Marine Corps to open infantry training to enlisted women

SOI training is a joke. The real issues will be in the fleet

 

SOI training is a joke. The real issues will be in the fleet.

 

Then you must be saying that after going through SOI training our Marine grunts aren't well trained?

Or that they aren't tough?

Or that their training is so simple and easy that women will laugh their way through it just like you allude to the men doing.

 

I couldn't have summed it up better myself.

No marine is fit for combat straight out of SOI. Really they should just put grunts though the shorter MCT which I believe women already take. SOI just creates a lot of bad habits needed to be unlearned once a grunt gets to his unit for the training that counts.

 

I undertook both MCT and SOI, since even infantry (ie: real) Marines had to do MCT back then.

When I got to the fleet, boots were in better shape than guys who had gotten lazy over a few years of service... Not sure what you're basing your assertions on.

 

It's kind of a joke really, because assuming a female passes the course...there's nothing waiting for them on the other end. Infantry specialties are still not being offered to women. So basically a female Marine goes through all of that and passes, hypothetically, it's strictly for bragging rights..and it's back to the non-combat jobs.

In other words it's window dressing.

All the Marines and veteran Marines raising a stink about how this harm combat effectiveness, etc., and is an insult to the precious "Corps."

Gimmie a break...yes it's the physically toughest basic training and the job is physical....but the "Corps" also has some of the lowest ASVAB standards in the services. As much as you all make fun of the Air Force...aka "Chair Force,", USAF recruits must score at least 36 pts. on the 99 pt. ASVAB...with exceptions to some H.S. grads with a score of 31. Yet the vast majority of USAF recruits score 50 or above....roughly 70%.

Meanwhile the USMC recruit must score 32 pts. or above but they'll make exceptions for scores as low as 25 pts.

It's not brain surgery to become a Marine...it's essentially jocks with rifles....keep them away from anything technologically challenging besides pulling a trigger. We wouldn't want to hurt your "combat readiness" or anything.

 

That must have been a East Coast thing or possibly just a problem of the times. SOI is far to long and very little doesn't carry over in the fleet very well. Infantry would be better served if they attended the shorter MCT and allowed to spend more time training with their unit learning how (*)(*)(*)(*) is really done.

passing the course is not even a real accomplishment to brag about. it's just a school like any other in the military anyone can easily pass.

 

In this I have to agree, even though I did not go through either MCT or SOI.

Back when I went through my training (1983), MCT had not been developed yet, and it was still the Infantry Training School. And the school was never designed to teach you everything, simply to give you the fundamentals that your new unit would build upon. And yea, I would agree that the boots were always in better shape.

In training, we were doing "Boots and U" runs constantly, running with a full pack, in addition to all the PT (normally around 5 miles). Once you hit the fleet, things slow down a lot. At least back then PT maybe 2-3 days a week, runs rarely more then 2-3 miles (at a slow pace), and a much different kind of physical stress. Training seems to be all about speed, the Fleet was all about endurance.

In Boot Camp, I doubt if our longest hump was more then 8 miles. After a few months in the Fleet, that would have been nice since there I rarely went on one shorter then 10 miles. So I would agree that boots were in better shape, but we still had to teach them the tricks about pacing, "mind over matter" and long term endurance that would allow them to do a MCCRES.

 

Nope, I am more willing to bet it is a matter of era.

When I went through ITS, it was a 6 week course. And I humped just about every mountain and ridge around San Onofre (except Mount Mother - boot camp only). And it sounds like what you want is a return to the way it was done back in my day, a quick and dirty course to teach the basics and little more.

 

I don't know if it's easy or not, but it makes little sense to open up a school for candidates, and remind them...this is all for show, not for dough.

Why not just say, sorry girls our schools are closed to women you can't hack it.

Making it so even if they passed they still will not be open to the specialty,
Oh sh_t, now what, we can't have women actually be in a combat unit, just let them take the school.

It's dumb.

People can audit a class in college, sit in class and not get credit for it, but who in the services have the time to waste taking a course with ultimately no payoff in the end. You go right back to your non-combat job, maybe with a footnote on your service record.

