test women in Marine infantry course asked to leave

[windwalker]

I did watch it. I guess its not getting through.
I was also a grunt medic, serving with line units. typically a medics job is not the same as a grunt.
the loading is much less compared to what the grunts carry due to their mission. At that time we used to have
a Geneva convention cared stating that we were medics,,,,in case of capture, these days it probably doesn't apply anymore

I would expect a female medic would be accorded more considerations then a male medic all things being equal.
In the units I worked with, IMO it would not be possible they would have slowed them down, this was some yrs back. maybe things are different now.

Even so, that does not mean other armed forces don't have good systems, units, training, etc. If you speak to active service US soldiers today who are posted to 2ID, you will find that a lot of them have a lot of respect for some of the allies they have served with - ROKs here, Brits, Estonians, French, etc in Afghan - and others not.

as do I, was even awarded whats called "french commando badge" while serving in ger. the unit I was in went through the training.
The French, guys pretty tough and have very cool accents, the commander at that time had served in the French Foreign Legion
tough as nails.

worked with some limeys (brits) ) very disciplined compared to the unit I was with. both units trained in "Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape (SERE)" training hosted by
the 7th group sf, I believe.

we had exercises against the German SF guys, cool uniforms, very fast tanks at the time compared to our M-60 MBT.
GER, cold as hell, nothing like getting ones hand stuck to something like a rifle barrel in the winter time.

after changing MOSs, my guys supported land combat missile systems being launched off the Korean coast.
some of my guys thought after watching the ROKS play some Ssireum "Korean wrestling" it would be fun to try.
nothing like watching some big US GIs getting tossed by the much smaller but stronger Koreans.
ah "soju"

anyways , yes Andy, I do respect and have interacted with soldiers from other Armies
my back ground also includes working as part of staff in what is called "combat developments" each corps has its own staff
addressing present and future military needs pertaining to their corps.
I am well aware of the considerations and differences between male and female soldiers,
and what it entails in combat and weapon system development.

maybe things have changed, my point in posting this thread is that there have been many, many studies
indicating in the long run its not a good idea. It doesn't add anything to the efficiency of the unit.
I have yet to see anything that would indicate other wise.

land of the morning calm.... gets cold in the winter time,,,really cold

[windwalker]

The Army develops future force capabilities through the process of combat developments. Combat development should be based on the Army's vision of future which is informed by the analysis of current threat capabilities and trends, strategic policy, and military budgets. It determines doctrine (How we will fight), organization (How we are organized to fight), training (How we train to fight), and material (What we fight with).

http://www.benning.army.mil/mssp/Combat%20Development/

used to work as part of staff that did this.
its quite interesting, and brings to light many things
that are not often considered, from a civilians perspective.

in the other thread on Ebola, I can say
it was handled wrong from the start. lets hope they get it
together .

[Andy_S]

Ah, I (finally) get what you are saying.

Sure, the maidens in the clips are not infantry per se,' they are medics. But even so, they are involved in infantry tasks (patrolling, operations) and have been involved in close combat.

[Interloper]

As an aside, we had a US Marine captain from our neighboring town, Capt. Jennifer Harris, who was a helicopter pilot in Iraq. She had several tours of duty under her belt and a flawless performance record flying in combat zones. A week before she was to return to the US, she was shot down with six fellow marines (injured) while transported them to a medical base. So, while Capt. Harris was not directly engaged in combat, she was definitely involved in it and made the ultimate sacrifice.

There are many ways to serve in the midst of warfare. Brains often trumps sheer brawn in many of these para-combat roles.

[windwalker]

There are many ways to serve in the midst of warfare. Brains often trumps sheer brawn in many of these para-combat roles.

respect and condolences for the Capt. and her family.

you dont understand "warfare"

Joint warfare is a military doctrine which places priority on the integration of the various service branches of a state's armed forces into one unified command. Joint warfare is in essence a form of combined arms warfare on a larger, national scale, in which complementary forces from a state's army, navy, air, and special forces are meant to work together in joint operations, rather than planning and executing military operations separate from each other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_warfare

its called doctrine
the bottom line, is getting the most value for the effort put in, each part contributing to the whole making it stronger then any single part.
this why the US Military is among the best in the world, having control and integration of, space, air, sea, and land.
Putting women, in front line close combat units in "most" cases doesn't contribute to the efficiency of the group.
In fact its often a detractor for many reasons.
this is looking at it from purely a military functionality view point.

women due serve in combative support and some combative roles, someone mentioned A-10 pilots, for the most part, for the effort and cost it "dosnt add anything" in fact it cost more, and takes up resources that would otherwise be spread out more equally.

this is not to say they cant, or have not functioned in combative roles, such as pilots and such they do and have.
it is to say that in the event of them getting shot down for example, who has the better chance at surviving it, assuming
they survive the air encounter. before anyone answers understand that they start off at a disadvantage solely to the fact
that biology has made it so.

being very crass, its in investment that we dont want to lose and give those making it the best chance of surviving it.

