Don't ask Don't tell anyone about the repeal

[Orogun01]

I think if we've learned something in the last fifty years it is that warfighting isn't some Medal of Honour gun festival. There's a lot more to winning the operational objectives in a campaign than stabbing people. Particularly, but not only in counter-insurgency.

 

Yes there is a lot more to it. Including running fast for long distances while carrying very heavy loads. Being able to run without stopping until told, then fighting without stopping until told. Infantry is a VERY physically demanding business. I knew a lot of Women Marines during my time in and many of them were excellent marines in that they could do their jobs well and with professionalisim, but not one, not a single one of them could have hacked it as a grunt.

 

Just as an example, you are a Marine platoon commander. You have been ordered to double time (that means run to those of you who have never served) over six miles of rocky terrain to relieve another platoon that is pinned under heavy fire. A Marine Rifle Platoon is roughly forty Marines and keeping with the percentages if it was integrated five of those would be women. Every platoon has one heavy weapons team (in my day it was the M-60e3 don't know what they use now) and every squad (three in every platoon) has a SAW team. Everyone in the platoon from the commander down to the newest boot private carries their own gear, their own weapons with ammo for them, plus a spare battery for the radio or 1000 round belt of ammo for the M-60 or two 500 round drums for one of the SAWs. The women would be expected to do this too. Now they will have to carry all of this while running six miles over rocky ground then at the end of that they will be expected to engage the enemy in a firefight. Every male marine can make that run, they do it in training ALL the time. That is the Combat PFT I told you guys about. Every male Marine has to pass it twice a year. What would you do as the commander if your five women can't complete the run? What do you do if even one of them can't? Not only do you lose her but whatever assets she is carrying. You can't stop because there is a besiged platoon waiting for your aid.

 

You guys see the problems here? I'm sorry but there are some things that women just can-not-do. Failing to realize that is just politcally correct foolishness.

 

Don't take this the wrong way guys but 99% of you never served in the military. And unless I'm wrong, Gfted1 and I are the only ones on this board regularly who have ever served in combat. You just don't fully understand what you are talking about. I do not say that to be confrontational or nasty, it's just how it is.

And if they meet all those qualifications, could they be allowed in combat?

[~Di]

There's been talk for two pages now about compromising combat effectiveness.

 

Anyone care to tell me what the f*** that actually means?

 

Same thing it meant when folks warned that integrating blacks and gays into the military would compromise combat effectiveness. It means they don't want "those people who are not like us" integrated into the military.

[~Di]

Women are held back on how far they can advance because they are prevented from commanding combat troops, dispite the fact that they are qualified to do so... or would be, if allowed.

 

Tough. You don't risk lives and the success of the mission to help someone's career portfolio.

 

Way to ignore the revelant points in my post.

 

What, Di, like this bit where you appear to suggest that the deaths of women is a new and interesting metric for pursuing a WAR IS EVAL agenda?

 

If the US can handle seeing lines of coffins of our dead sons, then it can damned well learn to handle lines of coffins of our dead daughters. They are all our children. They should be treated equally by our government and our military. Perhaps when enough have died, both the government and the military will decide that pre-emptive invasions and nation-building is not worth the blood of our children.

 

Usually you are a overflowing spring of common-sense, but alas on this one I think not.

 

Edit: I realise my post might appear harsh, I'm not trolling Di but that really is how I read it.

 

It appeared rude and condescending, but this is a touchy subject for many and I like you personally so I'll give you a pass.

 

I have consistently said that females should meet the same standards as males for any combat position they are assigned to. Right now, the law against women in combat is patently absurd because they are in combat alongside men right now, and have been for nearly a decade. If this no-combat law is repealed, then women who would like to apply for other combat positions and are qualified for those positions would be able to train for them. Do I think thousands of women would qualify for the strength and endurance required for infantry? No I do not. But some would, and they should be allowed. Some women could qualify for artillery, for tank warfare, for myriad positions which they are not allowed to hold because of the no-combat rule. Not once have I ever advocated lowering the standards for females; however, those females who can qualify alongside men, adhering to the same standards, should be given the same opportunities.

