Females cleared for service in ‘Combat/FrontLine Units’

[AmyNation]

If the woman can't cut it, she can't. I don't see why allowing the women who can cut it, and want to do so, is such a scary thing.

 

[Tech_Esq]

If the woman can't cut it, she can't. I don't see why allowing the women who can cut it, and want to do so, is such a scary thing.

If that's how it goes down, that's fine. Wasteful, but fine. You know training slots are not free. If someone gets halfway through training and washes out, that's a problem (drill sergeants get rated on such things). Now let's discuss some additional expenses. All of the barracks now need to be redone. All of the facilities need to be redone on all of the ranges on all of the posts unless we can just not worry about it and have everything co-ed. You might as well now, because necessity will make it so later.

So, much like what I mentioned in my second post lots of pregnancies and lots of fights. It will have a negative impact on order and discipline inside the platoon. 100% guarantee. And that's if she isn't even attractive. Katy bar the door if she is.

But, mostly I agree with the posts that say, women will sue to get women physical standards so they can pass. We'll dumb down the standard because we always do.

Anyway you slice it, it doesn't equal more efficient killing people and breaking things. It creates problems and challenges that don't need to be there solely for the purpose of professional advancement and that's a bullshit reason to do it.

 

[Connery]

I really don't give a shit about how their career is going. People will DIE because of this. Period. We'll never hear about it that way, but that's what will happen. Women's military careers are not worth people's lives.

Those who are not able or trainable should not be in uniform period. My position is based on ability not sex. Today we have volunteer military service, those who do not like this do not have to join. People who have preconceived notions and prejudices will cause the deaths you speak of if they are not focused on the job rather than their fellow solder's sex.

What are your qualifications for saying so? Or, are you just giving us your unvarnished theory about what you think will be the case? In other words, why should we believe your opinion?

While I have served, mine is only one opinion. My statement is qualified by the court who has heard this matter in as much as their "discovery" of the facts within this issue is controlling. That "discovery" was enough for the military to change it's policy.

 

[Trajan]

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.

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?

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?

I never said we shouldn't, I just want to ensure and would be on guard against erosion of the present standards that's my fear and worry.

 

[SFC Ollie]

I see more problems with this than it is worth, but what I see and say won't make a hill of beans of a difference....

We will accept it for what it is and see what happens.

I do not expect to see much good come of it.........

 

[Inthemiddle]

I don't have a problem with this new development, per se. Though I'm curious as to why this has developed. Are we experiencing problems filling open positions? I do see one significant challenge in implementing this: Training. The facilities where all male training goes on for all male MOS's are going to have to be overhauled in preparation for co-ed housing arrangements. It's not a simple matter of saying, "oh sure, you three girls come over and take these bunks right here."

 

[Connery]

Though I'm curious as to why this has developed.

Here:

The genesis of this "change in policy" was a lawsuit filed by four service women Mary Jennings Hegar , Jennifer Hunt , Alexandra Zoe Bedell , Colleen Farrell and Service Women's Action Network against Panetta Case Number: 3:2012cv06005 Filed: November 27, 2012

"The four servicemembers have all done tours in Iraq or Afghanistan--some deploying multiple times--where they served in combat or led female troops who went on missions with combat infantrymen. Their careers and opportunities have been limited by a policy that does not grant them the same recognition for their service as their male counterparts. The combat exclusion policy also makes it harder for them to do their jobs.

Two of the plaintiffs were awarded the Purple Heart after being wounded in the course of their deployments. Two led Marine Corps Female Engagement Teams, in which women Marines lived with and went on missions with Marine Infantrymen in active combat zones. Two were awarded medals in recognition of their performance while in active engagement in combat zones. One earned a Distinguished Flying Cross with a Valor Device for extraordinary achievement and heroism while engaging in direct ground fire with the enemy, after being wounded when her helicopter was shot down over Afghanistan."

Women make up more than 14 percent of the 1.4 million active military personnel, yet the “combat exclusion policy" categorically excludes them from more than 200,000 positions, as well as from entire career fields. Consequently, commanders are stymied in their ability to mobilize their troops effectively. In addition, servicewomen are:

• denied training and recognition for their service
• put at a disadvantage for promotions
• prevented from competing for positions for which they have demonstrated their suitability and from advancing in rank."

Hegar, et al. v. Panetta

 

[blackhawk]

I'm concerned less about a female solider being put in a front line combat position and them being able to do the job than I am about what the reaction will be from the media, politicians, and public when we see a dead female solider mutilated and dragged through the streets like we saw in Somalia or hung from a bridge and there bodies burned like the contractors in Iraq.