As I say, I don't envision females running to sign up to be the infantry even if there was an actual payoff and chance they could be assigned to a Marine ground combat unit...but this attempt by the Marines to open up ground combat options to women is disingenous and as stated, quite frankly....

dumb.

They'll tell the DoD...

See nobody showed, guess we can scratch the notion of women in ground combat off the "to do" list.

I'd have more respect if they simply maintained the status quo, and argued women do not belong in ground combat units.
Period. Why waste our time and their time, training them. Essentially this what are they are doing anyway, opening up the schools for female candidates is as I say...window dressing to appease the politicians. This is not a real attempt to integrate the ground combat units. It's the equivalent of auditing a class and proving a point without any risk of a female actually passing the course.

 

Given the role of the Marine Corps in comparison with the other services, I'm not sure what the random ad hominem attack relating to ASVAB scores has to do with whether or not 'combat readiness' is impacted. That being said, it's worth keeping in mind that the Corps has it's own pilots, combat engineers, and other "support" roles and are not limited to infantry. In short, in addition to being an unprovoked attack, your post seems to be a hasty generalization.

Personally, I believe anyone who can pass basic training (ie: boot camp plus MCT and/or SOI) is physically capable enough that they won't be 'dead weight' in the unit, regardless of what's between their legs.

- - - Updated - - -

Given the role of the Marine Corps in comparison with the other services, I'm not sure what the random ad hominem attack relating to ASVAB scores has to do with whether or not 'combat readiness' is impacted. That being said, it's worth keeping in mind that the Corps has it's own pilots, combat engineers, and other "support" roles and are not limited to infantry. In short, in addition to being an unprovoked attack, your post seems to be a hasty generalization.

Personally, I believe anyone who can pass basic training (ie: boot camp plus MCT and/or SOI) is physically capable enough that they won't be 'dead weight' in the unit, regardless of what's between their legs.

 

I undertook both at Pendleton, so it wasn't an "East Coast thing". I also don't believe it was a "problem of the times", since it wasn't a problem at all.
In reality "learning how (*)(*)(*)(*) is really done", in my experience, occurred primarily in MCT and SOI... Training in the fleet just developed team cohesion, which is vital, but did not really develop any more tactical knowledge. Maybe you experience (if you are a vet?) may have been different based on the fact that you didn't undertake both programs that you're now disparaging.

So what? People who feel the need to "brag" about any training are generally a waste of space anyway.

 

ALL Marines train in combat its after Boot and before their Military Specialty Training all they are doing is moving women to the combat focused training (what they use to track into infantry front line combat) over the one for non-combat tracks.

 

And why do you believe that, exactly?

 

Hallelujah!

100% agree.

Ok, now this is thin ice...
After taking the ASVAB, I was told by recruiters for all branches that I could pick my job. As tempting as 0251 (Interrogator/Translator) was at the time, I chose Marine Infantry because the Marine Corps encapsulated everything I thought the military should be, and the Infantry encapsulated everything I thought a Marine should be.

I will admit that not everyone I served with was "a rocket scientist", but to insinuate that the majority of them had "just a pulse" is an unwarranted and inaccurate hasty generalization.

 

Frankly you should have gone the 0251 route. Marines at DLI have their pick of the Air Force girls. You get issued a couple during inprocessing.

 

How nice, take part of a quote of mine. Sorry, let me answer with the complete sentence, OK?

There, now I can actually understand both what I said and the context I made it in.

I honestly am one of those that honestly believes in equality. Not in the "Make a showing and put up a few tokens to prove we are equal", but in honest efforts. And by the same token I do not believe in lowering standards just to allow people to make it into things. Stand or fail by their own merits at the time, not changing them just to allow some in who would otherwise not be accepted.

And yea, I would have no problem with females in the Infantry. However I doubt few if any would ever make it without a serious reduction of the standards already expected.

When I was in, at least once a year we would do some brutal training. MCCRES, Jungle Warfare School, Arctic Warfare training, Amphibious Warfare training, some form of really brutal 2-4 week long training event which tested us to our limits. And that was really the "stand or fall" time for everybody. Make it through the training, and chances for advancement and promotion opened up, and you got the respect of everybody else who went through it with you.

