge involved in battling insurgents.

So, with that in mind, which is going to help the US forces more, respecting local customs or refusing to do so?

I'll bet good money that those women soldiers were part of an outreach team whose job it was to interact with local women to gain their trust and support – and also to get intel from them. Will they have more success working with them and respecting their customs or refusing to do so?

They are'nt at all "traditions" or signs of culture..they are only marks of slavery and submission..did you ever see picts of this same country during the sixties..and in any case another minus to send our women soldiers at the front line is to expose them to various kind of violenze including this useless and humiliating one..

those women soldiers were part of an outreach team

That seems to appear to be the situation based on everything we have been discussing or in some cases know. Like with Fox and his experiences there. Again, I was not there.

they have more success working with them and respecting their customs

That is another worthwhile point to take note of. And those are the sort of "factors" that make COIN a challenging endeavor. As Scott pointed out, i.e. :

Understand and accept the political and public relations challenge involved in battling insurgents

And that is generally well known. But yet still not at all "easy" to accomplish in almost all situations. Or so it seems from the historical record.

As usual a topic has strayed somewhat. Refocus on being a standard infantry soldier, existing in uncomfortable conditions, moving at speed over distance, often carrying large amounts of heavy kit, working in all weathers, closing with the enemy to kill them, stab/shoot them in the face etc.

Women have done very well in the COIN environment as medics, psyops, Int, signals, no one should take that away from them, but women in the infantry as infantry soldiers? Still a fantasy peddled by hollywood and the pc brigade,

Tally Ho!

Well said Nick, but in 6 months we'll have to have the same arguments again when someone gets offended on behalf of the females. Still, gives me something to rant about while I'm watching Trooping the Colour this morning, No women on parade today😁

But my question is..is there a need, in a regular army of a major nation, to have women in a combat role? Are ' nt they enough men to fulfill the job?..I do not think that US Army have the same needs of the Kurdish Armed Forces or even Assad Syrian armed forces..so it's a totally useless point..why sacrifice our women for a dangerous job if they are, on the other hand, precious in other more specific military roles

Nick & Fox … +2 x2

But my question is..is there a need, in a regular army of a major nation, to have women in a combat role? Are ' nt they enough men to fulfill the job?..

Again a very good point, I'd think. I think it is very much more about "other" considerations than actually combat readiness, effectiveness, etc. Coming from some sources outside the military.

All that being said, I can see the possible usefulness of the FETs. Especially, again, based on certain cultures' beliefs including social, religious, ethnic, tribal, etc. But IMO, worse case scenario, those FETs probably really need to be somewhat "protected" from some of the locals. That dearly hold on to those certain cultural, social, religious, ethnic and tribal beliefs about females, etc. That are generally very much different and even in conflict at times with the West.

Which does not mean the FETs can't protect themselves, but with this type of "enemies". The very last thing you'd to want to happen, male or female, is to get captured by those that follow no CGs, ROE, etc. But are guided much more by cultural, social, religious, ethnic and tribal "ways" than anything else. That could turn out to be a very, very bad situation for Western POWs.

Again, that, along with other factors, is what makes this type of COIN very, very difficult. And if one follows the daily news feeds, it certainly does not seem to be getting any better in A'stan. Regardless of FETs, billions in dollars of US and other outside sources spent, repeatedly train, retraining, etc., of the local forces.

Which for a variety of reasons just don't look like they will ever be that effective. Or succeed in ending the local terrorists, jihadis, etc. bringing instability, etc., to the region, etc. IMO of course …

Fox, sadly I missed it, being where I am and alas no glass of port to start the day tomorrow! Still my Perry Prussians are coming along, hopefully in time for Bovington!!

Tally Ho!

Nick wrote – "Women have done very well in ….. psyops".

Having been married for forty years, I absolutely concur in the above assessment.

B

Women have done very well in the COIN environment as medics, psyops, Int, signals, no one should take that away from them, but women in the infantry as infantry soldiers?

I think part of the problem is that the line between these two things has become very blurry over time.

(But, hey, I was an armor crewman myself, so what do I know?)

Yes, with COIN type warfare being very prevalent more and more. The line between what has been the "traditional" Combat Arms, Combat Support and Combat Service Support branches is very much "greyer" than ever.