 

Women fly fighter jets in wartime. They fly rescue choppers. They drive humvees through firefights, and they engage in firefights right this very minute. Combat effectiveness and unit cohesion not been eroded, according to the military commission that has studied this issue and concluded that the no-combat for females should be repealed.

 

My comment about lines of coffins was directed at a poster who, IIRC, commented that Americans weren't ready to see lines of coffins filled with females returning home. If we can stand to see our sons die, then we can stand to see our daughters die. My preference, obviously, is that we get the hell out of both Iraq and Afghanistan so fewer of both die. I think that position displays perfect common sense.

[Thorton_AP]

What do you mean by "women are in combat" compared to "women being in combat roles."

 

My grandfather was a mechanic in WW2, and was wounded by a piece of shrapnel in combat. But he was a mechanic... wounded while on base. I wouldn't say he was in a combat position yet still faced combat.

[~Di]

What do you mean by "women are in combat" compared to "women being in combat roles."

 

My grandfather was a mechanic in WW2, and was wounded by a piece of shrapnel in combat. But he was a mechanic... wounded while on base. I wouldn't say he was in a combat position yet still faced combat.

 

He was still considered a combatant and got combat pay. I think I delineated some combat roles that women would be free to apply for, including artillery and tank warfare. And those few who could equal male stamina and endurance, infantry as well. Right now women are considered non-combatants, even when they are pinned down behind a humvee engaged in a firefight with multiple enemies. That's wrong.

[Thorton_AP]

Yes and he had his weapons training and whatnot, but was not a part of a regiment that actively sought to take the combat to the enemy, or was ever given specific orders the revolved around combat (offensive or defensive). The reality of the matter is that in a war **** can hit the fan though, whether your officially a combatant or not.

 

 

So is the issue then that women are not given combat pay when their non-combat unit enters a combat situation? Because the best I've been able to find right now is a link here which indicates that even if women are not eligible for combat roles, they will still receive combat pay if they end up in a combat zone during their deployment. The link isn't the most confidence inducing though.

 

As with infantry, I am of the mind that if the women meet the standardized physical requirements for the role, I have no issue with them being put into artillery or armor placements either.

[Calax]

There's been talk for two pages now about compromising combat effectiveness.

 

Anyone care to tell me what the f*** that actually means?

 

Same thing it meant when folks warned that integrating blacks and gays into the military would compromise combat effectiveness. It means they don't want "those people who are not like us" integrated into the military.

Except that blacks and gay guys don't carry around an extra layer of fat and less muscle mass compared to the other guy. Biology matters here, no matter how much you want to stick your fingers in your ears and scream, it does.

 

For basic, front line infantry work, you need to have a unit that can do whatever is asked to the same standard. Now either that standard is lowered to average in women, or women are not permitted into that role and have to look elsewhere for their chosen job.

 

It should be noted this only really effects two branches of the US military (army and marines) and the other two aren't nearly as physically intensive.

 

The blacks was pure non-educated racism. Gays was homophobia and the fear that other homophobes would kill the groups morale. Women it's mainly for biological necessities (particularly considering that usually when somebody comes off a "combat high" they have an urge to pro-create)

[Thorton_AP]

Women it's mainly for biological necessities (particularly considering that usually when somebody comes off a "combat high" they have an urge to pro-create)

 

I think that that might be a bit of a simplification of the matter.

 

I don't even know about any post combat high heightened sexuality to begin with...

[Walsingham]

I think if we've learned something in the last fifty years it is that warfighting isn't some Medal of Honour gun festival. There's a lot more to winning the operational objectives in a campaign than stabbing people. Particularly, but not only in counter-insurgency.

 

Don't take this the wrong way guys but 99% of you never served in the military. And unless I'm wrong, Gfted1 and I are the only ones on this board regularly who have ever served in combat. You just don't fully understand what you are talking about. I do not say that to be confrontational or nasty, it's just how it is.

 

No offence taken, mate. Although I don't recall ever saying that women shouldn't be judged by the same grounds. If they can't complete the PFT for the corps or regiment then happy days.

