Standards lowered to produce first female Green Beret.....

So what? They don't have them prove up their skill with shield and sword either. There will be stupid young men and pigheaded old men screaming FOUL! as the military increasingly is technology focused. The military has a true DESPERATE need for SMART enlistees. They have more strong back, weak minds trying to join than they can possibly use or need. The future of military combat, even special ops, belongs to the geeks - gender irrelevant, like it or not.

 

This post is a good example of your irrationality on this topic. I appreciate you demonstrating it so clearly.

 

Facts are your enemy, aren't they? It is muscle heads, not geeks, the military is turning down enlistments to. However, the geeks need to be combat trained because they can not count on infantry or Marines to be there for their defense. It has been proven that it takes low brain, strong back personnel hours and hours to figure out what to do if there is an attack - and are frozen until they can sort thru anything unexpected.

I'll take your message as conceding and falling back on personal attack as diversion from having no response. 50 years ago, people with your views were ranting of the inferiority of blacks too and demanding racial segregation and limitations on non-whites.That and Vietnam are ancient history, might as well be talking about the Romans. France learned the less than worthless nature of old military in WW2, why Germany overran the superior French size within weeks. France had all OLD military leaders, Germany had fresh ideas.

Let's not pretend the goal is to have the most physically powerful special forces as that would mean the overwhelming majority would be black.

Old ex military thinking they are military experts in modern warfare are laughable, but also highly destructive to the military. Most are incapable of any thinking but backwards in time in fantasyland of how they won the war - or would have if only HE had been in charge of it.

 

I understand that a lot of men are afraid of women.

A top priority of the military should be to boot out at least half of their ranking officers as the military is absurdly top heavy in general, admirals and colonels - and other pencil pushers. Too many of them are old pigheaded and bigoted malcontents who are in the way of modernizing the military as combat oriented in this century and decade, not ancient history.

Old military tend to only be capable of planning for the last war, not the next one in the future.

 

Many ex military can not accept that the face of warfare has changed because it lessens their relevancy.

 

I'm not conceding anything because I didn't make any argument to concede. I just noted your irrational rant and to double down on it, you went ahead with another irrational rant. You are replying to me as if I've made a couple of arguments that I didn't even make. Nor did you provide any "facts" for me to be the "enemy" of. Because of some girl who held you in the friendzone you have an irrational spasm about this topic. You're not even open to a debate on this because of this girl. Not to mention, you don't seem to have any military background to even have an informed opinion about the topic.

Good luck in your future endeavors.

 

At my age, a passing pushup score for men is 20. For females of my age, it is 9. For me, the 2 mile run time is 19:48, for women it is 24:24. I literally can walk 2 miles in that time frame (my 2.5 mile walk time 2 days ago was 30.45).

Sure, North Vietnam lost the Vietnam War. And they had plenty of women in combat roles, including during the siege of Khe Sahn (which they lost).

Oh, and the US has had females on combat roles for decades now. We have even had females commanding Brigades in combat.

Oh nonsense. For actual combat (Infantry), a good amount of brawn (or to be more accurate strength and endurance) is required. People that do not have the strength and endurance to make it in grunt units generally find themselves shuffled off to other positions. Permanent KP duty, moving boxes in supply, etc. And as a general rule, women do not have the strength or endurance of that of men.

Heck, just look to sports. The world record for a marathon is 2:02, by a man. The record by a woman? 2:17, 15 minutes slower. Why are there no women in the big professional sports? Well, because they recognize it is about ability, and not political correctness. Yet people insist that women can do the "same thing", not even knowing what that really is. But they will accept lowering the standards in the military, but not in professional athletics (or even college athletics).

The funny thing is, I have yet to find a female that can keep up with me in any unit I have been in for the past 10 years. I have even taken the packs off of 2 females (in addition to my own), and was still doing a ruck march faster than they were (I had already finished, and went back along the line to speed up the stragglers). And each of them was less than half my age.

All the smarts in the world will not do you a damned bit of good if you have to fast march 15 miles under full combat load, then prepare a hasty ambush or dig in and prepare for an assault. Those kinds of things require strength.

For all of those who insist that women can do as well as men, I propose a challenge. Let's take 100 average females from the Army. I do not care the age, or MOS, or even rank. Select 100 at random, let them all put on their gear and a 35 pound ruck, and they can challenge me. A 53 year old man, with a permanent profile for bad knees. And if even 25% can do better than me over a 6 mile road coarse, I will eat that ruck.

Because in the past 10 years, I have done ruck marches with at least 100 women, and not a single one has even come close to me, normally finishing 5-10+ minutes slower.