Fail in that training, and enjoy spending time in the Company Office, pushing papers and driving the First Sergeant (a useless position in the Marines) until you finished your 4 years and went home (if you were not used as permanent Working Party).

The Corps can be brutal, and does not concern itself with those that can't cut it. And let's take this a few steps further, shall we? Let's just take 2nd Lieutenant Smith, a hypothetical graduate of TBS and the Infantry Officer's course, shall we?

Now like most Boot Louies, Lt. Smith is sent to an Infantry Unit, let's call it 0/2 at Camp Lejeune. She goes through all of her briefings, and her welcome aboard speeches, then is assigned to 3rd Platoon of the first Company in that battalion. She meets her men, gets filled in by the Platoon Sergeant, and finds out they are going to be doing NBC training in 3 weeks at the beginning of June.

So bright and early on Monday 3 weeks later, the Battalion forms up and hoofs it out of town. Down River Road, through French Creek, across Sneads Ferry, then back up to where the "old gate" is. A short little hike, about 10 miles. Then they drop packs, pull out their MOPP Gear, and start training. And anybody that thinks this sounds like no big deal has never done MOPP training in North Carolina in June (my first time I dropped 10 pounds).

And after 5 days of running around in sun in a wetsuit, they pack it up and head another 10 miles back to mainside. And in summer this is typical, 1-2 weeks at the Barracks, then 1-2 weeks in the field, over and over until October-November when it starts to get to cold for much training like this.

At this time Lt. Smith has either proven she can continue to lead the way and inspire her Marines, or she has failed and is the new Assistant Clubs Officer, or Field Mess OIC, or is filling some other critical and much needed position until her time to serve has run out. And her chances of ever getting augmented and loosing that R is gone forever.

And in the brutal world of the Marine Grunts, repeatedly failing the "humps" are unforgiveable. Oh, they do understand falling out the first or maybe the second one as you toughen up your feet and get used to the demands, but that is about it. Fail repeatedly, and they simply find something else for you to do, because you will have zero respect from those you lead.

And yes, I fell to the back of exactly 1 hump in my 10 years. My first with the fleet, 4 blisters the size of golfballs on the ball and heel of each foot. Got them lanced, mole skin, and continued on with training. I had some hassle me when I caught back up with the unit, until the Platoon Sergeant ordered me to take off my boots. He did not even order me to the Battalion Aid Station, he sent somebody to bring the Corpsman to me. Nobody gave me any grief when I continued to march with blisters like that, but I was also told that I had better never get them like that ever again.

And I was only a Corporal, but still had to have the respect of those I would lead. If I had continued to fall out I would have quickly found myself back to Lance, administratively reduced and sent to assist the Motor Pool in cleaning oil spots. There were always places to shove people who could not hack it.

 

If you're asking for my permission, you don't have it. I'm not interested just now in whether they can meet any physical standards. I'm only interested in why you think they have a right to try, and I'm not about to slog through that WoT to find what probably isn't there anyway.

So if you don't want to answer the question straight up, swell, but there is no sense pretending to have answered it with a shipload of irrelevancies.

 

That is amazingly close to what it was for me as well.

I knew I wanted to be in the military for as long as I can remember. Did the JROTC thing in High School, during my Junior year I started to shop the various recruiters to see what they had to offer.

Took the ASVAB with the Air Force, they were impressed but the only thing they had that sounded interesting to me was MP, and at that time you had to be 21. Took the scores to the Navy, the recruiter immediately wanted to shove me in their Nuclear Power program. Knew a guy in the Navy, told me that meant I would spend my career mostly in submarines. Spending 20 years working subs did not appeal to me, so moved on.

Forget what the Army was trying to get me into, which tells you how inspiring they were. The Marine recruiter at that time was a dick, told me he did not waste time talking to Juniors and kicked me out of his office.

Move forward, start of my Senior year. Working on the side as a computer programmer, and retook the ASVAB, got an even higher score. Saw all the recruiters, much the same. Navy wants to put me in nuclear power and nothing else. Air Force is telling me about Ordinance Specialist, but working with bombs does not appeal to me. Army ironically tries to get me interested in Air Defense RADAR. A buddy has to drag me into the Marine office, my last experience was that bad. But there is a new recruiter. We talk for a few minutes, and he actually tells me he will have me signed up as a Marine by the end of the year.