 

To take an argument which I've certainly not come across before thinking of it just now, what about people from poor backgrounds?

 

Bear with me.

 

In my experience in training fellahs from disadvantaged backgrounds make excellent soldiers. They also tend to stick with the Army for longer, making a career out of it, which saves money and promotes stability in units. We could speculate as to why, but it's not important. Suppose this is true. Do we refuse to allow chaps in from middle and upper class backgrounds? Of course we don't. We shove em all into uniform and test the crap out of them. We don't say , "Oh, but Tarquin isn't very physical but he has a degree so give him an easier test."

 

 

EDIT: The key point here is that talking about average performance for given backgrounds is pointless. We have basic selection and training for a reason. Simply let it do its job.

Edited January 18, 2011 by Walsingham

[Guard Dog]

@Wals, Di, Orogun & Thorton,

 

Yes if women can be held to the same physical standards as men I see no reason why they cannot serve in the infantry. However, you need to understand something about how the military works that I think none of you know, there is no seperate standard for infantry and any other MOS (job). The same physical standards apply to ALL Marines. I was in the Air Wing, my MOS was 5953, I was an electronics tech who worked on Air Intercept radar. I was not a grunt but every Thursday of every week of my whole service (except when deployed) I did infantry training just like every other male Marine, I still went to the rifle range four weeks a year for qualification and countless hours for regular training. I still qualified with the Beretta and SAW. I took and passed the regular PFT (women do this too) & the Combat PFT twice a year.

 

Every male Marine is trainied to fight as infantry if the need arises. Not to the extent of actual 0311's (infantry MOS) but not far off. If Women were to be held to the same standard it would not just be for women in the 03's, it would be for ALL WMs in the entire Corps. Last I read there were from 15000-20000 women in the Corps. How many of them would lose their careers if they were expected to meet male physical requirements? How many of them who are good at and love their jobs and give excellent service to their country would we force out simply to satisfy some ridiculous political notion that women are men are the same and interchangable in all things? To get a few hundred women into the infantry you would lose thousands of pilots, armorers, drivers, aviation tech, administrators, supply & intellegence personell, etc. Do any of you call that a bargin?

[Nepenthe]

In my experience in training fellahs from disadvantaged backgrounds make excellent soldiers. They also tend to stick with the Army for longer, making a career out of it, which saves money and promotes stability in units. We could speculate as to why, but it's not important. Suppose this is true. Do we refuse to allow chaps in from middle and upper class backgrounds? Of course we don't. We shove em all into uniform and test the crap out of them. We don't say , "Oh, but Tarquin isn't very physical but he has a degree so give him an easier test."

Well, I spent exactly three nights of my military service in a tent and was exempt from most PT because I had a law degree, so it does happen occasionally. Of course, my CO congratulated me and told me I'd gotten the best job in the Finnish army when my posting was confirmed. He was probably right.

[Walsingham]

Interesting point there, GD. Of course losing 20000 staff would be a disaster. But surely it's simple to institute a frontline service badge, like you have para wings? (Not sure if you have the same system in the US) You can be in the Corps, but you aren't 'qualified' for the front line without passing key tests.

 

TA now basically have to pass the same fitness tests as the regular Army here in the UK, since both serve side by side. Surely applying exactly the same standard of fairness.

 

IMO, if you really want to get women accepted in the Army it's simple: have them pass a _harder_ phys test than normal. Not that the equality brigade would ever get their heads around that.

[Monte Carlo]

Right now, the law against women in combat is patently absurd because they are in combat alongside men right now.

 

I don't think anybody here is suggesting that women can't serve in war zones on active service. This is a role-related issue. With respect you are missing the point slightly. And in most western armed forces bayonet technicians (inf) are usually on the lowest payscales. The technical roles (like Guard Dog working in aviation tech) tend to get articifer NCO status and higher pay increments to recognise their training and skills.

 

The role we're talking about is infantry and armour. The pointy bit. It's just different.

[ShadySands]

Right now, the law against women in combat is patently absurd because they are in combat alongside men right now.