And heaven help them if you tried this when I was in my prime. I got 2 notches under my belt for MCCRES, and that is 25 miles in under 8 hours, full combat load.

And yea, I know that the Marines now have females in their Infantry units. I want to know how they are going to do during their first MCCRES evaluation. And that is not just that single forced march. It is then followed by a week long series of marches, attacks, and counterattacks for a week. March 8 miles, dig your fighting positions, repel an attack, then pack up and march another 6 miles.

In the late 1980's, the Marines actually tested a program that had females in an Artillery unit in support positions (admin, supply, etc). And it seemed to work well, until it came time for their MCCRES. In these evaluations, everybody participates, so the admin clerks, supply weenies, even the Battalion Chaplain is out there marching along with everybody else. And I know that as I saw them returning to mainside Lejeune, there were maybe 2 or 3 females left in the formation when the Battalion returned. The rest were all trailing along miles afterwards (or riding in the trucks). The program only lasted a year or so and was dropped, because the number of females that dropped that phase took the Battalion below the fail rating (less than 10% of a unit can drop out).

 

And how exactly has it changed? Do our truck tires weigh any less? Does our infantry no longer need to do forced marches? Does our equipment weigh less?

Hell, the equipment I wear today weighs a hell of a lot more than when I was an actual grunt. Back then, my combat load was maybe 75 pounds with ammo, water, and 3 days of food. Today, that same load-out is well over 100 pounds.

The PAGSAT vest (3.5 lbs) was what I wore. The current model is the MTV, and it comes in at over 30 pounds.

But as often as I hear that tired old cliche "the face of warfare has changed", I have yet to see it. How about giving an example of how it has changed, eh? Do the foot soldiers now carry tablets instead of bulletproof vests, and smart phones instead of M-240s? Do they teleport from place to place, instead of having to get there by crossing a dozen or more miles on foot?

 

True, much is about "the girl" in terms of the direction the military is actually going in regards to females in service and in combat, and from a Marine squad leader in combat in Afghanistan. That "girl" has probably killed more enemy and high priority target enemy personnel than all the boys on this forum combined. Her main challenges have not been the enemy, but the "boys" in the military who share your view. But if they get too much in her way or push a showdown, they lose. Doesn't matter their rank. In mission importance, she outranks them. She kills enemy. She is mission critical. They are not. They are whiners and malcontent insecure boys. However, missions oriented military personnel don't care about boys with ignorant views of women, blacks, gays, officers or civilian government. They don't care about rank, seniority or connections. Their sole concern is mission success and minimizing casualties, knowing it likely there will be casualties. If a one-legged, color blind transexual in a wheelchair is who makes a mission possible and successful, that is who they will use. They don't care about who is the high school football letterman. Not in the slightest.

Good luck to you too. Many do make my point that this really is about ex low rankers who decided they are military experts smarter than even anyone in the military command then or now, doing their typical whining about military and civil command - reliving their past years in the military forever as if that is today, when it is just the outdated past. I am fair confident that once the topic is other than ground infantry and Marines, plus the mystique some have for "special forces," I'm fairly confident you have no clue how the military primarily is fighting in THIS decade.

BTW, have you ever held political office? If not, you really should stop posting anything about politics or politicians as you do not have an informed opinion about the topic.

 

That's false and shows a total lack of understanding and experience.

Almost anyone can be taught to shoot very accurately, as good as an Army sniper. But pulling the trigger is just the final tip of a long journey. To put that bullet where it needs to be requires getting to the right place, observing and collecting intelligence, living in harsh conditions and walking long distances with 200 lbs of gear. After pulling the trigger, you have a long trek back out.

And many tasks for SOF do not involve shooting anyone. Put 200 lbs of gear on someone, send them to the mountains, have them hike 20 miles a day for 3 days, hang out for 3 days, and then hike back. Women can't do it.

Or go to your favourite example, Vietnam. Put 100 lbs on someone, send them into the jungle to wade through mud and water day after day, on a schedule, no slackers allowed. Women cant do it. The Vietcong women did not do it, they did not have to, they had different modes of operation.

The phrase 'war is a young mans game' has 2 meanings, one being that its too physically tough for everyone else. That's reality gained from all of human history.

 

You have deep emotional attachment to this issue based on some personal bias/heartbreat to makes your goals all about pleasing some girl. I simply want the US military to win wars with the loss of as few lives as possible.

Granted, I have a personal investment as well; my son is currently in the Army, and I don't want his life risked for PC foolishness. So I think my son's life trumps your oneitis for some chick.

