SR_
Junior Member
Okay, so the DOD has removed the ban on allowing women in combat arms MOS's, this is Armor, Artillery, and Infantry MOS's. I felt that some of you may be confused about what this really means, why it is being done, and what the effects may be.
First off....this decision to change the policy is NOT the same thing as removing some "hope or intention" to keep women from seeing combat. As both the SecDef and the Chairman of the JCS have correctly conveyed, women have seen combat, this is just a reality. The decision is directed at removing the inability to consider a female from entry into a combat arms MOS. This is institutional, not situational.
There is an enormous difference in having a woman see combat, and placing a female soldier or Marine within a combat arms MOS (Military Occupational Specialty).
These MOS's reflect jobs that exist in units that are infantry, artillery, tanks, and special operations. Within the infantry MOS specific jobs are machine gunner, rifleman, mortar man, etc.., for artillery its cannoneer, counter battery rader, forward observer, fire direction control, etc.. These jobs are and can be extremely physical in nature just on the surface. The primary training for these positions involve carrying heavy munitions and weapons for long distances by foot, and/or dealing with heavy equipment and never ending hours in the middle of no-where on constant 24 hr ops. These MOS's are solely designated to conducting battle with the primary goal of killing the enemies of the United States through firepower and maneuver. These units are THE units that encounter and fight directly with the enemy.
Pay attention to the differences in the situational occurrences of women seeing battle, and the primary institutional differences of having women in combat arms. Jessica Lynch saw combat. She was wounded and captured. She was NOT in a combat arms MOS. She was provided a weapon (as all Soldiers and Marines are) and given a job fixing vehicles. This is a support role. Clearly being tasked with fixing vehicles does not preclude anyone from seeing combat. And upon her being exposed to combat she was disarmed and taken prisoner. Her unit that she was attached too, was not tasked with fighting battles in order to eliminate the enemy, they were tasked with fixing vehicles in support of the units that are designated to undertake that purpose. They were not trained to close with or eliminate enemy positions.
As is the case with most of the interactions of "women in combat" the results were not good. There are some units that are tasked with convoying materials and supplies from one location to another. Again, these units are not combat arms, they are support units to bring supplies, ammunition, personnel, and other necessities to combat arms units that are operating forward of the rear support bases. So having a female operate a gun turret on one of these missions is not a reflective measure of what her performance as a machine gunner may be in an infantry squad. Every aspect of that situation is different both in training, mind set, and unit planning to that of the combat arm unit she is helping to resupply.
This point cannot be under-estimated. A male 0331 Machine Gunner in the Marine Corps is trained on a variety of automatic weapons. His training includes extremely long humps of 20 miles or more carrying heavy weapons. He is trained in the tactics necessary to provide sufficient suppressive fire for an infantry squad to advance on positions as well as directly inflict death and destruction on enemy cover positions and personnel with the sole purpose of making contact and eliminating the enemy. From the first day he enters the School of Infantry this job and the physical requirements associated are put on him. He is then trained to operate from a mobile platform such as gun truck and how to support the advancement of his unit in maneuver warfare. His experiences within a squad will sometimes be very spartan. Sleeping on the ground and in the field for days and weeks at a time with no showering or relief. All the while he is responsible for the proper maintenance of his weapon and its successful transport to and correct implementation of its purpose in a battle environment.
This is not the same experience of a female military police officer who is NOT trained by going on 20 mile humps carrying a 30 lbs machine gun with extra barrels, or ammunition that accompanies it, along with her normal battle load. She is not trained to run with this weapon or effectively employ it under fire. That has not been done. The experiences of women in battle to this point do not include this sort of activity. To say that since women have experienced battle in a situational sense, is NOT the same as saying they have proven to be capable of doing this in an operational or institutional sense.