 

[Underhill]

If the woman can't cut it, she can't. I don't see why allowing the women who can cut it, and want to do so, is such a scary thing.

If that's how it goes down, that's fine. Wasteful, but fine. You know training slots are not free. If someone gets halfway through training and washes out, that's a problem (drill sergeants get rated on such things). Now let's discuss some additional expenses. All of the barracks now need to be redone. All of the facilities need to be redone on all of the ranges on all of the posts unless we can just not worry about it and have everything co-ed. You might as well now, because necessity will make it so later.

So, much like what I mentioned in my second post lots of pregnancies and lots of fights. It will have a negative impact on order and discipline inside the platoon. 100% guarantee. And that's if she isn't even attractive. Katy bar the door if she is.

But, mostly I agree with the posts that say, women will sue to get women physical standards so they can pass. We'll dumb down the standard because we always do.

Anyway you slice it, it doesn't equal more efficient killing people and breaking things. It creates problems and challenges that don't need to be there solely for the purpose of professional advancement and that's a bullshit reason to do it.

Sorry but the cost argument just doesn't fly. The military is one of the most wasteful government programs in the country. They spend more money on shit ideas than anyone.

So telling us they can't afford to spend money on making the military equitable is laughable. They spend more on planes that barely fly. I think they'll manage.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Though I'm curious as to why this has developed.

Here:

The genesis of this "change in policy" was a lawsuit filed by four service women Mary Jennings Hegar , Jennifer Hunt , Alexandra Zoe Bedell , Colleen Farrell and Service Women's Action Network against Panetta Case Number: 3:2012cv06005 Filed: November 27, 2012

"The four servicemembers have all done tours in Iraq or Afghanistan--some deploying multiple times--where they served in combat or led female troops who went on missions with combat infantrymen. Their careers and opportunities have been limited by a policy that does not grant them the same recognition for their service as their male counterparts. The combat exclusion policy also makes it harder for them to do their jobs.

Two of the plaintiffs were awarded the Purple Heart after being wounded in the course of their deployments. Two led Marine Corps Female Engagement Teams, in which women Marines lived with and went on missions with Marine Infantrymen in active combat zones. Two were awarded medals in recognition of their performance while in active engagement in combat zones. One earned a Distinguished Flying Cross with a Valor Device for extraordinary achievement and heroism while engaging in direct ground fire with the enemy, after being wounded when her helicopter was shot down over Afghanistan."

Women make up more than 14 percent of the 1.4 million active military personnel, yet the “combat exclusion policy" categorically excludes them from more than 200,000 positions, as well as from entire career fields. Consequently, commanders are stymied in their ability to mobilize their troops effectively. In addition, servicewomen are:

• denied training and recognition for their service
• put at a disadvantage for promotions
• prevented from competing for positions for which they have demonstrated their suitability and from advancing in rank."

Hegar, et al. v.

http://www.aclu.org/womens-rights/hegar-et-al-v-panetta

To quote Dickens, "If the law says that, the law is a ass, a idiot."

 

[Connery]

Though I'm curious as to why this has developed.

Here:

The genesis of this "change in policy" was a lawsuit filed by four service women Mary Jennings Hegar , Jennifer Hunt , Alexandra Zoe Bedell , Colleen Farrell and Service Women's Action Network against Panetta Case Number: 3:2012cv06005 Filed: November 27, 2012

"The four servicemembers have all done tours in Iraq or Afghanistan--some deploying multiple times--where they served in combat or led female troops who went on missions with combat infantrymen. Their careers and opportunities have been limited by a policy that does not grant them the same recognition for their service as their male counterparts. The combat exclusion policy also makes it harder for them to do their jobs.

Two of the plaintiffs were awarded the Purple Heart after being wounded in the course of their deployments. Two led Marine Corps Female Engagement Teams, in which women Marines lived with and went on missions with Marine Infantrymen in active combat zones. Two were awarded medals in recognition of their performance while in active engagement in combat zones. One earned a Distinguished Flying Cross with a Valor Device for extraordinary achievement and heroism while engaging in direct ground fire with the enemy, after being wounded when her helicopter was shot down over Afghanistan."

Women make up more than 14 percent of the 1.4 million active military personnel, yet the “combat exclusion policy" categorically excludes them from more than 200,000 positions, as well as from entire career fields. Consequently, commanders are stymied in their ability to mobilize their troops effectively. In addition, servicewomen are:

• denied training and recognition for their service
• put at a disadvantage for promotions
• prevented from competing for positions for which they have demonstrated their suitability and from advancing in rank."