As a former Infantryman in both Light & Mech, and who, back then had been attached frequently to Armor units. We all know the Combined Arms Concept etc.

E.g. both Mech Infantrymen and Tankers know one of the problems with females in AFVs. Is the constant maintenance that goes on "catering to the Iron Monsters". "Breaking Track comes rapidly to mind.

And the well known fact that at it's base. Infantrymen do their best work on the ground. You can't be wedded too much to your "Track". For me that was the M113.

As and LT in the 101. Once the choppers drop you off and you are on the ground. All you have is what is on your back. And you spend a lot of time on your feet. Carrying heavy loads, over various type of rough terrain. Or just simple force marching long distances with that load.
It's hard enough for males many times. I've had my feet bleed thru my boots a few times.

And again even as Mech, you still train to do long forced marches, etc. Train & Practice your fieldcraft, SOPs, tactics, techniques, etc., constantly. And that is mostly dismounted, on your feet. Again … Infantry does it's "best" work on its feet, or belly …

As Infantrymen know, and even Tankers, you spend a lot of time trying to not make yourself a target. Using Camo, Cover & Concealment, etc. To avoid the plethora of objects that fly thru the air in a battlefield. Some/many of the objects headed in you direction. Directly or indirectly …

But with the proliferation of COIN, more and more, both sexes can find themselves in the way of those flying objects. Regardless, that does not make one an Infantryman or Tanker.

As both are "designed", intended, trained, etc. to take direct action against the enemy. And in some cases requires very close combat especially for the "Grunt". Requiring in many cases physical strength, aggressiveness, etc.

(But, hey, I was an armor crewman myself, so what do I know?)

Scott … You were in Iraq AFAIK, I was not, that says to me … you know a lot, IMO.
Much more than many who were not in the military, combat arms, etc. I frequently try to make the point … There is a difference between an "enthusiast" and a "participant" … I don't care how many books someone reads. But again … what do I know … ?

Frakk'n double post !!!! Again !

As I have posted on here before, I was a member of an MI debrief group for Czech deserters who had jumped the Iron Curtain. This was in 1981. A female officer asked the men the attitude of the Warsaw Pact to women soldiers.
The response was direct. No sympathy and no mercy for women soldiers. Nor would there e any consideration for medic or hospitals.
There would be no slowing down the offensive thrust to take prisoners. Timelines had to be met. Time delays to capture large groups of surrendered soldiers were unacceptable.
Rear area supply formations were regarded as easy prey due to the large number of females in the ranks.
The end of brief meeting with the colonel was also direct. The results of the discussion was to remain undisclosed at it would demoralize the female troops.

That's interesting Rudy, I'm not surprised you were told to keep it quiet.

I guess we should not be too surprised by those disturbing revelations … So much for the GCs, committing War Crimes, UN protocols, etc.

And if they followed those "SOPs", it would make a bloody conflict even more so. Yes, very interesting intel Rudy. Thanks for that.

So if the Varsaw Pact troops were ready to behave in this ungentleman way (but i think the Cthek deserter was above all trying to sell well his person)..try to imagine the conduct toward "soft target" that could be expected during an asymmetrical war from Muslim terrorist in an environment of hostile semi savage people

I have to generally agree with those points ITALWARS. Based on everything we know, have seen, etc. Seems very logical at the very least, at this point.

It was asked above are women really weaker. Here is an answer.

About 35 years ago I was on the university fencing team. I took a ballet class to get a bit smoother moving. Found I liked hanging out with a lot of dancer checks a lot. Eventually spent 1 season on the university troupe. Not many military vets have that on their resume.

I had to learn a lot about how your body actually moves. Ballet permits no . Do it wrong get hurt. My instructor took great pains to show us the differences between mens and womens bodies. She explained a lot of why each sex does certain moves.

A joint is not just a flex point. it is also a lever. And two people of the same size, a man has bigger joints, hence a greater mechanical advantage.So if you have worked out the same, a man will be able to lift more.

Compare hips and shoulders. Both are basically pyramids, en with the base on top, women with the base on bottom. Again it is a matter of leverage. Ever wonder why men pock up women over thier heads at the ballet? Because they can. Ever wonder ehy women do a lot of the laying on the floor moves? because they can. A lot of those moves guys play hell trying to get back up. You can do it but it looks like crap. Lots of picking up heavy things in the military, not so many chest lifts.