 

I do understand the view that ALL ground combat is solely decided by whose troops are stronger. You can write that backwards, forward and upside down, but it is still always the same claim. I do notice that to date, on at least half a dozen of these threads, not ONE male has ever agreed to hold men to standards - including physical standards - that favor women.

So, all you have to do if figure how to get the Russians, Chinese, Taliban, ISIS and Kim Jung Un to agree military conflicts will be decided by whose has the squad that can run a marathon fastest with a 70 pound bag - and then hope our guys win, which they probably wouldn't.

For the current military conflicts we are in: Afghanistan and Iraq, plus the couple dozen countries we have small support units in, tell me what you think the percentage is that the speed at which ground forces can run a marathon with a heavy pack has even been a factor or involved, let alone leading to a decisive victory.

You old guys truly can not grasp that the military is moving away from significant ground actions as much as possible and when it going to be employed they are first going to totally decimate the area with artillery and from the air. Our military actual does have vehicles. Had them for a long time. You really don't seem to grasp that the 1980s is ancient military history for our country and military. Maybe not for the primitive Afghanistanis. But it is to our military.

What is not being grasps is where I disagree. You - and other men - continue to assert that proving superior physical abilities then excludes all others. Of course, when I point out then they should mostly be black, that of course is ignored. But the real difference is that all of what you claim being true is in my opinion trivial and an inferior, dangerous ancient perspective. A physically strong but mentally inferior unit, even if special forces, is inherently inferior. There are missions, combat and special forces missions, that ONLY women can fulfill, unless of course you think you could pass a check point or entry exam with you passing as a female.

 

So are you trying to claim that the troops there do not move around on foot? You keep making this really silly-stupid statements, and have as of yet not validated any of your claims. In fact, you then go out of your way to make utterly stupid claims, like armies competing via marathons.

OK, I got you. To you this is all about emotion, and you apparently do not understand, or even care about the realities of the situation.

Let me know when you are willing to discuss this rationally, and not acting out based on your feelings.

 

The percentage of men and officers in the military who do NOT want women in combat roles or capable of competing with men is very high, while policy requires the act and think otherwise. There are numerous methods employed to divert women who can cut it to male standards into other programs. For example, the "girl" I have been writing about is not just a super college educated geek of published credentials, but could meet male standards for basic the first time the recruiter tested her. But, then, she swam near daily in shark and alligator waters, when mountain and rock climbing, martial arts, a crack shot. For this, she was offered to try to be the first female is one of the most dangerous of all areas of special operations (I won't specify). No as a covert Seal or Green Beret or other covert unit operation behind enemy lines, but to be dropped in alone. Anywhere in the world on little to no notice.

However, while at first interested she declined going into the program, because if a person fails they are booted out. She fully recognizes the extreme opposition to women, particularly in any formerly all-male units, and saw it as just a means to blow her out of the service. Instead, she went thru ordinary basic, earning very award they offered, though numerous attempts were made to slow her down, including overweighting her pack. She said nothing of it because instead she made her focus to stay with the squad and insure they all made it. When asked why she was doing that, she told them "we all pass or we all fail, just like in the field we all will live or we all will die." Completely contradicting orders for each to act individually, she organized her squad and her barracks to act as an assembly line, with a checker for each aspect. Simply, she is 100% always results oriented. Rules, officers, male prejudices? Those are just sometimes obstacles to ignore, trick, get around or run over. Your strong but stupid men have gotten her hurt, not the enemy.

The point? Just because politicians and some in the military want women in, there are gobs of men in the military, officers mostly - non missions oriented officers - who will do anything to keep a woman out of their unit. So it may not be that no woman can meet males standards, but rather that women who can are moved into other areas so there is no chance any woman actually does. If a woman can meet male standards, instead before graduating they propose she go into a sudden-death much higher potential position - and if she meets that, then before graduating to still another set of higher standards, for which 100% of the judges are men - including men who will do anything to keep a female from passing - and failing to earn their approval is then to be booted out of the service.

Regardless, the pack-mule measure of combat value is antiquated and dangerous, ignorant in my opinion. The day we lose a battle in this era due to a woman only running the "marathon" in 2:17 with a 35 pound rucksack, be sure and post that on the forum. The next major battle we win by running down the enemy on foot, let us all know.

 

I do understand the view that ALL ground combat is solely decided by whose troops are stronger. You can write that backwards, forward and upside down, but it is still always the same claim. I do notice that to date, on at least half a dozen of these threads, not ONE male has ever agreed to hold men to standards - including physical standards - that favor women.