[Dmitri]

your in a squad 3 of the 5 are gay for example, your 1 one the ones who are not,
what billeting space would you want to be in? they hold 3 or more.

Me personally -- I don't give a crap about anyone's sexual orientation. But apparently that's not the case with many, many others...

I'm betting you and Steve, dont hang out in gay bars, could be wrong.
not my cup of tea.

but you both have no problems asking others to do what you, normally would not want to, that is of course
unless you like hanging out at gay bars.

That's not a good parallel at all. "Hanging out at gay bars' unequivocally implies sexual preference and direct interest. As far as I can tell, people go there to, essentially, find dates. that has NOTHING to do with non-date-finding/not sexually-related activities.

Say you have a couple guys help you with moving, and they're gay. It should make no difference whatsoever whether they are or not, because you're just moving things, not trying to score a date or something. Sexual orientation and preference should (can't stress that enough) have no impact on any non-sexually-related activities. It just doesn't make any logical sense whatsoever. But, again, apparently it does, for a lot of people.

During my 2 years in the Soviet military (84-86) I never encountered anything "gay", only rumors about this or that officer being gay. I don't think it would have made the slightest difference to me if things were different in that sense, but then again I'm apparently quite far from norm in that respect; I bet those poor guys would have been, at the very least, mocked; likely much worse.

Oh well.

Humans; what else is new.

P.S. This conversation is reminding me of the movie 'American Beauty'... think I'll rent it again. Recommended, if you haven't watched.

[grzegorz]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/18/politics/ ... er-course/

[windwalker]

Female officers are the mains ones pushing this for promotions.

There have been many studies showing why its not a good idea no real in depth studies supporting it.
the bottom line is that they add nothing to combat efficiency but they do add, added
cost associated with it and detract from it.

4) Dr. Scott's concerns are reflected in this report, which also considers factors unique to women, such as pregnancy:

Military Medicine, July 2010: Disease and Non-Battle Injuries Sustained by a U.S. Army Brigade Combat Team During Operation Iraqi Freedom
Excerpt:

"Females, compared with males, had a significantly increased incidence rate ratio for becoming a DNBI [disease and non-battle injury] casualty....Of 47 female soldiers receiving MEDEVAC 35 (74%) were for pregnancy-related issues."

5. In this article, a Marine Captain with extensive experience in Iraq and Afghanistan draws upon her own experience to make arguments similar to those of Dr. Scott. In a close combat environment, the physical demands and medical penalties are more severe for women than men:

"The military viewpoint was that under the conditions of a high intensity close-quarter battle, group cohesion becomes of much greater significance to team performance and, in such an environment, the consequences of failure can have far-reaching and grave consequences. To admit women would, therefore, involve a risk with no gains in terms of combat effectiveness to offset it...

.[T]the Secretary of State for Defence concluded that the case for lifting the current restrictions on women serving in combat roles has not been made for any of the units in question. Taking the risk that the inclusion of women in close combat teams could adversely affect those units in the extraordinary circumstances of high intensity close combat cannot be justified." (emphasis added)

http://www.cmrlink.org/content/essentia ... and_combat


Having worked with and been part of an Army staffing group that looked at these things
in opening some combat support roles for women, the cost involved where significant with no added benefits.

to use the “Israeli experience” as an allegedly successful model for the U.S. to follow is not only absurd, it’s disingenuous. It is a lie propagated by radical feminists like ex-Democratic Rep. Patricia Schroeder who have falsely claimed that such a goal is merely an extension of “the will of the people.”

Perhaps if more lawmakers – and Americans in general – were exposed to military service, the idiots who seem to be dominating this debate wouldn’t have many sympathetic ears.


Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2001/08/10269/#Tuc5xroSp3xWpHxu.99

.

[kenneth fish]

The Marines I have known were, for the most part, the finest people I ever knew or served with. One of the smartest, most motivated and hardworking persons I ever met was a female Marine who was in class with me at the Defense Intelligence College. All of the forces have people who are essentially grunts or drones (that includes the Air Force) - but they also have people who would be outstanding in any field, and the military gives them an opportunity they might not have otherwise had.