Look at peoples pelvis. Mens ones are close together, womens are not. There are reasons for that. But structurally, close together is much stronger. Since the US Army has let women into more MOS's they have found women experience pelvic injury's around 70% more often than men.

In American the average male is 5'10", women 6" less than that. The same size women in the same condition of fitness is about 2/3rd as strong as a man. Women are about 2/3rds the size as well, so on average women work out at about half as strong as men.Are we going to develop special half sized guns? Or just issue half the gear?

This is simple biology. Nothing about willpower or rights or any of that. Just how we are constructed as a species. Dont like it, go yell at god, or nature which ever way you go.

Owen

I guess we should not be too surprised by those disturbing revelations … So much for the GCs, committing War Crimes, UN protocols, etc.

No news there. Back in the late '70s an old GF of mine joined the USAF after getting her nursing degree. The word then was just as Rudy said. And she (and her fellow medicos) just accepted it and moved on. And if you study the Soviet's way of war, it should come as no surprise. Its calculated to achieve the necessary results with the minimum of casualties (hard lessons they learned from the Eastern Front) and actually reduces the overall butcher bill…

This is simple biology.

Don't try to confuse us with "facts" like that Badger ! You were FA, IIRC, a lot of "heavy lifting" involved there, AFAIK …

And if you study the Soviet's way of war, it should come as no surprise. Its calculated to achieve the necessary results with the minimum of casualties (hard lessons they learned from the Eastern Front) and actually reduces the overall butcher bill…

Yes, that was sort of in broad sense the old US "way of war" from Gen. Grant on. Get the conflict quickly as possible to limit losses, etc. Better to lose 100 today then 1000 tomorrow sort of paradigm. But as we know today that is always not possible. For a number of reasons.

But actually reducing the Butchers' Bill, of course, for those 100 vs 1000 is a tough bit of reality for many to come to grips with. I'm not very fond of that "math". Being a former Infantryman. As I'm sure others feel the same. But it is another grim, dark reality of warfare. And because of that no conflict should be taken lightly when going into it. Didn't Stalin say something like, "One death is tragic, two a statistic." … ?

Of course if attacked one may have few choices but reply in kind, counterattack, etc. E.g. Pearl Harbor and 9/11 come first to mind.

But e.g. once NATO saw that the USSR/WP were committing such "crimes". The average soldier "on the line" would probably, again, return "the favor" in kind. As we know "human nature" can be anything but humane. In many situations.

As we saw in the PTO in WWII. Once it was seen the IJFs would not surrender [or pretend to], the "crimes and brutality" they committed was a standard, "dogma", etc. The "Grunt" at the pointy tip of the spear … again responded in kind. And until the latter months of the war. There we few IJF POWs for a few obvious reasons. I read book a while back, about this topic, entitled "War Without Mercy". A good but sobering read …

Of course the USSR/WP reducing the Butchers' Bill would be more in their "favor". Naturally, which has always been the bottom line almost exclusively in "ways of war". Killing more of the enemy than they kill of you. That is always in the equation … simple math of a sorts. However, today that paradigm has changed a bit, it seems. But IMO with that concept, the jury is still out on that, so far …

So on June 15 I wrote that dog fighting is rare and maybe even rarer in the next 20 years. Then less than a week later a US jet shoots down a Syrian Mig. Again I lose all credibility!

Wolfhag

So, 4 years ago the arguement was gays would ruin unit cohesion. They didn't! In WWII African/American's could not be gunners mates in the Navy because, Blacks have no night vision. Absolutely false!

If a woman can meet the standard, not a separate standard, but THE standard, they should be allowed to serve. Command climate dictates unit cohesion and discipline.

Tried tio stay out of this, dang it!

LOL ! I saw that too Wolf. I think that was the first time in 19 years that a US Fighter shot down an enemy aircraft. According to the reports. Also two Syrian/Iranian Drones were shot down too. I guess that is a "kill" as well.

But a little more back OT … Were the US pilots who shot down those enemy aircraft male or female ? Regardless they did shot down enemy aircraft. Their primary function in the military. But again this is not on the ground Infantry/Grunt work, either. Just say'n …

I know some may ask what side of this discussion are you on L4 ? It's simple … I'm on my "side" !

Command climate dictates unit cohesion and discipline.