So, all you have to do if figure how to get the Russians, Chinese, Taliban, ISIS and Kim Jung Un to agree military conflicts will be decided by whose has the squad that can run a marathon fastest with a 70 pound bag - and then hope our guys win, which they probably wouldn't.

For the current military conflicts we are in: Afghanistan and Iraq, plus the couple dozen countries we have small support units in, tell me what you think the percentage is that the speed at which ground forces can run a marathon with a heavy pack has even been a factor or involved, let alone leading to a decisive victory.

You old guys truly can not grasp that the military is moving away from significant ground actions as much as possible and when it going to be employed they are first going to totally decimate the area with artillery and from the air. Our military actual does have vehicles. Had them for a long time. You really don't seem to grasp that the 1980s is ancient military history for our country and military. Maybe not for the primitive Afghanistanis. But it is to our military.

What is not being grasped is where I disagree. You - and other men - continue to assert that proving superior physical abilities then excludes all others. Of course, when I point out then they should mostly be black, that of course is ignored. But the real difference is that all of what you claim being true is in my opinion trivial and an inferior, dangerous ancient perspective. A physically strong but mentally inferior unit, even if special forces, is inherently inferior. There are missions, combat and special forces missions, that ONLY women can fulfill, unless of course you think you could pass a check point or entry exam with you passing as a female.

The Marine squad leader, formerly believing women should not be anywhere near combat and that physical speed and strength most mattered, not only reversed view after actual combat and oft engagement with the enemy - and even came to believe that men truly into their physique and physical abilities were a negative factor because it misdirected their thinking, strategy and sense of unit cohesion. He'd rather have a smart, deadly, tactically and unit cohesive female than a big, strong dumb guy into the ego of his muscles. Besides, he was by no means the biggest and toughest guy in his squad, but he was the smartest and most deadly.

I'm NOT trying to degrade ground forces or special ops, Seals, Rangers, Green Berets etc. That Marine is impressive as hell. Drop him off in one end of a woodland swamp and me in the other with a rifle or knife? He's about the only man I would fear, and figure I had little chance. Most other guys would have no chance against me. They are all impressive and do their roles usually quite well. I am disputing that WW1 tactics and perspectives should continue to control the US military in combat ground forces.

Again, if the greatest physical strength is THE measure, why aren't most ground forces and special ops black like the NFL? The answer, of course, is "intelligence." But, then, "intelligence" is declared irrelevant about women, only relevant about white men? Why?

 

Reliable reference please? Because I am calling coprolite.

 

"The study, alluded to in a lengthy new examination of the gender-integration effort, found that 85 percent of those surveyed in U.S. Special Operations Command opposed letting women into their jobs, and 71 percent opposed letting women into their unit."
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/insight/2015/12/20/01-gender-war.html

The stat is 75% for Marines who oppose women in combat roles as Marines.

It is foolish to think that attitude only involves enlisted and not officers. Officers can blow out nearly anyone they want to in a variety of ways. The most common way attempted with the female I'm been referring to is openly telling her such as "I've never had a woman in my unit and I never will," then piling massive workloads and hours on her while talking to her like she's dirt. Yes, she could file a complaint and that's what he obvious wants her to do. If she did, she'd be reassigned elsewhere as he wants to happen - and no one would want to take her with that in her file - and the CO would get some verbal reprimand, which most higher up male officers would probably pat him on the back for, saying they do the same thing. Or the woman might refuse, a no-no, or the woman might ask for a transfer, which would be granted of course.

The problem for those COs is she's tactically smart. She'd just "yes sir" and do all the crap and all the hours. But that type of CO is going to keep pushing it and in the end she'll take him out, having nothing to do with her sex. All she has to do is wait for him to make the inevitable big screw up that also is a serious violation - and lock it down so he can't undo it. Its easy to wait for such screwups when the CO doesn't know what the hell is really going on and she does. The screw up, not her, causes the investigation that eliminates that particular CO. Probably most women would fall for that trap of being egged into making a gender-harassment formal complaint. If she does, she loses. Whiners, even if in the right, don't advance well in the military, not for long.

 

Yet you claimed "There are numerous methods employed to divert women who can cut it to male standards into other programs."

That article you posted said nothing about that at all. So I am still calling bullshit.

 

Then there is a chance if your son goes into combat and finds himself being back to the wall and overrun, that "chick" might save his ass. She's saved quite a few military male asses already. No male in the military has ever saved hers. Hell, the only thing males have done is panicked, her having to become those whimper boy's authoritarian mom. Or would you rather him die to avoid the humiliation of being saved by a female?