As of right now, there have been two women that were afforded the opportunity to take the Basic School or Infantry course as officers. Both of these women failed to make it. In fact one of the women failed to make it past the 1st day. 27 men also failed to make it past the 1st day of the 109 strong class to start with. The second was dropped for medical reasons after 2 weeks. The course is 13 weeks long.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/ondeadline/2012/10/15/marines-women-combat-infantry-training/1634903/
As of today, NO WOMAN, has ever completed this course or shown to be physically capable of the demands of the Marine Corps infantry billets. Not one.
This has to beg the question of will the services lower the physical standards that are currently required in order to make it possible for a woman to simply qualify? My fear is that they will, not because of any desire to have women in combat arms, but because THEY MUST just so they can say that a woman is being offered the ability to succeed in simply qualifying. Some of you may think this is okay, I would suspect this group will be mostly comprised of, if not, entirely comprised of people that have never served. Let me tell you.. this is not something that any citizen of the nation should desire. Lowering standards of qualification only leads to one thing... more people being killed.
Some have equated this debate to the gays in the military debate. Saying that, "we also heard gays couldnt do it".. but that isnt what you heard. Gays had already completed these activities successfully. There was no question about their ability, the question was about their effect on the cohesiveness of a unit and on having a military that is based on values. We already know that gays could complete the infantry course. That is not and was not ever questioned. This decision however is backwards of that... there has never been a successful completion by a woman, on any level, study or otherwise, demonstrating that with the current standards of training, that she could complete it and succeed.
Again.. we hear the "women are already showing they can operate in combat".. being combined with a reality that NO WOMAN has ever shown she could qualify or complete the training for some of these combat arms billets.
This is probably the most ignorant way to implement policy in regards to the defense of the nation. To make a political issue without fully understanding whether it should or even CAN be done, all the while lives are directly at stake.
I just wanted to take a little time to shed a little light on this as Im sure most are looking at this issue in terms of whether they think this is a positive or not. Whether they worry about their loved ones. Whether this will help increase our readiness and fighting capability. The bottom line is that it cant and it wont unless women can prove to do something they so far have never proved to be able to do at all, which will most likely result in the lowering of standards for these billets.. the billets of fighting our nations battles.. lowering those standards and effectively raising the body count...
How can this be categorized as progress?
First off....this decision to change the policy is NOT the same thing as removing some "hope or intention" to keep women from seeing combat. As both the SecDef and the Chairman of the JCS have correctly conveyed, women have seen combat, this is just a reality. The decision is directed at removing the inability to consider a female from entry into a combat arms MOS. This is institutional, not situational.
There is an enormous difference in having a woman see combat, and placing a female soldier or Marine within a combat arms MOS (Military Occupational Specialty).
These MOS's reflect jobs that exist in units that are infantry, artillery, tanks, and special operations. Within the infantry MOS specific jobs are machine gunner, rifleman, mortar man, etc.., for artillery its cannoneer, counter battery rader, forward observer, fire direction control, etc.. These jobs are and can be extremely physical in nature just on the surface. The primary training for these positions involve carrying heavy munitions and weapons for long distances by foot, and/or dealing with heavy equipment and never ending hours in the middle of no-where on constant 24 hr ops. These MOS's are solely designated to conducting battle with the primary goal of killing the enemies of the United States through firepower and maneuver. These units are THE units that encounter and fight directly with the enemy.
Pay attention to the differences in the situational occurrences of women seeing battle, and the primary institutional differences of having women in combat arms. Jessica Lynch saw combat. She was wounded and captured. She was NOT in a combat arms MOS. She was provided a weapon (as all Soldiers and Marines are) and given a job fixing vehicles. This is a support role. Clearly being tasked with fixing vehicles does not preclude anyone from seeing combat. And upon her being exposed to combat she was disarmed and taken prisoner. Her unit that she was attached too, was not tasked with fighting battles in order to eliminate the enemy, they were tasked with fixing vehicles in support of the units that are designated to undertake that purpose. They were not trained to close with or eliminate enemy positions.