I have interacted with "special operations" personnel from each of the forces - the Marines were ones I preferred to work with.

[yeniseri]

women do serve in combative support and some combative roles, someone mentioned A-10 pilots, for the most part, for the effort and cost it "doesnt add anything" in fact it cost more, and takes up resources that would otherwise be spread out more equally.

In combat arms, there is an added cost but the traditional roles of JAG and Healthcare fields have been equal in most cases. JAG (lawyer) and medicine/surgery,etc the main critera has been fulfilled by the civilian occupation per the MOS so less of military time is allotted for training when compared to a boot Lt who does not have a legal or medical specialty. I have been in the field with MP trained and support troops, <who were female> but the long term SPEC OPS training period for women is daunting keeping in mind that many men do not make the cut also.

Tammy Duckworth, the pilot from IL who was shot down and lost both her legs when her Black Hawk helicopter was shot down by an RPG along with a few other men that day,gave the best that she could and she endured.
I read the op ed review that over 250?? soldiers began the last training cycle (some of those guys were hit the the lightening storm at Eglin AFB last week) but less than 100 (I think ~98) graduated

[windwalker]

I dont quite get your post, bombs and bullets do not discriminate, that fact that she is noted as a female that was injured and not just as another soldier says something.

costs: you do understand that weaponry has to be designed so that average female and males can operate it.
medical care for women is higher. billeting and a host of many other issues that are not seen nor looked at depending
on ones rank and position come into play. Any one E-4 and below will tend to have one view point E-5 and up responsible for the
planning and implementation will tend to have another.

many studies show long term effects are not good for woman ect.
http://cmrlink.org/data/sites/85/CMRDoc ... ov2010.pdf

long in depth study for those interested

A British Army doctor has confirmed that female soldiers are paying for "equal opportunities" with a much hig

her risk of injury than men during basic training. Writing in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, Lt. Col. Ian Gemmell noted that women’s rates of injury doubled when co-ed basic training was introduced, due to differences in strength, bone mass, and stride length. For men, the proportion of discharges caused by stress fractures and back pain remained below 1.5%. For women, however, discharges rose from 4.6% to 11.1% under the co-ed training regime.

As previously reported in CMR Notes (Feb. 1999), The Commander of Britain’s largest basic training base at Pirbright, near Surrey, restored single-gender training after a one-year test. Lt. Col. Simon Vandeleur told the London Sunday Times (Feb. 8, 1999), that restoration of all-female platoons reduced women’s injury rates by 50%, and first-time pass rates increased from 50% to 70%.

http://cmrlink.org/content/article/34424

in the US no matter what happens you wont tend to hear about any negative effects that go against the narrative.

study after study confirms what most intuitively know.

The bottom line is that if there really was a benefit to the mission the military would be one of the first to use it.
other then its good for promotions there is no benefit to the mission.
none

in most cases the female offices are pushing this, its not for combat efficiency.

I never understand why people are so insistent on having females in places where others lives depend on them directly and yet not in
major league sports where its about the team winning

In my time in service in many mos's they just started to allow them into areas that where once considered front line opps.
it presented many problems that detracted from the mission and more headaches for those in charge.

Donnelly, who heads the Center for Military Readiness, an independent public-policy organization that specializes in military personnel issues, and is a member of WND’s Speakers Bureau, blames Lynch’s tragic experience on what she calls “social engineering” policies instituted in the military over the last decade by “Pentagon feminists” seeking to advance the careers of servicewomen at the cost, she says, of military morale, efficiency and readiness.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2003/11/21645/#4OL0hvtjo7RHBIMd.99

http://www.wnd.com/2003/11/21645/

for those interested there are many past and current studies all tend to show the same thing.
its not a good idea.

[windwalker]

JAG and Healthcare fields have been equal in most cases.

not really true. IME

its called tooth and tail. what they tried to do was lower the cost by contracting out services that used to be done by military specialties. the "tail"

which allows them to spend more on the combat arms branches the "tooth"

if one is trying to reduce cost and increase effectiveness how does allowing woman in roles off limits to them
now help to contain costs and increase effectiveness.

it will be interesting to see what the current leadership decides.

ret in 95. maybe things have changed a lot since that time.
the guys I keep in contact with and even female soldiers that I've spoken with about it,
none of them supports it. The only ones one will hear about
are the ones that directly benefit from it are the officers.

[windwalker]

Interesting read.