Has your son been in combat? Ever been under fire? Ever killed any enemy? Ever saved any of our troops asses? Does he had bone implants, bolts and pins in his neck and spine from his service in combat zones?

One thing she likely has to remind herself of time to time is that she is fighting and risking her life for oath, duty and country, not men like you and probably your son - the latter being seen by her as her greater danger than any enemy for stupidity and neither of you having the slightest feeling but contempt and ridicule of her.

I hope the military does not send your son into combat and he is not given the support of "can't do 100 push ups" combat super geeks and cutting edge killers that you have such contempt for. That they do not tell him "here's your rifle and pack, you're on your own for the next month, the enemy is over there. Don't call us if you can't handle it." If he comes under superior fire maybe he could just wrestle the enemy down and thrown his big pack at them - or outrun them fleeing from the enemy for how fast he must be.

If you son's role is to carry a heavy pack and rifle, while all military personnel should be respected he isn't important and can be instantly replaced. They'll be 500 football players tomorrow at a recruiters office hoping to take his place, since they can't find a decent job and can't or won't go to college. She left a full tuition, room and board top end private scientific university to sign up to expand her resume including life experience.

I suppose running really fast is critical to cowards.

 

You can deny apparent reality if that makes you feel good. The ranting against women in the military by ex military on these threads, frantically claiming "LIVES WILL BE LOST!" "Our military is being destroyed!" crap - with NO examples to back it up, equally exists among a majority of males in the military in the areas I cited. Or are you claiming only ex-military are rabidly anti-women in combat?

Actually, when men in the military are asked why they oppose it, mostly they give logistical and emotional reasons, not combat reasons.

 

Ahhh, once again, deflection rather than validating your claim.

And BTW, I am not "ex-military", I am current military. And no matter how much you scream we are "biased", if you are unable to validate your many claims with anything other than shouting "you are prejudiced", I can only assume you are making things up.

Hey, I think fluffy bunnies make Liberals! Hey, do not ask me to prove what I say is true, you are a Nazi if you demand proof! NAZI!

 

And you validate my "stupidity" point in your message. Ranting away like an idiot.

Not that it matters nor will I go there on this topic as this is just a forum and that is a dumb card to play, but I have three children of military service, two often in kill or be killed REAL combat and with warfare injuries they will pay for the rest of their lives. My kids have killed enemy at real risk and paying real prices. Asked if they would do it again, their answer is yes. I'm a tough guy, tough children, run with tough people. Every generation of my family or my wife's family has served in the US military dating back to the the war of 1812. Not all got to return home. Not all returned whole. Not all have been men. Every branch of service other than the Merchant Marines.

They are well aware of the realities I write of, not the insecure male ego rantings I'm reading - mostly grunts or ex grunts who may have technically been in a combat zone in large units with massive support and at little risk, believing they are forever experts who should run the military for their trivial experience self-declared military genius consisting of carrying a pack and a rifle. Disgusting really. Ingratitude too.

Unlike you and the other insecure males who apparently can only find worth in claiming their dna makes them superior, I want our military to have every possible resource, every skill, every brainiac fighting on our side. I'd pick a smart warrior over a strong warrior every time. Not just pack mule high school linebacker types who see learning loud grunting as a major skill acquisition.

I would suggest it unlikely you have much a military career ahead of you for your dunderheaded message. Obviously no woman would dare serve under you, but then I don't really see you as officer material from your hysterical message.

 

So if we invent Super Wonder Woman, make her better than the average half-starved Somalian draftee who grew up never having a adequate diet in our little tale, and invent fake scenarios wherein such Super Wonder Women are invariably far more successful than some house ridden 10 year old asthmatic Sheldon type, then we can 'invalidate' the previous 10,000 years of military history at will and produce whatever politically correct narrative we want to, just like that. Big deal; what is that supposed to prove, other than an amateurish creative writing ability?

Isn't that basically just the Kill Bill movie with a different plot and a change of background scenery?

 

what standard changed?

I would expect to see that in the ops post if that was the issue?

 

Yes, a woman or a child can grab an AK or RPG, join a mob of attackers and kill the best troops with them.

However, modern dismounted infantry combat requires brute strength. It requires soldiers to carry over 60 pounds of armor and gear up mountainsides in heat and thin air, then be able to dig in and do all the other tasks. It takes great strength to move wounded soldiers--- and all but maybe a piddling small percent of women could do even that.

Since you don't like older people telling you about the problems of women in modern combat, how about a guy that was recently in Special Operations in the Rangers. It doesn't last that long: