Females cleared for service in ‘Combat/FrontLine Units’

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by Trajan, Jan 24, 2013.

  1. Trajan
    Offline

    Trajan conscientia mille testes

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2010
    Messages:
    29,048
    Thanks Received:
    4,751
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    The Bay Area Soviet
    Ratings:
    +4,756
    First things first- as usual the media seems overjoyed yet cannot accurately delineate
    ( from the articles I have seen) what a “front Line” position is, let me help;

    Infantry
    Armour
    Artillery
    Combat Engineers
    Certain Aviation Units – example; crew in the Air Cav. (close sppt. Helicopter units etc.)

    Now, lets start with the why, because, all is not as it appears. This actually didn’t start out as a ‘social’ issue ala DADT ( though it will be used that way now for maximum political effect ).

    Simply put, this is a practical matter as it comes to climbing the ladder in the Military hierarchy.

    I remember a round table I saw on C-Span , 4-5 years ago, several highly ranked woman, from all 4 branches were discussing why prospects for very high advancement in greater number were not seemingly available even after the more immersed/various roles woman took/filled in the Desert Shield/ Storm but most especially Operation Iraqi Freedom campaign(s). I remember saying to myself we are going to hear of this again, but I wasn't not sure if the y would use the glass ceiling/corporate ladder climbing explanation as the reason de etre, as that may not sell as well in todays environment as the full throated; 'you dinosaurs don't think woman are capable' campaign slogan.



    Anyway, why is there a perceived paucity of woman among the ‘prime’ or elevated command slots?

    Simply put? The answer is ‘Ticket Punching’.

    When you have engaged in enough back to back wars there is naturally a pool of officers to choose from who have punched their ticket ( served in time of War in a command slot , Platoon Leader, Company Commander, Flight Commander etc.) and having performed well or excelled in command of that Combat Arms unit ( having Punched their Ticket) , all other things being equal amongst the candidates being considered ( for whatever slot or step up the ladder they think they need or want at that moment, ) which inevitably leads to promotion in those positions the females officers were alluding too, the Combat Arms experience will take that candidate over the top in almost every instance.

    So, in effect, Woman don’t get the opportunity to serve in Combat Arms, the affect being, they are hindered in their ability to compete for the prime command positions, gain higher ranks there by etc.


    Unfair? Perhaps. I am still thinking about that…..


    As to the boots on the ground pedestrian argument that will now take shape (again), I don’t see the point in discussing qualifications on the whole for combat arms slot’s. There is inho, no argument to be made.
    Mentally/Intellectually, ‘ sexual tension’ issues? No, despite the ‘Love Boats’ in the Navy etc. I don’t see either as a dis-qualifier, BUT, based on sheer physicality, yes, there is has and always will be an issue.

    Unless you have observed a Combat Arms unit go thru its paces, and I am not talking about on some drill field but IN the field, over time or have served in one, most especially in combat, it is very hard to really, truly describe the day to day, week to week wear and tear one suffers.

    But this Captain does give it a try, I found this example , linked below- I give this young lady huge marks for her service and what’s more her Balls, ( no pun intended). If she stays in she’s got to know she’ll never make full Colonel, this article and her forthright statements regards this issue will prevent that, it’s a shame something so painfully obvious will cost careers, lets hope it never costs lives.

    Anyway, PLEASE read the ENTIRE article.

    Women in the infantry? Forget about it, says female Marine officer


    Come September, a small group of young female Marines will break through one of the last bastions of macho in the U.S. military. They’ll be the first class of female officers to take part in the grueling Infantry Officer Course in Quantico, Va., a test of both physical fitness and mental will that prepares the corps’ future platoon leaders.

    All of these women will be volunteers, and their training will be closely watched. The new coed class has sparked suggestions that such training could lead to integrating women in the Marine infantry, with some saying they “would make excellent grunts.”

    But at least one female Marine officer, a former college hockey player and battle-tested engineering unit commander still on active duty, says placing women in infantry units is just a bad idea.

    “Infantry is one of those fields we need to leave alone.” Marine Capt. Katie Petronio told msnbc.com.

    Petronio was just back from Afghanistan last year — where she worked shoulder to shoulder with infantrymen — when she heard people arguing that it was a violation of rights to restrict women from combat. The rights advocates missed the point, she said.

    “It would just keep me up at night when I’d heard these bleeps or opinions,” Petronio said. “I felt if I didn’t do anything about it that my silence was consent and if this would’ve have passed, I wouldn’t have done my due diligence in getting my point across.”

    She was compelled to write what became a widely cited article in the privately published Marine Corps Gazette provocatively titled “Get Over It! We Are Not All Created Equal.”

    The article details her personal experiences during deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, making the case that the physical rigors of infantry are not for women.

    Even though she was a standout Bowdoin athlete and could bench press 145 pounds and squat 200 pounds, was ranked 4th out of a class of 52 in Officer Candidate School and excelled at Marine Corps fitness tests, Petronio's deployment in combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan took a brutal toll on her 5-foot-3-inch body.


    article continues;
    Women in the infantry? Forget about it, says female Marine officer - U.S. News
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  2. Wiseacre
    Offline

    Wiseacre Retired USAF Chief Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2011
    Messages:
    6,025
    Thanks Received:
    1,192
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    Ratings:
    +1,194
    Seems to me that command positions in the combat arms arenas require some experience where the action is, you need the judgement in your decision making that only comes from having been there. My only concern is making sure anyone who is put in a leadership position where your people can get killed is fully capable of doing the job, making the right decisions, and also dealing with the after effects. We can't be puting somebody in charge for political reasons, just cuz we need more women in senior positions. No reason not to either, if the person is fully qualified.
     
