USA: All Combat Roles Now Open to Women: Defense Secretary

[windwalker]

The U.S. Army issued a blistering denial late Friday that the recent Ranger school course was “fixed” to allow women to pass and earn the coveted Ranger tab.

In a statement, Brig. Gen. Malcom B. Frost, the Army’s chief of public affairs, said that a People Magazine article charging that Army Capt. Kristen Griest and 1st Lt. Shaye Haver were given special treatment was “flat-out wrong” and “pure fiction.”

The article by Susan Katz Keating was headlined: “Was It Fixed? Army General Told Subordinates: 'A Woman Will Graduate Ranger School,' Sources Say.”

The magazine’s report went on to cite the repercussions of the unnamed general’s influence on subordinates at Fort Benning, Ga., involved in conducting the first Ranger school course open to women that began earlier this year.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015 ... -pass.html


There are some issues surrounding the "ranger school"
for those interested.

one of the comments

All of us who served know full well that a "general's desire", or "I would like to see" are received by all below them as an "order" that is unwritten but must be obeyed and made to happen!

A MajGen (former Delta member) just happens to "stop by" the training and then assumes total responsibility for grading the "female candidates" on their 2nd attempt to complete the training, a job normally done by senior enlisted, company grade, and on a few occasions field grade officers.

But for the first time ever a Major General happens to step into this job??? Yea, and the tooth fairy will pay you, or Santa Claus will come down you barracks chimney! This "Desire", "Wouldn't it be nice", or "Command Intent" came directly from Obama's White House Social Engineers and on down.

Not a single general officer, with the sole exception of the Marines ,has stood up and said it simply won't work and is a bad idea that will increase injuries and casualties in real combat! Instead they have all went along to keep their positions, or future advancement.

You can be assured the Army MajGen mentioned is already being prepped for LtGen, a rank he may well have "honestly" and "honorably" attained, but now will always be tainted because of his intervention insuring the woman graduated! Would they have been successful without his personal grading of them?

We'll never know and the women, fairly or unfairly, will always be under a cloud of disbelief & suspicion by all serving under, with and above of them the rest of the career's in the US Army!

That's also not fair to them either, but they did allow themselves to be used and that is dishonorable at best!

[Steve James]

You're mixing two different things. The Rangers determine whether a person passes. All elite units are trained by former or present elite team members. You can just ask the others in her evolution whether she had it easier, and they can explain why. Afa pilots killed in training, c'mon, using one woman as an example is just dumb. Real dumb. There's no evidence at all that men fly better than women in combat, and the example you cite was a training accident. The example I posted was of a successful (actually one of the latest successful) female combat pilot. If there were a single study that proved women weren't as capable as pilots, there would be no female commercial pilots. There'd have been no female combat pilots in the Russian AF during WW2 either.

What I am not talking about are situations where strength is the primary factor, not skill, intelligence or fighting spirit. Women have shown they have all the last three categories in amounts equal to men. That's even true in the animal world. This is not to suggest that women should be integrated into Marine units Though, my two-sons in law being Marines, I know that the Corps doesn't f around. The more the need for group cohesion, the less likely that people will just get passed through. Right now, there's a need for more recruits

[windwalker]

missed the point, the pilots where not held to the same standards to begin with.

What many "say" really has not been born out through studies or reports that normally you or others not in the military would know nor care about. The military along with our gov. is not in the habit of letting facts get in the way of what they want others to know.

For those in commend positions, it matters it's an issue that is not often spoken about outside
of the military.

Delivering a statement signed by twenty-one out of twenty-three [Navy] Top Gun instructors opposing women in combat aviation, Lieutenant John Clagett…revealed that in some areas female students were simply “not allowed to fail.”

The word from the top was that the Navy needed more female pilots…instructor pilots were under pressure to go easy on women. Clagett recalled his experience with a female student at Beeville, Texas: “She didn’t perform her mission what I considered up to standards.

I chose at that time to try to give her an unsatisfactory for the flight and was told in private quarters that that wasn’t what you did in this situation, that ‘she not only will pass the flight, but it will be an average grading.’”

