So let it be written. So let it be done. - TTG

Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter said Thursday that he is opening all jobs in combat units to women, a landmark decision that ends a three-year period of research with a number of firsts for female service members and bitter debate at times about how women should be integrated.

The decision opens the military’s most elite units to women who can meet the rigorous requirements for the positions for the first time, including the Navy SEALs, Army Special Forces and other Special Operations Units. It also opens the Marine Corps infantry, a battle-hardened force that many service officials had openly advocated keeping closed to female service members.

“There will be no exceptions,” Carter said. “This means that, as long as they qualify and meet the standards, women will now be able to contribute to our mission in ways they could not before.” Carter said that the chiefs of the Army, Navy and Air Force all recommended that all jobs be opened to women. The Marine Corps recommended that certain jobs such as machine gunner be kept closed, but the secretary said that the military is a joint force, and his decision will apply to all services. (Washington Post)

*******************************

This news shocked me, although I suppose I shouldn’t have been surprised. The decision was probably make months ago by the culture warriors in the Administration. What does this mean? Our very own Fred made a comment that “the goal here is solely to have a woman be chief of staff or chairman of the JCS.” Fred’s right. Now I am pretty damned sure that there is or will be a woman or two out there who can be a competent chief of staff or chairman of the JCS.  I’ve known a very good commander of an aviation element and another very good medical company commander who were female. Anything’s possible. But those were not combat outfits.

I have two problems with this decision. First, the way this decision was made is a slap in the face to the Services and those officers who were studying this question. The Army and the Marines spent a lot of time, money and effort and were about to recommend keeping some positions closed to females. Knowing the way the political winds were blowing, those combat officers had to feel quite strongly about their recommendations. Not to wait for the Services to present and defend their case before issuing this decision was an act of gross disrespect. 

The second problem I have with the decision is the effect it will have on the platoon, company and battalion level of our combat units. Our combat units will become social experiments... experiments were the data will be skewed to fit the desired results. Sure females have passed the Ranger Course. Those women are probably fine officers, but the process corroded the Army. They were not treated as equals. They were given many more chances to succeed than their male counterparts were afforded. A general officer came to the field and walked lanes in order for the female students to pass their final patrols. Do the Washington bureaucrats think the troops would not notice? Clearly the bureaucrats have no respect for those troops. Females in combat units will be cut slack whether they want it or not. That’s the nature of command influence. The final test for this social experiment will be administered by our enemies in combat. They will not skew the data.

Finally, this process will be unfair to the very female soldiers and officers that this decision is supposed to help. One or two might make it on their merits and will become legends. Most will be tainted by the effects of command influence and the ensuing corrosive command climate. Their careers and perhaps their souls will inevitably suffer. 

TTG

Comments

[MojaveWolf]

Did not actually see your comment till just now. Male. Not meaning to preach anything. As said before, if you think I shouldn't comment since never infantry (as I gather from your comment before this one), I will shut up. Your blog, your call. That's why I led my first comment with "not in military so feel free to discount" and why I almost never comment here. Didn't mean to take up this much space (or spend this much time) now. No hard feelings, this is good place for information, I enjoy reading it, and it is one of the only places where I make more than a very sporadic effort to glance at the comments, etc. I tried to make a case, y'all disagreed, it happens. Wish I'd done a better job because I think some of the women going into this will surprise a lot of people in a good way. I hope the new regulations work out better than you expect.

[glupi]

Fred82, thank you for expressing what i meant way better than i ever could!

a shahid whose ass has been kicked by a tiny girl would never hear the end of it by his salafist buddies. And fear of such humilliation would spread like wildfire and affect morale

the question is indeed two-fold:

- does the West still have healthy fit human materiel?
maybe tiny, tough-as-nails Latinas, the street gan type can do it (or maybe i've seen too many van Diesel movies...:)).

in my experience the human who is shorter than his peers is the most fierce adversary (ref. Napoleon, Wu Zetian, Zenobia...)

- can the military establishment train them attuned to female strenghts, not try turning them into semi-males.
nanotechnology may help with the weight issue highlighted by Chris above maybe?
all female units is the way to go, as Seamus Padraig stressed. That way our side won't be sabotaged by adrenaline released hormonal storms (cough, cough)

A major psycological advantage could be gained. if handled just right

[glupi]

My ignorance truly has no bounds! Thank you for pointing out the error of my ways

To think that 'Go, tell the Spartans, stranger passing by' is a favorite of mine. Go figure

[glupi]

Human nature knows no modernity

change a few names in Xenophon, and he would be taken for a contemporary

[glupi]

(maybe the hero in the Recruiting sergeant fell prey to his beer belly. is it true that there are McDonald's on Afghani bases?)

[glupi]

Hear, hear!

[glupi]

'understand and accept'

Bruce Jenner or king Leonidas, Mr Bahzad?

Our current policy results in meterosexual Count Hasimir Fenrings, with the voices of castrates and moobs

[Patrick Bahzad]

Not gonna engage into a contest about sexuality in the classic world. Again, analysing things with ideologically tainted looking glass is what's wrong with such a description of the old world.

The Romans had a different colour system, didn't describe them in the same way. Doesn't mean they were colour blind.

That's it for me on this topic.

[Fred82]

Besides the obvious cultural differences between the modern day US and the steppe nomads (Among other things, the steppe nomads were known to drink out of skulls, make towels and washcloths out of human scalps, and had to present heads of killed enemies to receive shares of loot), the cases of women in combat mentioned previously tended to be motivated by necessity.

Could such a project be justified without a clear need in a time of shrinking defense budgets? I don't think so.

Of course, the US political class's current M.O. does not seem based on common sense and IMO, is designed to screw the military to score brownie points for the PC/Social justice crowd.

[elkern]

As one of the few (perhaps only?) registered Greens to regularly participate in this "Committee of Correspondence", I suspect that many of you would be surprised to hear me say that I'm rather skeptical of this.

I'm a semi-flabby 60 year-old male, but I could still carry more weight further & faster than most women (though there might be a bunch of young women who could kick my old butt). As a reality-based person, I recognize that there are real, biological differences between male & female bodies.

I coached young soccer teams. I saw that there were a few girls who could compete with the best of the boys... up until age 12. The boys then sprouted past the girls, and there was a good reason to have separate leagues after that.

Being optimistic, the possible - but unlikely - outcome is that the 1% (?) of women who can actually perform in top 5% of physical capacity will prove us skeptics wrong. That would be fine, as far as I'm concerned, but there's another side of this: the Unit Cohesion thing. So, for this to work (women in all combat positions), the men in combat positions would need to accept the women as squad members. Again, possible, but unlikely (yet?).

If our Secretary of Defense doesn't understand the importance of Unit Cohesion in combat - platoon/squad members fighting for each other, not some abstract principle - then that person (SecDef) should be fired. Part of the job (SecDef) would be to explain that to POTUS, who is NOT dumb. Military experience should NOT be a pre-requisite for the Presidency, nor even for SecDef, but both should understand this aspect of human behavior.

Now, if it came down to defending our "villages" (as discussed above), then, by all means, get the women involved (and old geeks like me, too!). Luckily, that is not our fate (Yay, oceans!).

As for women becoming Marines, or Rangers, well, perhaps I'm old-fashioned, but I don't really think that female bodies can perform at that level. Get real: women can't compete in the NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB, nor even MLS. Perhaps I'm old-fashioned; perhaps I'm just realistic.