Marine Corps to open infantry training to enlisted women

The future of warfare is the reversal of the current doctrine of close-air support whereby Marines will be a supporting component in a much larger campaign of missiles and guided munitions. So what was once an asset for the Marines being an independent force is now a libabiity because they are not geared for joint missions. Why not do one of two things, merge them with the Army or shrink them further into a separate special operations group exclusively...land warfare, the notion of what a WW2 veteran might recognize...will become obsolete.

 

The Marine Corps is largely mythos, created by one Floyd Gibbons.in US claiming that the Huns were being defeated with “the Help of God and a few Marines”. No mention was made of the thousands of Army soldiers who were fighting and dying with equal valor....which is pretty much the story of the Marine Corps since.

Army killed, captured, or stranded over a quarter of a million Japanese troops during the New Guinea campaign, at a cost of only 33,000 US casualties. The Navy and Marines suffered over 28,000 casualties to kill roughly 20,000 Japanese on Iwo Jima. Even then, the Army played a greater role than Marines like to admit; the Army had more divisions assaulting Okinawa than the Marines.

How about Korea? The great Chesty Puller...
The Army task force fought bravely against overwhelming odds before being destroyed, and their stubborn defense bought time for the Marines to escape the encirclement. Nevertheless, Marines to this day hold up the fight at the Chosin Reservoir as proof of their superiority over the Army.

Marines, historically, do not play well with others...as a whole...either they learn to fight jointly or merge them.

 

But they operate on joint missions constantly - with the Navy.

The issue here is really one that is over 200 years old. Of the 4 branches we have today, the Army and Air Force operate closest together, because of their joint heritage. And the same goes for the Navy and Marines.

And this is nothing new, we have often had issues with trying to get our systems working together. During the Invasion of Grenada, we had situations where Army Rangers and Marines had to make long distance telephone calls over commercial lines to get support from AC-130 gunships and naval gunfire.

And we are constantly training to try and overcome these issues. I was part of a joint forces training exercise in 2008 to try and tie together the Air Defense systems of the Army and Marines. It is still not perfect, but at least during that we were able to push our radar data to the Marine systems so at least they could see a composite of the information for the first time.

 

And your idea is to let women into that environment?

 

I don't want to get too far off track the actual topic...
The whole thing, to me anyway...is a bit phoney. Opening up the infantry school to women but not allowing them to actually be in the infantry, even if they passed. The 2 females who attempted the officer's version of the infantry school did not pass. One could not climb a 20 foot rope, and the other made it through the course but was not up to standards. Let's assume 10 female Marines try the enlisted infantry course.

What kind of dataset is this?

A handful of participants?

Plenty of data exists to deny females into ground combat units in terms of physical deficiencies. The notion the USMC is using this as "research" is laughable to me. Basing a decsion on a dataset you can count with both hands. In essence, it furthers the Marine Corps’ penchant for publicity, usually at the expense of the Army.
The media will point to this as a proactive measure by the more professional Marine Corps while the bloated "Big Army" has dragged their feet into any discernible change in their policy of banning females in the ground combat arms.

It's disingenous on a good day. If you're going to open up the schools, let them mean something, offer the occupational specialty if they meet the standards required to pass the instruction....or argue with the data that currently exists, females have no place in ground combat units because of deficiencies in upper body strength and a higher probability of sustaining an injury.

 

But females in the Army are allowed into combat arms. Air Defense is an example, a combat arm, ground, and a great many females. They are simply not allowed into all combat arms

I simply don't see where we are going with this, and without some kind of dataset it makes no sense for the military to go any further. In this era of paper thin budgets, can we afford to spend umpteen million dollars running large pilot programs?

 

Basic military training is a large enough dataset to provide statistical evidence that females are lacking the upper body strength to perform adequately in jobs which are rated as heavy lifting. The current results are too anecdotal in terms of this 'research experiment."

Four women have gone through it...that's anecdotal evidence on a good day.

A 3-4 year probationary period would offer a larger sampling, ideally, but in your estimation this is an unnecessary strain in the defense budget.

Where the women are struggling is in the rope climb...you can't determine that in BMT? the infantry needs a special course to realize some folks can't climb a rope if their life depended upon it...in which case they do not belong in the infantry.

I can only compare it to the Air Force, since I do not know how the Army or Marines operate, procedurally...before anyone even sets foot on the tarmac there is a series of testing procedures which weed out candidates early on who will not make good pilot candidates. I believe the infantry can do the same...if you can't climb a 20' rope in basic training, you will not make a good candidate for advanced infantry training. The candidate will have to work on their weaknesses and reapply or select another occupation. If the fear is, why invest taxpayer monies into a pilot program that will only prove females will make poor infantryman, preliminary testing can determine this.

 

And by your own listing you actually eliminate most females from the very beginning.