As is the case with most of the interactions of "women in combat" the results were not good. There are some units that are tasked with convoying materials and supplies from one location to another. Again, these units are not combat arms, they are support units to bring supplies, ammunition, personnel, and other necessities to combat arms units that are operating forward of the rear support bases. So having a female operate a gun turret on one of these missions is not a reflective measure of what her performance as a machine gunner may be in an infantry squad. Every aspect of that situation is different both in training, mind set, and unit planning to that of the combat arm unit she is helping to resupply.
This point cannot be under-estimated. A male 0331 Machine Gunner in the Marine Corps is trained on a variety of automatic weapons. His training includes extremely long humps of 20 miles or more carrying heavy weapons. He is trained in the tactics necessary to provide sufficient suppressive fire for an infantry squad to advance on positions as well as directly inflict death and destruction on enemy cover positions and personnel with the sole purpose of making contact and eliminating the enemy. From the first day he enters the School of Infantry this job and the physical requirements associated are put on him. He is then trained to operate from a mobile platform such as gun truck and how to support the advancement of his unit in maneuver warfare. His experiences within a squad will sometimes be very spartan. Sleeping on the ground and in the field for days and weeks at a time with no showering or relief. All the while he is responsible for the proper maintenance of his weapon and its successful transport to and correct implementation of its purpose in a battle environment.
This is not the same experience of a female military police officer who is NOT trained by going on 20 mile humps carrying a 30 lbs machine gun with extra barrels, or ammunition that accompanies it, along with her normal battle load. She is not trained to run with this weapon or effectively employ it under fire. That has not been done. The experiences of women in battle to this point do not include this sort of activity. To say that since women have experienced battle in a situational sense, is NOT the same as saying they have proven to be capable of doing this in an operational or institutional sense.
As of right now, there have been two women that were afforded the opportunity to take the Basic School or Infantry course as officers. Both of these women failed to make it. In fact one of the women failed to make it past the 1st day. 27 men also failed to make it past the 1st day of the 109 strong class to start with. The second was dropped for medical reasons after 2 weeks. The course is 13 weeks long.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/ondeadline/2012/10/15/marines-women-combat-infantry-training/1634903/
As of today, NO WOMAN, has ever completed this course or shown to be physically capable of the demands of the Marine Corps infantry billets. Not one.
This has to beg the question of will the services lower the physical standards that are currently required in order to make it possible for a woman to simply qualify? My fear is that they will, not because of any desire to have women in combat arms, but because THEY MUST just so they can say that a woman is being offered the ability to succeed in simply qualifying. Some of you may think this is okay, I would suspect this group will be mostly comprised of, if not, entirely comprised of people that have never served. Let me tell you.. this is not something that any citizen of the nation should desire. Lowering standards of qualification only leads to one thing... more people being killed.
Some have equated this debate to the gays in the military debate. Saying that, "we also heard gays couldnt do it".. but that isnt what you heard. Gays had already completed these activities successfully. There was no question about their ability, the question was about their effect on the cohesiveness of a unit and on having a military that is based on values. We already know that gays could complete the infantry course. That is not and was not ever questioned. This decision however is backwards of that... there has never been a successful completion by a woman, on any level, study or otherwise, demonstrating that with the current standards of training, that she could complete it and succeed.
Again.. we hear the "women are already showing they can operate in combat".. being combined with a reality that NO WOMAN has ever shown she could qualify or complete the training for some of these combat arms billets.
This is probably the most ignorant way to implement policy in regards to the defense of the nation. To make a political issue without fully understanding whether it should or even CAN be done, all the while lives are directly at stake.
I just wanted to take a little time to shed a little light on this as Im sure most are looking at this issue in terms of whether they think this is a positive or not. Whether they worry about their loved ones. Whether this will help increase our readiness and fighting capability. The bottom line is that it cant and it wont unless women can prove to do something they so far have never proved to be able to do at all, which will most likely result in the lowering of standards for these billets.. the billets of fighting our nations battles.. lowering those standards and effectively raising the body count...
How can this be categorized as progress?