Yep … we know that is called "leadership" … and that is always the bottom line, IMO …

US pilots who shot down those enemy aircraft male or female ? huh? Regardless they did shot down enemy aircraft. "

sorry if i'm out of topic..and sorry dear Legion 4 , for one time, to disagree with you …but the Syrian aircraft and drones shot down by a Us plane where not ennemies!!!!!…maybe, as we are supposing, the pilot was a lady…are they able to distinguish between friend or foe? :-))))))

Syrian aircraft and drones shot down by a Us plane where not enemies

Well from what I understand, but I was not there, obviously, that the Syrian aircraft looked like it was going to attack US "allies". Probably Kurd or "FSA" types ? The US asked the Syrian pilot to turn around, etc. a number of times. IIRC, that was what the media reported.

Now realizing it is supposed to be Syrian airspace. But again the Syrians were threatening US allies. So … IMO the US had no choice but to protect coalition forces. An aircraft or drone that threatens US or its allies is in turn designated an "enemy". Anyway … The Syrians along with Iran are really no friends of the USA. So yeah … that part of the world is a tough "neighborhood".

gays would ruin unit cohesion? Yeah well it's what you don't hear or read in the news that's important, and my friends still on active duty are fed up with social engineering BS. Try telling three straight dudes they have to share a room and one toilet with a gay guy and have to get dressed and undressed in front of him, Then if you say "No big deal" think of your 18 or 19 year old daughter in the same situation and say " No big deal"

"They are'nt at all "traditions" or signs of culture..they are only marks of slavery and submission"

Orthodox Jewish men have to keep their heads covered. Ultra-conservative Muslims (including Al Qaeda and ISIS) require men to have beards, and some even insist that trimming your beard is a sin. AQ severely punished men who had shaved.

The Duck Dynasty guys belong to a religious group that believes that men have to wear long beards--effectively the same thing. The Duggars belong to a group that insists on roughly floor-length skirts or dresses

Which of these are signs of slavery or submission? Which are following acceptable religious traditions?

"Then if you say "No big deal" think of your 18 or 19 year old daughter in the same situation and say " No big deal""

No big deal. Not even sure why it would bother me.

"Try telling three straight dudes they have to share a room and one toilet with a gay guy and have to get dressed and undressed in front of him"

It's not like it didn't happen before. Your argument is only about whether or not the straight guys know. Segue to the odd "Don't push homosexuality on other people by telling everyone you're gay!"/"How dare you hide your homosexuality and deceive us!" darned if you do, darned if you don't dichotomy.

gays would ruin unit cohesion? Yeah well it's what you don't hear or read in the news that's important, and my friends still on active duty are fed up with social engineering BS.

Sorry, Irish, but you're living in a world that's looong gone. Back in my day, we had 3 tankers in my platoon who were gay. Everyone knew it (officers too). Nobody cared. All we cared about was can you do the job. And they could (one was the gunner on my tank and was outrageous with a the M60's old sights).

And that was 1981….

And its not "social engineering", its living in the REAL world…

Thanks Charlie12 same thing in my infantry unit in 81/82 at Ft Ord, we had two in the unit and everyone knew. They performed their jobs well. As a CPL I shared an NCO room with one and was no different than sharing with any other dude.

As with my 18/19 year old, I would want them to do what makes them happy, not what I would have them do!

Listen the SMA, this isn't forcing women to go Comabat Arms and most will not, but gives them the chance to do so. It's always surprised me that we claim we live in the most free country in the world as we constantly attempt to inform others that freedoms don't apply to them!

You only have freedom of speech if I like what I hear, you only have freedom to serve as a female if you work in the girlie roles, the constitution protects gays but how dare they defend it, oh yes people of color can serve but only in certain roles or in units of all color.

Do you all realize, we are just now in history beginning to realize the poetic words that our fore fathers wrote in the bill of rights? All me were not created equal if your a woman, or black, or gay! Hog wash, there is a standard, verified through annual MOS testing (was called SQT in my time), APFTs, ruck marches, tactical exercises. If they meet the standard, let them serve. If you say they can't the problem isn't them it's you!

Do what's right not what's popular! As a platoon Sergeant or First Sergeant (and I've been both), support the chain of command, and make sure you set the appropriate climate, to make sure these people have the chance at success. I have always felt that is a soldier fails, that's as much a leadership issue as a soldier issue. Institutions hate change, and the military more than any.