 

I don't think anybody here is suggesting that women can't serve in war zones on active service. This is a role-related issue. With respect you are missing the point slightly. And in most western armed forces bayonet technicians (inf) are usually on the lowest payscales. The technical roles (like Guard Dog working in aviation tech) tend to get articifer NCO status and higher pay increments to recognise their training and skills.

 

The role we're talking about is infantry and armour. The pointy bit. It's just different.

 

Actually, we get all get paid exactly the same depending on rank and time in service. There are things that will alter your pay slightly like speaking some needed language or diving or flight pay and there is also the different things you get while deployed.

 

EDIT: I would also like to point out that women run the combat fitness test too but are graded on a different scale just like they are on the regular physical fitness test for obvious reasons. I'm not opposed to women serving in combat roles but I don't know how well it could be implemented in the Marine Corps.

Edited January 18, 2011 by ShadySands

[Guard Dog]

EDIT: I would also like to point out that women run the combat fitness test too but are graded on a different scale just like they are on the regular physical fitness test for obvious reasons. I'm not opposed to women serving in combat roles but I don't know how well it could be implemented in the Marine Corps.

 

Things have changed then. When I was in they were exempt. Of course I turned my rifle in almost seventeen years ago. That is an eternity in the Corps, a lot has certainly changed. Do they (WMs) have to go to MCT now? They were exempt from that too.

[Guard Dog]

Right now, the law against women in combat is patently absurd because they are in combat alongside men right now.

 

I don't think anybody here is suggesting that women can't serve in war zones on active service. This is a role-related issue. With respect you are missing the point slightly. And in most western armed forces bayonet technicians (inf) are usually on the lowest payscales. The technical roles (like Guard Dog working in aviation tech) tend to get articifer NCO status and higher pay increments to recognise their training and skills.

 

The role we're talking about is infantry and armour. The pointy bit. It's just different.

Like Shady said, you are paid according to your rank and time in service, your MOS has nothing to do with it. In many ways, having a MOS like I had works against you. It is a small field and it is very hard to make rank. You need to wait for someone to die, get discharged or transfer to get promoted. I was a Lance Corporal for almost four years with excellent PFT scores, Pros & Cons (Proficiency & Conduct scores) and I shot expert every time I qualified. If I was in the infantry I'd have made Corporal in half that time. I've always told everyone interested in the USMC, if you think you might want to make a career of it, do your first tour in the Infantry. You can make rank quickly and you have your choice of jobs once you re-enlist. Plus having that experience gives you the inside track on making Warrant Officer boards or later on selection to ranks like First Seargent or Seargent Major.

[Guard Dog]

Interesting point there, GD. Of course losing 20000 staff would be a disaster. But surely it's simple to institute a frontline service badge, like you have para wings? (Not sure if you have the same system in the US) You can be in the Corps, but you aren't 'qualified' for the front line without passing key tests.

 

TA now basically have to pass the same fitness tests as the regular Army here in the UK, since both serve side by side. Surely applying exactly the same standard of fairness.

 

IMO, if you really want to get women accepted in the Army it's simple: have them pass a _harder_ phys test than normal. Not that the equality brigade would ever get their heads around that.

That is just not how it's done here Wals. And I seriously doubt it's going to change. Women can do anything they want to do except serve in the Infantry. Literally every other field is wide open and they can climb from Private all the way to Commandant of the Marine Corps. It's not because women don't make good Marines, it's because 99.99999% of WM (who I'll goon recod and say are the fittest women in America as a group) simply are NOT physically able to do the job. That is just how it is.

 

Men and women are physically different for those of you who have not noticed yet.

 

 

BTW, if you haven't figured that out you REALLY need to talk to Shryke or Slug, cause you need to get laid.

[ShadySands]

EDIT: I would also like to point out that women run the combat fitness test too but are graded on a different scale just like they are on the regular physical fitness test for obvious reasons. I'm not opposed to women serving in combat roles but I don't know how well it could be implemented in the Marine Corps.

 

Things have changed then. When I was in they were exempt. Of course I turned my rifle in almost seventeen years ago. That is an eternity in the Corps, a lot has certainly changed. Do they (WMs) have to go to MCT now? They were exempt from that too.

