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

[The Twisted Genius]

pl,

This social justice BS shows absolutely no concern or compassion for anyone involved. Pursuit of selfish career opportunities is their only value. It is the definition a sociopath.

[Bill H]

Yes, there is always the exceptional woman who can perform at a level at or above that of even the best man. There is also the occasional man who is unable to perform up to the level of even an average woman. When discussing the complete integration of the forces, that is not the point. The point is the AVERAGE performance levels of the genders and the OVERALL performance levels of the integrated force, and empirical studies showed that integration weakened the performance.

So we make the argument that other countries have integrated successfully, but when we compare health care modalities the comparison is refuted with a contemptuous, "We are not Europe."

[turcopolier]

Bill H

Your averages argument is the correct one. I knew women cadets who had no problem with the male oriented training regimen, but they were not many. In the end USMA had to modify the physical program so that the women could survive. I would like to know which armies use women as line enlisted infantry today. Don't say Israel. They have not done that since 1948. pl

[JM Gavin]

COL Lang-
I am not seeing any words to that effect in my post. Further, I am not asking anyone to shut up, on a website that exists for the exchange of ideas? Beyond that, I am certainly not going to attempt to set the rules for discourse or tell you to "shut up" on your own forum, any more than I would not walk into your house, and tell you to take your shoes off on the carpet.

TTG, you pose the question "Are you saying the ramifications today are different from the ramifications of such a directive if it was made 30 or 40 years ago?" Well, I was not saying that, but, since you ask, absolutely, I assert that. The way the US public, media, and politicians view the military and its purpose are very, very different from 30-40 years ago.

War is war, and war will never change. The social, political, and professional conditions the US military now operates in are unparalleled in our history.

JMG

[turcopolier]

JM Gavin

If war has not changed and we insist on building our combat arms as jobs programs were going to lose our asses somewhere. pl

[oofda]

Concur with your observations- one son is a USMA grad, who competed in the annual Sandhurst competitions. The teams had to include one female cadet. The women cadets performed excellently, but suffered injuries. Also noted the female cadets who did not graduate or were not commissioned due to training and PT (not so much varsity sports) injuries. These were very fit young women who were getting beat up in the training program- which is very physical.

[lally]

I am getting the impression that females in a combat role are most useful as snipers. Hezbollah encountered very young Chechen female snipers in their operation to capture Qusayr from the foreign "Syrian rebels".

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2013/06/201361019129313515.html
http://english.al-akhbar.com/node/16033

[Babak Makkinejad]

I think the "Social Justice" theories rely on the identification of "Public Goods" that ought to be made available equitably to any and all - regardless of their individual effort or capacity to partake of such "Common Goods" and any given country produces.

Among such "Common Social Goods" are health care, unemployment insurance, lower and higher education and I suppose, presently in US, joining the Armed Forces.

In the case of High-school education as well as post-secondary school education, the view that held them to be "Social Goods" has prevailed all over the world - with few exceptions such as Germany or Switzerland.

As a consequence, high-school and post-secondary education all over the world have become gutted of their previous content and quality in order to distribute them equally to every citizen - who is presumed to be entitled to it and would benefit from it.

[JMGavin]

Most of the public/national/media discourse on this subject has centered on the idea of breaking glass ceilings, and ending stereotypes. "If a woman can meet the standards, and wants to try out and serve, why should she not have the opportunity?"

When the conscription begins, and women are being drafted and assigned to combat arms at the front lines, against their will, as has happened throughout history to men in times of national crises, everyone can harken back to the "glass ceiling" argument to make themselves feel better. Or everyone can talk about whether or not the Israelis use women in the infantry, or how effective Kurdish female units are, or whether women make awesome snipers.

The glass ceiling-shattering women who want to be in SOF or Marine infantry will already be there at the point the draft starts. The women getting drafted will likely want nothing to do with military service, let alone combat arms. Too bad. You want equality? You got it.

Conscription is coming, by the way. The new DoD retirement system, which starts in 2018, will end the professional military as we know it.

[turcopolier]

JM Gavin

I don't think that the new retirement system will end the "professional army." There will simply be a lower quality of people in the ranks. IM experience you can hire people for any job at whatever you want to pay but you will get what you pay for. As I said, the Israelis do not use women as infantrymen or tankers. I was head of liaison for DoD intel with the IDF for seven years. They and we discussed this many times and they thought we were mad to even think about it. they have women officers in other than bang-bang jobs and women conscripts around HQ mainly as companions for senior officers. The skin tight uniforms, painted toenails in gold lame heels and plunging necklines tell the story. There is a good reason why the very religious do not want their girls drafted. BTW being in the US Army infantry is every bit as tough as being in marine infantry.pl

[David Habakkuk]

TTG,

As a congenital civilian, completely devoid of any kind of military experience, these are matters on which I cannot make an informed judgement. However, my strong instinctive hunch has been that imposing 'politically correct' norms on the military is batshit crazy.

A couple of fragments of evidence on which I would be interested in your view, as well as that people here in a position to have an informed opinion.

A while back I was chatting with a sometime soldier who makes money from walking dogs – it can be quite a lucrative business, in London – when walking my own dog. He is a clever, bitter man, perhaps too cynical for his own good. We exchanged views, from our different vantage points, on the game of 'fool the stupid sahib', and agreed that most of the time it's easy: you just work what the 'sahib' wants to hear, and tell them it.