I am more interested in doing things that actually achieve results, not wasting time in feel good studies and the like. And my biggest fear is that you would then have people screaming that the tests were fixed purposefully in order to eliminate females because of their bias and then changed.

However, to give an idea there have been over 100,000 graduates of the Army's Air Assault School, which is not that different then what you are talking about. And thousands of instructors. But only 10 instructors have ever been females.

I simply think they should keep sending through some a few at a time until they can accumulate more data as to what the problems may be, not creating "provisional training programs".

Because then you have another major issue if say you run this pilot program for 5 years, and get a handful of individuals that do pass. One problem the military always has when a provisional program is completed and discontinued is what to do with those who have gone through it? You then spend even more money and resources in training replacements, and retraining those that already went through it.

Plus I am Curious as to what the Navy would do. Female grunts, does that mean more remodeling of Navy amphibious ships to give them separate bearthing?

 

That's not more to the point, it's an evasion of the point.

Reading comprehension is not your strong suit, evidently - assuming, of course, that you are aware of the difference between an assertion and a question.

Dunno about irony, but it strikes me as distinctly more noteworthy that neither of those "former Marine Grunts" is willing to say exactly why "they should at least be given a chance", given that providing such an opportunity cannot be expected to yield any improvement in US military capability whatsoever, and in fact can only be expected to degrade it.

 

Two people who actually have first-hand experience disagree with him; and he still refuses to consider the possibility that his view may be ill-informed...
I find it more sad than ironic.

 

And can you show me that the adding of females would be a detriment as long as current standards are maintained?

In fact, I can give you a very specific way in which having at least some females would be a huge help.

Consider a platoon out checking some village in Anywhereistan. They come across 4 individuals who are suspicious (3 males and 1 female), and have their translator question them. If they feel that there is a risk they can search the men.

However, they are forbidden from searching the woman because of cultural taboos and SOFA agreements. And this is not just a hypothetical, this is real life. And it has been suspected that in at least one area where we are currently operating that females are doing much of the smuggling of everything from drugs to weapons and explosives. And we can't search them because they are women and we are men.

Having at least a few females in each platoon would prevent this from happening, as there could be no objection to having a female search another female. This is how it is done today in MP companies that are deployed, but not Infantry units that are deployed. This is something so basic that I am surprised I have to even mention it.

Also having at least a few females along would help prevent what some see as a "brotherhood of silence", much like having at least one other person in a room when a doctor of the opposite sex is giving an examination. Kinda hard to make a charge that "these 4 grunts raped this poor helpless woman" when one of the grunts is also a woman.

It would also help when it comes to questioning the females in many of these countries. They might feel more open talking with another female (even through a male interpreter) then if she was dealing only with men.

I can think of dozens of beneficial results from having females in an Infantry unit, so long as the standards remain the same. And I really can't think of any detriments then what we have always had when converting units from single sex to co-ed.

 

Ok, perhaps you prefer the term "implication"... You are clearly implying that females do not deserve a chance to serve in the same capacity as males.

How about "Because we have a 14th Amendment."

Now, given that you are clearly asserting that "such an opportunity cannot be expected to yield any improvement in US military capability whatsoever, and in fact can only be expected to degrade it", how about illustrating how females have "degraded" other functions of the military in which they have demonstrated capability...

 

Given that naval guns and carrier-based aircraft can provide much of the firepower you're discussing, I guess the Army is just as obsolete as the Marines you're disparaging.

As for "not being geared for joint missions", I believe you'd have a hard time finding a conflict in which the Marine Corps did not undertake "joint operations".

 

Heck, by definition every single operation the Marines go on is a "Joint Forces" operation, because they do absolutely nothing without support and assistance from the Navy.

There is no such thing as a "Marine Operation" without the navy there also, and it has been that way since 1775.

 

In 1991, during the air war phase of the Gulf war. The sorties were launched mostly from Saudi Arabia and the 6 Coalition carrier battle groups (CVBG) in the Persian Gulf and Red Sea.