Hegar, et al. v.

http://www.aclu.org/womens-rights/hegar-et-al-v-panetta

To quote Dickens, "If the law says that, the law is a ass, a idiot."

The law may be an ass, but, you cannot argue with facts.

This is from the complaint which compelled the military to change it's policy, "servicewomen who have engaged in ground combat in Iraq and Afghanistan have routinely been denied combat credit for purposes of promotion. For men, ground combat experience is a substantial factor in promotion to leadership positions. In contrast, a woman's combat experience is not recognized as such, because she is only "attached" but not "assigned" to ground combat units, or she commands teams that serve "in support of' but are not "part of' ground combat units. For some servicewomen, such as Staff Sergeant Jennifer Hunt, their combat service conducting missions with infantry troops had no formal designation at all. For others, such as Captain Alexandra Zoe Bedell and First Lieutenant Colleen Farrell, their combat service leading FETs took place entirely outside of their official career specialties. Because of the combat exclusion policy, the combat service of these and many other women cannot be given official recognition..."
http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/emb...lu_lawsuit.pdf

These combat jobs have already been performed by women. This is nothing new. Give credit where credit is due, exclusion based on sex is simply wrong.

 

[Katzndogz]

I'm concerned less about a female solider being put in a front line combat position and them being able to do the job than I am about what the reaction will be from the media, politicians, and public when we see a dead female solider mutilated and dragged through the streets like we saw in Somalia or hung from a bridge and there bodies burned like the contractors in Iraq.

Do you see anything in this list about being able to do the job?

denied training and recognition for their service
put at a disadvantage for promotions
prevented from competing for positions for which they have demonstrated their suitability and from advancing in rank."

Being effective and contributing to an effective fighting unit doesn't make the list.

 

[Katzndogz]

Being in support of a combat unit isn't the same thing as serving in a combat unit. For one thing, they don't have to undergo the same training.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Romney had binders, Obama got body bags

 

[Katzndogz]

Get Over It! We Are Not All Created Equal | Marine Corps Gazette

As a company grade 1302 combat engineer officer with 5 years of active service and two combat deployments, one to Iraq and the other to Afghanistan, I was able to participate in and lead numerous combat operations. In Iraq as the II MEF Director, Lioness Program, I served as a subject matter expert for II MEF, assisting regimental and battalion commanders on ways to integrate female Marines into combat operations. I primarily focused on expanding the mission of the Lioness Program from searching females to engaging local nationals and information gathering, broadening the ways females were being used in a wide variety of combat operations from census patrols to raids. In Afghanistan I deployed as a 1302 and led a combat engineer platoon in direct support of Regimental Combat Team 8, specifically operating out of the Upper Sangin Valley. My platoon operated for months at a time, constructing patrol bases (PBs) in support of 3d Battalion, 5th Marines; 1st Battalion, 5th Marines; 2d Reconnaissance Battalion; and 3d Battalion, 4th Marines. This combat experience, in particular, compelled me to raise concern over the direction and overall reasoning behind opening the 03XX field.

Doesn't Katie Petronio sound like the POSTER GIRL for women in combat? Really isn't she just the kind of woman who should get the goodies?

Not so fast.

lives and well-being of such a young group in an extremely kinetic environment were compounded by lack of sleep, which ultimately took a physical toll on my body that I couldn’t have foreseen.

By the fifth month into the deployment, I had muscle atrophy in my thighs that was causing me to constantly trip and my legs to buckle with the slightest grade change. My agility during firefights and mobility on and off vehicles and perimeter walls was seriously hindering my response time and overall capability. It was evident that stress and muscular deterioration was affecting everyone regardless of gender; however, the rate of my deterioration was noticeably faster than that of male Marines and further compounded by gender-specific medical conditions. At the end of the 7-month deployment, and the construction of 18 PBs later, I had lost 17 pounds and was diagnosed with polycystic ovarian syndrome (which personally resulted in infertility, but is not a genetic trend in my family), which was brought on by the chemical and physical changes endured during deployment. Regardless of my deteriorating physical stature, I was extremely successful during both of my combat tours, serving beside my infantry brethren and gaining the respect of every unit I supported. Regardless, I can say with 100 percent assurance that despite my accomplishments, there is no way I could endure the physical demands of the infantrymen whom I worked beside as their combat load and constant deployment cycle would leave me facing medical separation long before the option of retirement. I understand that everyone is affected differently; however, I am confident that should the Marine Corps attempt to fully integrate women into the infantry, we as an institution are going to experience a colossal increase in crippling and career-ending medical conditions for females.

obama wants body bags far more than Romney wanted binders.