 

They go to MCT now as well. I didn't have any with me as I was a Hollywood Marine so I don't know how well it is integrated but I heard different things, some say it's the same and some say they had to make it easier so they didn't have to split it. Also, our CFT is not your CFT, it's much easier and counts towards promotion and speaking of promotions our whole system would have to be reworked because women would rarely get promoted if they were held to the same standards as men. For those not familiar with the Marines, PFT/CFT is a huge part of getting promoted and we don't have written exams like the Navy(sorry that's the only other branch that I'm remotely knowledgeable about) does. Here is a wiki link that runs down the PFT for men and women (I know some people here don't like wikipedia references but it's easier to read and follow that the official military site).

[Monte Carlo]

Apologies, I was speaking for the British army where technical grades like signals, electrical and mechanical engineers and anybody who is allowed to touch the guts of a heli is paid more than an entry-level infantryman.

 

I understand that deployment allowances and retention bonuses sweeten the pot for most infantrymen, as well as the traditional ops tour financial incentive of not spending any of your salary for six months (applies to singlies rather than your thirty-something senior NCO with kids). This of course leads to all sorts of extremely unwise, but psychologically completely understandable, impulse purchases on post-deployment day + 1.

[Calax]

Right now, the law against women in combat is patently absurd because they are in combat alongside men right now.

 

I don't think anybody here is suggesting that women can't serve in war zones on active service. This is a role-related issue. With respect you are missing the point slightly. And in most western armed forces bayonet technicians (inf) are usually on the lowest payscales. The technical roles (like Guard Dog working in aviation tech) tend to get articifer NCO status and higher pay increments to recognise their training and skills.

 

The role we're talking about is infantry and armour. The pointy bit. It's just different.

Like Shady said, you are paid according to your rank and time in service, your MOS has nothing to do with it. In many ways, having a MOS like I had works against you. It is a small field and it is very hard to make rank. You need to wait for someone to die, get discharged or transfer to get promoted. I was a Lance Corporal for almost four years with excellent PFT scores, Pros & Cons (Proficiency & Conduct scores) and I shot expert every time I qualified. If I was in the infantry I'd have made Corporal in half that time. I've always told everyone interested in the USMC, if you think you might want to make a career of it, do your first tour in the Infantry. You can make rank quickly and you have your choice of jobs once you re-enlist. Plus having that experience gives you the inside track on making Warrant Officer boards or later on selection to ranks like First Seargent or Seargent Major.

And this is why I refused to go into Nuke in the navy.

[Gfted1]

^Just FYI, at least back in the 90's, Nukes were one of the fastest advancing and had the highest SRB (Service Reenlistment Bonus) in the entire Navy.

[Calax]

^Just FYI, at least back in the 90's, Nukes were one of the fastest advancing and had the highest SRB (Service Reenlistment Bonus) in the entire Navy.

Yeah, still highest bonus at least at enlistment, but you also got a two year auto extension on initial enlistment, and when you got in you were the guy who was scrubbing decks because in order to even get INTO the compartments you had to have the clearance.

[Walsingham]

BTW, if you haven't figured that out you REALLY need to talk to Shryke or Slug, cause you need to get laid.

 

 

It's been a hell of a dry spell, GD. But I still vaguely remember something along those lines.

[Rosbjerg]

^Just FYI, at least back in the 90's, Nukes were one of the fastest advancing and had the highest SRB (Service Reenlistment Bonus) in the entire Navy.

 

Stupid question, but I'm assuming that "Nukes" is some kind of role in the army.. or a technician handling nukes?

[Nepenthe]

^Just FYI, at least back in the 90's, Nukes were one of the fastest advancing and had the highest SRB (Service Reenlistment Bonus) in the entire Navy.

 

Stupid question, but I'm assuming that "Nukes" is some kind of role in the army.. or a technician handling nukes?

If I had to guess (which I'm doing right now), I'd say it's what we laymen refer to as missile subs.

Edited January 19, 2011 by Nepenthe