And I'll be damned if he did not. Now most Marines go "Open Contract", I was one of those that had a contract though. Went to the MEPS station, got pulled aside and was given a sheet of paper with some high demand positions that needed filling. They had a lot of computer positions, but at this time I wanted nothing to do with computers. One caught my eye, "Marine Security Force", so I asked what it was. This is when I first learned about "Barracks Duty", guarding Navy Bases. However, it was only open to those in the Infantry, and you had to be able to get a security clearance and score well on the ASVAB.

So that was my choice. I wanted the challenge, I wanted the ability to travel (I was from LA, and most of these duties are overseas), and I wanted to be able to say I was one of the best.

Well, training was rough, and I was one of the best. But for travel, how was I to know there was a Marine Barracks at the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station, less then an hour from home? And that I would spend over 3 years there?

And yea, I met a wide variety during my time in. Some I would call rocks, except I think rocks had more brains then some of them. One I knew joined because it was a family tradition stretching back over 100 years. One of my Lieutenants had a degree in Aeronautical Engineering, and worked for a year to get Augmented in the Active Marines in the Infantry. One Battalion Commander got his MBA and had his CPA. A great many came from some of the worst slums and ghettos and were using the Corps as a way to make something of themselves and get out of the poverty of their childhood and make something of themselves.

But almost universally joined for the challenge, and to claim the title we all earned. And very few were "dumb grunts", even though we might look and smell a little rough and uncultured to an outsider after returning from a week in the field. Undoubtedly many of the smartest people I have ever known were all grunts I served with.

- - - Updated - - -

Fine, so you think nobody gets a chance to try because you do not think they deserve to.

Thank you Mister Closed Minded Bigot, your opinions are hereby noted and flushed.

 

fabricated in the realm of your imagination

You can certainly do that if you want, but it seems like a lot of effort to justify refusal to answer a perfectly straightforward question.

 

This could work but they would have to treat it like they did when they integrated blacks into the military, and promote them to higher ranks quickly so that new recruits coming in will have to salute homosexuals, blacks, and now women.

That way they will respect the women, and not harass them if they rank higher. Even now women are drill sergeants for male marines.

 

More to the point, what makes you feel that they shouldn't be given the same opportunities as male counterparts, since you are the one making that assertion?

 

What I find funniest in this is here we have 2 former Marine Grunts who both say they should at lease be given a chance, debating with somebody with apparently no such background at all saying they should not.

Am I the only one that is laughing at the irony of that?

 

Every function the Marines perform is redundant to the Army....they merely have better public relations that convinces the participants it's an "elite" organization. The only difference between what Marines did in Afghanistan and Iraq to what the Army did, was they did it for 6 months shorter deployments.
The Marines have rendered itself into a slow, conventional force focused on an obsolete mission, i.e. forced entry from the sea.

Marines were the door kickers by establishing an entry point for the Army's strategic land capability. However, the U.S. military's development of unmanned aircraft, combined with stealth technology and unmatched ISR capability, makes it almost impossible for an enemy today to significantly impede the landing of U.S. forces on a beach or at a port. Forcible entry no longer requires landing forces -- it takes precision strikes, coordinated by special operations forces as needed.

Are they even relevant anymore?

That's up for debate...before we can discuss whether having females with weaker upper body strength drags down the whole combat element of the Corps..which is the only relevant difference here....upper body strength. Before we can discuss whether females in Marine infantry will effect combat effectiveness...we should be discussing whether the entire Marine Corps is even relevant any more given their obsolete mission, they are simply a 2nd Army now. Why not merge them with the Army.

 

Sorry, just not true. By the same reasoning the Air branches of the Navy and Marines are also redundant to those of the Air Force.

Just because there is some overlap, that does not mean that they are redundant. The Marines operate in a very different way from the Army, and having been in both branches I can see a lot of these differences. Much more then just "forced entry from the sea".