Clagett challenged the commission to ask the Navy for statistics on women attrited from flight training involuntarily, “the ones that are told, ‘You are not good enough to fly this airplane or any airplane from this point on…’…quite frankly, they were zero when I was at Beevile.

respect for your sons in-laws service

When average male Marines outperform top-performing female Marines on nearly 70% of combat tasks, there’s no way one can argue women strengthen combat units. When strong, athletic, female Marines are still injured at more than twice the men’s rate, there’s no way to argue this adds strength

This is what I dont understand whats the push for them to be there, it adds problems with no benefits
"none" If its more bodies needed for war, why dont they start with changing who has to register for selective service first.

Almost all male U.S. citizens and male immigrants, who are 18 through 25, are required to register with Selective Service

why not start here, that way everyone gets chance to be in the MOS of 11B
which we used to call 11bb, for bullet blocker.

[yeniseri]

what kind of "gun ships"
care to share your rank and mos

I am not presently in the military. My first duty station was MCAS Okinawa over 25 years and I served in a Squadron (not a pilot)
Primary MOS Legal Clerk Secondary: 0324 amongst other tasks duties as TAD MP unit and PSD member

Gunship: I am sure your googlefu is working: AC-130, A-10s, Cobra. and retrofitted Black Hawk; retrofitted with recent technology as surveillance, etc you can check them out.

My last deployment as a PMC, Parwan Province Afghanistan 2010-2011, I obserrved female pilot flying these birds, whethere they were navigator, primary or otherwise, I knew them by face and they were good at their job. I have known officers who have have resigned theor commissions just to go enlisted SF, SOCOM, etc and it was more of a personal satidfaction as opposed to a career move hence my position. There is no doubt that for women being part of a 'fast track' route makes for good promotion but there are headaches galore. Personal satisfaction is major.

Egalitarianism sounds great at the concept level but as I stated earlier, I do not see all female Team hunting bn Laden (of course, he is in the other world right now!) but I have seen Female Engagement Team (FET) members (Afghanistan-you can google also) do an excellent job based on the conditions they operate and for the mission intelligence the greater Team may not have access to.

I have a great site for you: check them out : http://www.socnet.com/

[Steve James]

The USAF's Deadliest F-16 Viper Pilot On Women, Combat, And The F-35

The USAF's Deadliest F-16 Viper Pilot On Women, Combat, And The F-35

20 years, over 600 combat hours, 151 combat missions, 21 hard kills on surface-to-air missile sites, four Distinguished Flying Crosses with Valor, eight Air Medals with Valor, five Meritorious Service Medals, one Purple Heart. Dan Hampton is one of America's most decorated fighter pilots of modern times and he holds nothing back when it comes to his views on air combat.
...
#11: What are your thoughts on women in the role of fighter pilot?

As for women in fighters... if someone was selected the same way I was, went through the same nasty process, and came out good enough to get into fighters (with no exceptions nor quotas) then I don't care who it is; what color they are, if they sit to pee or how they pray.What I care about is them doing their job and not getting me killed.

That's my point. What I'm against is not giving anyone the opportunity to try to make the cut. That should be the only consideration. Make the job as nasty and difficult as can be, but don't make any presumptions or assumptions.

[windwalker]

That's my point. What I'm against is not giving anyone the opportunity to try to make the cut. That should be the only consideration. Make the job as nasty and difficult as can be, but don't make any presumptions or assumptions.

i really dont understand....Here is my point.
there are limited resources, all studies show that males in most cases have the best surviability rates due just being male.

The mission of the military is about engaging with and killing the enemy. All studies show that just being a male gives one certain advantages
that are hard to overcome for those that are not male or males that can not met the standards set. Females often met the standards for which males
would be chaptered out of the service.

There are no studies that show using females in combat positions gives any advantages
on the contrary there are many that show costs associated with it.

respect to those that served
perspectives on this really reflect ones service and duties.

This is why I asked about those that served what there rank was and mos.

In my case as an infantry medic and later working in battalion level aid stations in mixed gender unites
I saw directly the effects. We would not send females out on some missions.
Later I would work as part of a staff for what was called Combat Developments for land combat missile systems

we studied this all the time, during the life cycle development of weapon systems.
So far the military has not really been tested against an enemy that is equal in tech.

when this happens, the issue of why its not a good idea to allow females in those positions
will become very clear.