  3. Underhill
    Offline

    Underhill Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2013
    Messages:
    878
    Thanks Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Nowhere, WNY
    Ratings:
    +88
    I know men who could say the exact same thing. In fact, I've talked to some of them here at work. They describe what they endured in the marines as brutal, painful, etc...

    If a woman can do it and is willing she should be given the chance. It's really that simple.
     
  4. Tech_Esq
    Offline

    Tech_Esq Sic Semper Tyrannis!

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2008
    Messages:
    4,408
    Thanks Received:
    558
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    Ratings:
    +558
    As an Infantry veteran, let me throw my .02 in.

    The military exists to do two things, primarily: Kill people and break things.

    My first battalion commander said our mission was to: "Find, Fix and Destroy the enemy where ever, when ever."

    Our military is currently quite good at these tasks. So, it is not broken. Given that, when considering a change to current policy, which has led to success on the battlefield, you must overcome the razor, "How does this change make us better able to kill people and break things." Or, said in my first battalion commander's more doctrinaire manner, "How does the change help us find, fix and destroy the enemy where ever, when ever, better."

    If the answer is that it doesn't, then it's a solution wanting a problem. If the answer is that this or that group is disadvantaged by it, then that's just too damned bad. We're fighting a war not building a road or a car. People WILL die. If you are not doing it better, the bottom line is that people WILL die because of the decision.

    That's my first response. I have other stuff to say.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. Tech_Esq
    Offline

    Tech_Esq Sic Semper Tyrannis!

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2008
    Messages:
    4,408
    Thanks Received:
    558
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    Ratings:
    +558
    I don't think the idea is to just have female officers start commanding CA units. I think they intend enlisted grades to go into CA too. My concern here is that there must be no degradation of requirements. Currently females are required to do less on the PT test. No more, not if you are going into CA. And, you better be able to throw me (all 200 lbs of me) over your shoulder and drag me back to safety after I get hit. That's a requirement! And when they tell you you have to put on your ruck and walk 15 miles up and down mountains all night and the equipment you are carrying weighs more than you do, you better be able to deal with it.

    I'm actually less worried about the officer aspect of it than the unit cohesiveness/morale/discipline part of it. I see a lot of pregnant females if they let women in the Infantry. I see a lot of fights too. Tank crew? Let's see a woman loader? Bet that tank won't fire Distinguished. Sure women could drive, gun or command a tank, but all 4 positions need to be filled. Can't just say no women loaders. Artillery, same issues. Women are gonna hump those rounds that fast? Sure one or two in a thousand.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. Katzndogz
    Offline

    Katzndogz Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    65,659
    Thanks Received:
    7,418
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +8,337
    This little exercise is to make women feel good. If it degrades the effectiveness of the military so be it. It is all about massaging boobies. Oh brutha this bunch can't make a decent decision if our lives depended on it.
     
  7. Trajan
    Offline

    Trajan conscientia mille testes

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2010
    Messages:
    29,048
    Thanks Received:
    4,751
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    The Bay Area Soviet
    Ratings:
    +4,756
    I agree, absolutely, they should be free to enroll in PLC ( Marine corps equivalent of ROTC) or attend Marine Corps Officer Candidate School and they are...... ( with a drop rate north of 70%) , thats not the issue.

    BUT when they are commissioned, thats where the rubber meets the road as they must now attend and graduate from Basic School, thats where they get more attuned leadership trng. and, whats most important in this context, they select their MOS, ( military occupational specialty) and the Marine Corps’ Infantry Officer Course is offered, its 90 days and that has never before been opened to Females, but now is.

    Hey have at it, but let me ask you a question- if at the end of feasibility study period ( 9 months from what I hear, 3 complete 'cycles'), they don't graduate any Females, or suffer say, a 90-95% drop rate, do you think there will be a repercussions? if so, what do you think will happen?
     
  8. 52ndStreet
    Offline

    52ndStreet VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2008
    Messages:
    2,883
    Thanks Received:
    147
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +170
    First is was homosexuals being let into combat roles, now Women. Just what the army needs, a bunch of homosexuals, and women seeking to find and destroy the enemy. This is a disaster wainting to happen.
     
  9. Underhill
    Offline

    Underhill Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2013
    Messages:
    878
    Thanks Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Nowhere, WNY
    Ratings:
    +88
    No idea. I just don't care.

    If what you say is true, then most women will never sign up. Those that do, many will drop out. Men drop out daily. So those that can and do handle it should not be treated any different.

    And addressing an earlier post, I don't expect it to have a positive impact on the ability to kill and destroy. But if they pass muster, it will not have a negative impact. So why not allow it?
     
  10. Underhill
    Offline

    Underhill Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2013
    Messages:
    878
    Thanks Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Nowhere, WNY
    Ratings:
    +88
    I always enjoy reading such well argued positions. The way you have put the facts out there and informed us with the volumes of knowledge at your disposal makes one shrivel at the mere thought of debating you on the topic.

    But let me give it a try.

    What the fuck are you talking about?
     

Share This Page