Fair comment, lincolnlog. I have zero problem with a woman pursuing any career or life endeavor as long as she demonstrates a satisfactory degree of competence. I once had the privilege of working with a woman who had served in WW2 as a WASP flying P51's, hop-scotching across the Atlantic from the US to the UK. Classy lady who could "walk the walk".

BUT

What about the other soldiers who must rely upon their comrades in everyday real world life-threatening situations? Equal opportunity is a praiseworthy moral tenet, but it does not mean that (to take an admittedly extreme example) we should encourage blind people to become long-haul trailer truck drivers. Some common sense must prevail.

B

Interestingly, a number of Combat Arms Vets, or otherwise, former or current. Seem to have opposite POVs. Don't really know what that "says"? But I do find it interesting none-the-less.

The fact that a very small percentage (most likely well under 1% of females who join the military) may both want to and be capable of operating in a infantry unit, does not mean it makes sense to do so.

The costs of this will FAR out weigh any possible gain in tactical or operational gains. Their will be BILLIONS of dollars worth of man hours spent conducting even more sexual harassment training to enable a statistically insignificant number of females to be assigned to infantry battalions to satisfy politicians misguided directions.
That same training time will not be available to conduct night target engagement, language training or a host of other things.

I expect that in 10 years the Marine Corps will have at best a handful or two (I mean literally 5-10) females in the infantry. They will provide absolutely no advantage, but it will cost the Nation billions of dollars in training time.

I also predict that the rates of injury, including permanent disabilities due to hip and lower back injuries will GREATLY increase.

I forgot to mention that this take a lot of time from leaders at every level, again distracting from real world concerns that are relevant to the armed services during a period while we are at war.

Some good points there too Apache 6. And IIRC correctly you are a USMC Vet ? So your post is worth pondering, I'd think.

I can't help remembering in the USA of the '60s. There were a whole lot of people who didn't want to get drafted and go into the Infantry. Then deploy to SE Asia.

But the paradigm shift here is, there is no draft. Yet … and let's hope it never comes to that again. As I said, some Gens & Adms, have made a proposal. With the military opening all Combat Arms to both sexes. Then when turning 18 years old. The Females as well as the Males must register for the Draft.

I don't think too many at any level of economic strata in the USA. Will be Happy to think their female child could be drafted and sent off to a Big messy war. As if it was not a Big messy War, there would be no need to draft.

I know I posted a similar post on pg.1 here. But it was worth repeating, I'd think. That and I'm old and forget about things I already posted …

Yes mate, your right. We've gone off on a tangent with this topic, it's about getting women to engage in peer on peer nation warfare. Gutter fighting, trench clearing at bayonet point, stabbing people in the face with a broken bayonet after grenading the fire position. It's not about how many gays you had in your platoon in 1981, what regiment were you in? the 43rd San Francisco Hussars? There was no place for Doris on the beach at Omaha in 1944, in the assault on Goose Green or Tumbledown in 1982, or house clearing in Damascus in 2018.

I don't think too many at any level of economic strata in the USA. Will be Happy to think their female child could be drafted and sent off to a Big messy war. As if it was not a Big messy War, there would be no need to draft.

Pretty quaint POV. And do you think its any different when the child in question is male? If you do, then you don't know parents….

It's not about how many gays you had in your platoon in 1981, what regiment were you in? the 43rd San Francisco Hussars?

All 3 were former regulars and served in Europe before getting out and joining my Guard unit (which was NATO tasked, BTW). Yeah, real counter culture, that….

lincolnlog- You put it better than I could ever have.

Make the standards and let EVERYONE compete to meet them. Some won't make it, some will. But to say outright that women can't compete for those jobs, based on some 18th century notion (like Davoust's idiotic post about "Women and Children are treasures of a civilization and should not be squandered for a political cause or social experiment") is flat out WRONG (if not outright insulting to every woman I know).

You use ALL your assets. And you figure out how to best use them. And women are just another asset…

The operative distinction being, of course, that while making good use of an asset implies that it not being squandered, misusing an asset implies exactly the reverse.

So ….. it pays at the end of the day to be sure that the precious assets are not being misused.

Just sayin'.

B

The problem with any kind of study of these political topics is the political appointees will provide the outline and then pick the researchers. Thus assuring the outcome.