I have talked with other enlisted E-7 and above, in different branches of the military...none are for it
the closer one gets to the combat mos's the more reasons for why its not a good idea become very apparent.

a tank has a 4 "man" crew
if it was less this it would put a strain on the survivablity of the crew
and ability to accomplish its mission.

they've wanted to go to autoloaders for a long time allowing them to have 3 man crews. "saves money reduces training and billeting cost"
bad idea for many reasons.

if for example they went to 3 men and 1 female it would be like having 3.5 or maybe just 3 men.

I still dont understand the rational other then the officer core is pushing it...
as plt sgt,.,.,my rule was to ask officers 3 times whether they really wanted to do something...
when it was not a good idea.....after the 3 rd time, I would salute and do it.

this is not a good idea, there are no studies that support it.
While I respect all view points, I would also point out that almost anyone
whos been in a grunt unit would not agree that it was a good idea....

As steve, mentioned with his son in laws in the Marines..
most will not really understand what those in combat arms
do, can do...or are asked and expected to do..

to stay alive and come back you have to be
among the best of the best....its called the spear tip

for supporting it its called

The tooth-to-tail ratio is a military term that refers to the amount of military personnel ("tail") it takes to supply and support each combat soldier ("tooth").

While both "tooth" and "tail" soldiers may find themselves in combat or other life-threatening situations "tooth" soldiers are those whose primary function is to neutralize the enemy. The ratio is not a specific measure but rather a general indication of an army's actual military might in relation to the resources it devotes to supply, upkeep, and logistics.

with high tech,,,it means few war fighters and more support....this means those who are the war fighters ie the tooth or spear,,,
had better be among the best of the best.....

[Steve James]

You do understand the pilot's point, though. I agree with him.

[yeniseri]

The nature of war has changed and the present combatants on all sides do not respect the rules of war. Recent reports and verifed of Coalition forces destroying hospital targets (MSF/DWB) despite having all information with GPS coordinates You know the stories but people do survive!. I saw a recent pinup of female soldiers with legs/limbs missing while doing non combat assignments. They were raising the bar for support for wounded vets and a way to show life can still go on.

We both agree that women just do not fit into the all male combat arms field but they do otherwise perform as well as male counterparts in support and it is still positive. My last deployment was AFCAP and they were quite a few female medical support personnel.

Tammy Duckworth (UH-60 BlackHawk co-pilot) served her country but ignorance still previals in many quarters. I have linked a story about how there are many ignorant men out there who are incapable of seeing truth and when they see it they call it a lie because it does not blend with their illusion:
http://www.inquisitr.com/1796906/u-s-ar ... rs-female/

About a female platoon leader who was attacked for "stolen valor" because she did not lead her unit as a man! WTF Politcal bs correctness gone mad.

[Ian C. Kuzushi]

The argument about unit cohesion is in some ways seems similar to some of the arguments against gay marriage: the children of same sex couples will suffer because society will treat their kids differently. Well, change can be painful, but that doesn't make it not worth it in the end. As for physical ability, I don't think there should be lowered standards for physical performance, but I have met and trained (MA) with some rather scrawny special forces, although they were tough as nails. If women can cut it, it's up to the neanderthal chauvinists to get in line or at least go the way of the dodo.

Some people are just resistant to change, whether that change is women getting equal access to opportunity or the addressing (let along acknowledgment of) unarmed black Americans getting murdered by white police on the regular. There are a lot of interesting studies coming out about conservative (not talking about politics here) versus liberal mindset and the predisposition of certain individuals.

[windwalker]

About a female platoon leader who was attacked for "stolen valor" because she did not lead her unit as a man! WTF Politcal bs correctness gone mad.

respect for your service

its not pc many studies have been done on this.

These researchers
defined gender-role congruency as the extent to which leaders behave in a manner that is
congruent with gender-role expectations. For instance, female leaders who display a
feminine leadership style would be considered gender-role congruent.

The theory suggests that gender-role congruent leaders would receive positive leadership ratings,
while gender incongruent leaders might receive lower ratings. For instance, to the extent
that women lead with a masculine style, they may exacerbate perceived role conflict and
increase the likelihood of receiving unfairly negative evaluations of their performance.

file:///C:/Users/wind/Downloads/ADA425399.pdf

Having served under female captains, and plt leaders

If they seek to prove their just as good as their male counter parts its not good, they tend to over reach in what a unit can do.
If they just do the mission, its also not good as they may be perceived as not to being able to bring honer and distinction to the unite.