The U. S. Army Medical Command compared male/female injury rates in formerly all
-male units such as field and air defense artillery. Previously undisclosed data show
CMR Policy Analysis Page 2 of 8


August 2015
that female soldiers suffered injuries averaging double men’s rates in specific MOSs. In
the Field Artillery Surveyor Meteorological Crewmember MOS, for example, injuries
for women were approximately 112% higher than men’s. In the Bradley fighting
vehicle system maintainer MOS, the rate was 133% higher.

Details are in Appendix A.
4
 Another document provided by the U.S. Army Institute of Public Health reports that
in basic combat training, approximate average injury rates for women were 114%
higher than men’s. In training for engineers and military police, they were 108%
higher.

Details are in Appendix B.
5
Defense Department laws and regulations governing physically dangerous experiments with
humans require informed consent. A sample consent form provided to CMR described test
requirements, but failed to provide information about disproportionate risks of injury and other
health issues unique to women. 6

Military women have a right to know about risks related to differences in physiology, which are
not going to change.

More than 30 years of studies in the United States 7
have repeatedly confirmed what was stated in the most recent report from the British Ministry of Defence: “In
general, women have smaller hearts, about 30% less muscle, slighter skeletal structure and
wider pelvic bones, resulting in less explosive power and upper body strength.”

Furthermore, “There will be some women, among the physical elite, who will achieve the goal,
But these women will be more susceptible to acute short term injury than men: in the Army’s current predominantly single-sex initial military
training, women have a two-fold higher risk of musculoskeletal (MSK) injury.” 8

http://cmrlink.org/data/sites/85/CMRDoc ... st2015.pdf


even the ones who managed to pass the ranger tab, will be more prone to injury then their male counterparts.

study after study after study

and yet still the push

and what it doesnt say is that in a squad you dont get a replacement,
everyone is expected to be able to the same things. Its not their fault
that poor misguided leadership puts them in a no win situation.

[windwalker]

From the same study:

A few days before he retired as Army Chief of Staff, General Raymond Odierno announced
that most field artillery positions would be open to women on a permanent basis. The general
claimed that Army research and pilot programs, initiated to test ways to gender-integrate land
combat units such as field infantry, were “all going well.” 1

It turns out, however, that in the Army’s combat research “Exception to Policy” (ETP)
experiments, female soldiers suffered twice as many injuries as men. Perhaps General Odierno
didn’t ask and no one told him about the un-equal, disproportionate damage done to women’s
health during tests involving more than 400 female volunteers since 2012. 2

Last February the Michigan-based Thomas More Law Center assisted the Center for
Military Readiness (CMR) in filing 40 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests asking
for information on how the Army research tests were going.

Months later, Army Medical and Training Commands provided documents containing previously-undisclosed, show-stopping
data. In military occupational specialties, (MOSs) such as field artillery, air defense artillery,and Bradley vehicle maintenance, female soldiers’ injury rates averaged double those of men.

[/quote]

The general
claimed that Army research and pilot programs, initiated to test ways to gender-integrate land
combat units such as field infantry, were “all going well.” 1

never cared much for officers "going well" yep

For those not in the military completing the mission,, what ever it may be is expected and demanded.
We depend on flag ranked officers to be able to give factual and accurate assessments based on facts and studies when available.

when the officers become politicized its very dangerous for those they serve more so for those they'er supposed to lead.
Presidents, say they want to know but often times if they dont like it, they relive the officer and find ones who agree with
their assessments. This current president has some type of objective he is trying to leave behind...

a news headline

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Two pioneering women who completed the daunting U.S. Army Ranger school this week said Thursday they hoped their historic achievement would open doors for other females as the Pentagon opens new roles, including elite Navy SEALs, to women.

Right sounds like a good idea, after all there was a Hollywood movie about it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yv9UfeeOOs
it must be true they can do it.

[Steve James]

Fwiw, my son knows one of the women who passed the Ranger course. He's a soldier and his fiancee is a soldier. He tends to think that women should be held to equal standards, but I don't think he believes that they are --when it comes to society in general. Anyway, with regard to Ranger school, there are no female officers. More importantly, every candidate has to go through "peer eval." At those daily evaluation meetings, rank has no meaning. A single no will blackball a candidate out. In the case of these two women, though they passed the course, they will not be assigned to a regiment (like the 75th). However, that doesn't mean that they won't serve. Who knows? Some would say that they will be used as "special assets" -and I don't mean typists or recruiters.

I doubt that mixed male/female combat units will be created. I think most agree that it would entail additional costs without enhancing or improving combat effectiveness. However, I don't think it's a question of capabilities. I don't think people get into special services without living up to standards that most recruits could not meet.