In the British Army, he said, one fights for one's squad. One gets very close to the others in it, and will make sacrifices and take risks for them. As to his view of the officers, it was well expressed by a caricature of a certain kind of English accent. Some of this actually fitted with something I had been reading not long before about how Wellington's armies functioned.

Be that as it may, if certain kinds of close relations between men are the basis of well-functioning armies, then it stands to reason that introducing women – or indeed gays, and in particular 'out of the closet' gays – into the situation may have disruptive effects. However, these are not matters which it is 'politically correct' to talk about.

And people higher up who see it as in their career interests to ingratiate with the 'politically correct' are, of course, eminently likely to play 'fool the stupid sahib' with them: even if they sacrifice the confidence of those serving under them.

Another point which may be relevant is that an older sexual division of roles was based on the premise that men, who had to operate in a world of competition and rivalry, and sometimes violence, had a refuge from it in the world of the home – which was run, and actually commonly ruled, if one is not to be too 'politically correct' – by women.

Here, I think a reworking of one of the most famous of British songs about soldiers by a band called 'The Levellers' may be of interest. The song, under its original name 'Over the hills and far away', is central to the 'Sharpe' television series. Under other names, notably 'The Recruiting Sergeant', it surfaces is many different variants, in England, Scotland, Ireland and Canada, and doubtless elsewhere, over the years.

(See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns1q-DOF5gI .)

The video of the new version begins with a – soundless – picture of a pregnant girl in front of a war memorial. Then the song cuts in. It opens: 'Over the mountains, and over the sea,/In a Hercules transporter, to fight the Afghani,/With a rifle in my hand, to set the country free,/It's your picture in my pocket that means everything to me.'

[turcopolier]

babak

The "social good" in this is the ability of women to be 4 star generals. pl

[turcopolier]

All

There are and will be women who can do what is expected by BHO and the rest of the Borgist crew but they are and will be few. Most soldiers would like to meet at least one such. pl

[JMGavin]

I agree with you on all points, perhaps "professional military" is the wrong label. I just don't think that whatever military we have in the future will be able to conduct theater combat for an extended period without conscription. The new retirement will provide very little reason for anyone to remain in the military past 10 years, except those that have little prospect for success outside the military.

As far as the Israeli example, I have always understood that the Israelis do not allow women in a large number of positions. My source for this information has always been those who have served in close proximity to the IDF (I have not served alongside the IDF). Despite this, one always hears phantom female Israeli commando formations as an example of how backwards the US military thinking is...I also suspect the Israelis do nothing to counter the perception, as it makes a good IO campaign.

[turcopolier]

JM Gavin

Every substantial country's clandestine and covert ops groups makes use of women. All of them. That is nothing like being an infantryman. pl

[Cvillereader]

Most American women have no interest in serving in the military and would revolt en masse if the federal government ever attempted to draft them.

My father spent a year and a half in the Southwest Pacific during WWII. I wonder how many women, then or now, could endure such conditions.

Quite frankly, I am baffled as to why any woman would want combat experience.

[Babak Makkinejad]

It is deeper, in my opinion, than having a "... giant hard on for taking a photo of a woman with a rifle in camo..."

One of the recurring themes that one observes in Western painting from say around late 17-th century is the disturbing (to me) of the juxtaposition of Sex and Violence as elements of aesthetic experience.

I could never form an opinion as to its cause or its persistence.

[Babak Makkinejad]

Those Russian female soldiers, when captured, would be gang-raped by the Germans and shot in the morning.

[gemini33]

Pushing women out in front to make it easier to sell war.

[gemini33]

(Further) I have 3 "millennial" sons, all of military age now as of this year. I don't think they'd be surprised or resistant to fighting beside women whose skills are competitive with their own. They've grown up this way in all areas of their lives.

[turcopolier]

gemini33

How noble of you! Tell me about it when the women break down in the field and your sons have to carry twice as much weight in every way. BTW would any of them voluntarily join the military? pl

[turcopolier]

cvillereader

Not experience, status so that they can get to the top. pl

[fasteddiez]

The recent tests you spoke of exposed the female participants to artillery and tank tasks. With the weight of a 155mm projo weighing between 86 and 100 pounds, most of them will be setting fuses or some such activities. "Rousey get over here!"

[JMGavin]

So they are all enlisting soon, to participate in the new military? They may soon learn that they are more surprised and resistant to the very real fact that people they have never met before are trying very hard to kill them. Incoming fire has a way of simplifying one's agenda for the day.

[walrus]

This action will poison the American military. There is a sisterhood that is worse than any "ruling class" has ever been in the West. They will always promote when as a matter of policy. No man can get ahead when the sisterhood is in charge. What will naturally follow after this decision is a deliberate biasing of training advancement and promotion in favour of women.

This will take the form of Two sets of standards for everything, legal or official or not. This is always justified on the basis that: "women are just as good as men, therefore if they are not represented 50% in any cohort, there is a male bias that must be removed". This normally takes the form of a requirement in any selection decision that written evidence be produced why a female candidate was NOT selected.

There is a type of women - the narcissistic ass kisser, on whom the potential for this free ride is not lost. You have "Perfumed Princes" in the flag ranks now. Just wait until the untouchable "Perfumed Princesses" start appearing. However that is the least of your worries. The effect on combat performance at the section or squad level is predictable and negative. Then there will be the horror if ISIS captures a female soldier.

To put it another way, whats the betting if that bitch Clinton gets elected, you will have a female Chairman of the Joint Chiefs as soon as a candidate can be found and suitably promoted?

You are also going to see more of these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holly_Graf