A tough place to be in, the good ones as any Officer will or should do is to take the advice and counsel of their NOCs .

Its their job to take care of the "troops", accomplish the mission and train the officers to eventually be commanders.

[Steve James]

My whole problem with this issue is the premise that an individual's opportunities should be limited because of the group to which he or she belongs. Averages don't mean anything when it comes to the individual's ability.

Btw, I do agree with the argument that integrating women in combat infantry would not improve combat efficiency and would involve some additional costs. However, I'm not sure of the number of women who actually want to join the Army; and of those who do I think the majority go into support roles, some front line, some as drone pilots, some as medics. Afa the latter, the role of combat medic might not have been open to women before.

I think that has more to do with our (male) sensitivity. It is male chauvinism, but it's also natural. We are genetically programmed to want to protect our women. It goes across cultures. But, there are also no cultures where women have not been part of combat or led men in combat, and there are several famous examples of cultures with female combat units. That is a purely cultural. There are differences between the sexes, but that doesn't explain the cultural differences.

[windwalker]

I bet he doesn't come home late again !

not really fair the ones they hunted didnt have guns. They where trying to get
away as I understand it not fight......different dynamic.

Averages don't mean anything when it comes to the individual's ability.

I disagree in this case we'er talking about surviblility, ability to accomplish the mission, and group cohesion in a sustained high intensity combat environment.
A group is only as strong as its weakest link,,,,,

In all cases those females who can pass the test what ever the test over time tend to pay a higher price due the upper levels that they have to operate at compared to
their male counter parts, who operate well within the their limits but even they can become stressed.

Its been shown, repeatedly time and time again, injury rates, body brake down. and even by those who have been in unites suffer more after due to the op tempo that they have to sustain....

Equipment redesigns ie boots, uniforms ect are all trying to migrate the obvious that countless studies confirm.

The lethality factor of a modern grunt unit means that fewer are needed as the tooth. Its not cost effective nor prudent to put females in harms way with no proven benefits other then its something some might want to do. Even at this its not something they have to do, due to the way the selective service is set up its a choice.
I dont see them trying to change this,,,wonder why?


The female officers are the ones who benefit the most and are the ones pushing this.

[Steve James]

The female officers are the ones who benefit the most and are the ones pushing this.

Well, yeah, women are advocating on behalf of women. Combat roles get combat pay and the chances for faster promotion. The Army is integrated because Black Americans wanted to fight and were dying already. The people who were against it already had those opportunities.

[windwalker]

The female officers are the ones who benefit the most and are the ones pushing this.

Well, yeah, women are advocating on behalf of women. Combat roles get combat pay and the chances for faster promotion. The Army is integrated because Black Americans wanted to fight and were dying already. The people who were against it already had those opportunities.

not the same,,,

funny when its war time and getting drafted its not seen as an opportunity.

When its a choice with perceived benefits it is.

odd how that works out

not all woman are advocating its only certain group with an agenda.
one that is not supported by any study done to date.....

good discussion, I hope you get a chance to sit down with
your son in laws and talk about it...

[Steve James]

not all woman are advocating its only certain group with an agenda.
one that is not supported by any study done to date.....

That's the thing. Not all women will want or try to get into elite combat units or be grunts in general. The male-female distribution in the population is about 50/50. I don't believe that even 1% of women will want to be soldiers.

And there's no real study because it hasn't been done. I will ask my sons --and my daughter-in-law-- about it, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if they were opposed to women serving in certain positions. Even my daughter-in-law will probably agree, but I don't think her reason will be "because they are women."

The other difference I see is between a peacetime and a wartime military. Everyone nowadays (not counting stop-losses and redeployments) are volunteers. Right now, there might not be a need for women to replace men. That might not be the case if the military ramps up for a larger deployment of ground troops. If there's conscription, there'll be even more men in arms. If not, there will need to be replacements for people in combat roles. As I've said, whenever women were needed, they were called upon to serve. Women weren't riveters until WW2. They flew the bombers and fighters from the mid-West to Britain, etc. When the enemy was at the gates of Moscow and Stanlingrad, women did exactly the same duties as men. That was the daughter of necessity, not social equality.