 

[Connery]

Get Over It! We Are Not All Created Equal | Marine Corps Gazette

As a company grade 1302 combat engineer officer with 5 years of active service and two combat deployments, one to Iraq and the other to Afghanistan, I was able to participate in and lead numerous combat operations. In Iraq as the II MEF Director, Lioness Program, I served as a subject matter expert for II MEF, assisting regimental and battalion commanders on ways to integrate female Marines into combat operations. I primarily focused on expanding the mission of the Lioness Program from searching females to engaging local nationals and information gathering, broadening the ways females were being used in a wide variety of combat operations from census patrols to raids. In Afghanistan I deployed as a 1302 and led a combat engineer platoon in direct support of Regimental Combat Team 8, specifically operating out of the Upper Sangin Valley. My platoon operated for months at a time, constructing patrol bases (PBs) in support of 3d Battalion, 5th Marines; 1st Battalion, 5th Marines; 2d Reconnaissance Battalion; and 3d Battalion, 4th Marines. This combat experience, in particular, compelled me to raise concern over the direction and overall reasoning behind opening the 03XX field.

Doesn't Katie Petronio sound like the POSTER GIRL for women in combat? Really isn't she just the kind of woman who should get the goodies?

Not so fast.

lives and well-being of such a young group in an extremely kinetic environment were compounded by lack of sleep, which ultimately took a physical toll on my body that I couldn’t have foreseen.

By the fifth month into the deployment, I had muscle atrophy in my thighs that was causing me to constantly trip and my legs to buckle with the slightest grade change. My agility during firefights and mobility on and off vehicles and perimeter walls was seriously hindering my response time and overall capability. It was evident that stress and muscular deterioration was affecting everyone regardless of gender; however, the rate of my deterioration was noticeably faster than that of male Marines and further compounded by gender-specific medical conditions. At the end of the 7-month deployment, and the construction of 18 PBs later, I had lost 17 pounds and was diagnosed with polycystic ovarian syndrome (which personally resulted in infertility, but is not a genetic trend in my family), which was brought on by the chemical and physical changes endured during deployment. Regardless of my deteriorating physical stature, I was extremely successful during both of my combat tours, serving beside my infantry brethren and gaining the respect of every unit I supported. Regardless, I can say with 100 percent assurance that despite my accomplishments, there is no way I could endure the physical demands of the infantrymen whom I worked beside as their combat load and constant deployment cycle would leave me facing medical separation long before the option of retirement. I understand that everyone is affected differently; however, I am confident that should the Marine Corps attempt to fully integrate women into the infantry, we as an institution are going to experience a colossal increase in crippling and career-ending medical conditions for females.

obama wants body bags far more than Romney wanted binders.

The Captain appears to have some physical problems. Nonetheless, she states very clearly, " In the end, my main concern is not whether women are capable of conducting combat operations, as we have already proven that we can hold our own in some very difficult combat situations; instead, my main concern is a question of longevity." This is not reason for exclusion.

 

[SFC Ollie]

There is no discrimination in being combat support or combat for promotions.
Promotions in the lower ranks is nearly automatic by time and by local selection.

Promotion in the upper ranks is by central boards or DA boards (ARMY) which take into account combat zone duties for your MOS (Military Occupational Specialty) and the open slots in your job. If there are no open slots no one gets promoted.....

Male/female never comes into play.........

If you are in a war zone for over 30 days you get the combat patch, male or female.......

 

[Katzndogz]

If women want to destroy themselves, reduce the effectiveness of their units and ultimately affect the entire military should we really be concerned? After all, this is obama's military. If obama's military is defeated, isn't that what his leadership means? So it might be more beneficial in the end to have the mighty American military reduced to nothing but a squabbling hen and hag fag party. The foundation will still be there, it could be rebuilt by someone with an interest and ability. So let it go. This is social engineering in a military laboratory. It will be just one more failed experiment.

 

[Trajan]

I don't have a problem with this new development, per se. Though I'm curious as to why this has developed. Are we experiencing problems filling open positions? I do see one significant challenge in implementing this: Training. The facilities where all male training goes on for all male MOS's are going to have to be overhauled in preparation for co-ed housing arrangements. It's not a simple matter of saying, "oh sure, you three girls come over and take these bunks right here."

there is, the Op alludes to more than just the usual exercises in/of social injustice that just screams to be corrected.

 

[High_Gravity]

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.

I like massaging boobies.