The Marine aviation assets declined to be included in the daily air tasking orders which organized the 100,000 or so sorties, preferring instead not to be dedicated to pre-selected targets and zones. The ATO involved both cross-force tasking (JFACC), and also intraservice tasking. I would define that as not playing well with others, though in part considering these ATOs were issued and forecasted 24 - 48 hrs. in advance of the actual sortie. It did make some sense to maintain fluidity in the assigned and attached air resources...at least this was the Marine Corps rationale for declining. Nevertheless, it seems to be a pattern with that institution to maintain fierce independence in terms of a stand alone, expeditionary force. I do not believe, this translates into 21st century strategy and tactics which require joint warfighting, more than ever. What was once an asset, I believe is a liability. We're all on the same team, the last time I checked....WW2 for example, Sailors, soldiers and Marines cleared islands in the Pacific and established air bases which allowed for Army Air Force planes to be launched within range of Japan. The successful bombing campaign over Japan, prevented an actuall invasion which would have cost an estimated 1,000,000 casualties, mostly ground troops. No one facet of our warfighting elements win a battle, let alone an entire war. It requires cooperation and joint tasking as a unified force. Inter-service rivalries shouldn't be squashed, but I do maintain some personal bias towards the Marine Corps as somewhat of a publicity hound institution and not the quiet professionals of say...other organizations that the public may or may not know even exist. The Navy Seals used to be among the latter...quiet professionals; but more and more even they are succumbing to rock-star status seeking, with every other retired Seal writing about their exploits as though, they alone found and dispatched Bin Laden...nevermind the hundreds of dedicated analysts and intelligence gathering teams which laid the groundwork for the mission.

We're all on the same team, are we not.

But that's getting way off topic, and I won't bring it up again.

Ive read a few MOS descriptors involving the physical requirements necessary for infantryman, and those standards should not be sacrificed as a political statement. If women can't climb a rope or lift 75+ pounds, consistently, they should be in a different job, same as any male who can't meet the standards either. However we shouldn't ban them from the job on any other basis than not being able to meet the qualifications, whether these are mental or physical standards. This means, no more moral waivers, or education waivers...
standards are standards which should be applied equally to males and females. If a female is denied a job on the basis of not meeting the physical standards, I find that perfectly acceptable...but a male should not in turn receive a waiver if they fail to meet the moral standards, for example they have a criminal history. If we're going to talk about standards, and not lowering them....an idea I completely I agree with, then we should apply the standards equally in all areas.

 

The idea of US military personnel being constrained by cultural taboos is nonsensical. They are only constrained by the Constitution, and by laws and treaties made in pursuance thereof. Presumably the agreements you refer constitute some form of treaty, enacted by the most dangerous enemy the US military has faced by far since WW2: its civilian leadership.

Non sequitur, obviously. Any woman in the business of killing men has no room to complain about being searched by men.

Even granting such a dubious premise, accusations of rape per se are not a legitimate concern of the US military unless they have at least prima facie credibility.

Besides which, it really is preposterous to cite that as a net benefit when juxtaposed against the possibility of rape accusations within military units, which only exists because of the presence of women and homosexuals.

Troops should not be burdened with the role of "neighborhood cop". Their proper role is to secure an area by forcing compliance.

Can you think of any which are beneficial other than as a fix for problems created by the civilian leadership?

No, I prefer the truth, which is that there was no implication whatsoever, only a question you're trying to dodge by misrepresenting what I said.

That would depend on whether you can cite a 14A provision which has bearing here...

...or at least it would if I didn't already know damn well that there is no such provision.

 

Partially true, I will give you that.

http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2004/June 2004/0604marine.aspx

And when you think about the breakdown of Marine Aviation assets, that actually makes perfect sense to me.

Most of the time Marine Aviation works closely with Navy Aviation, quite often conducting CAPs as the rest of the aircraft go off to do strike missions. So holding back half of the 18's for this and other as needed missions makes perfect sense to me. You simply do not leave the Carriers and 40 amphibious ships with no fighter cover at all.

And while the AV-8 is an awesome close air support aircraft in areas where you have clear air superiority, it is also horribly vulnerable against air defenses and other aircraft because of it's relatively slow speeds. So not turning over those assets once again makes perfect sense. That was a vital lesson from the Falklands/Malvinas War, when the British lost 6 of 28 Harriers against Argentina.

Turning over the Harriers would have been like the Air Force sending in A-10's. Against their role, and a waste of pilots and aircraft. But they did turn over all of their Intruders, which were vital in destroying AEW and Air Defense sites. Combined the Navy and Marine A-6s flew over 4,700 sorties against these targets as well as Iraqi patrol boats.

 

And by simply saying that, you have proven to me that you know absolutely no idea how the military operates.

I know I clearly stated in accordance with the SOFA, and I was not talking about a piece of furniture. So why don't you go away and do some studying of some basic military terminology and concepts, like OPS Tempo, Rules of Engagement, and SOFA. Then you might be able to actually participate in a meaningful and knowledgeable way. Instead of simply rattling off with nothing but gas.

And BTW, men who are not relatives or husbands searching women in an Islamic nation is the most surefire way to guarantee a riot, and even increase violence against our forces in the area. If you were not a complete moron when it comes to military forces overseas you would be aware of this. Violating in an insensitive way to local customs and courtesies is the most surefire way to turn a region against you, and have them give "aid and comfort" to your enemies.

I myself have done a tour "downrange", and we had this pounded into us almost daily. How much experience do you have in an Islamic nation, to make that kind of pronouncement?

 

That hardly matters, since nothing in that statement depends for its veracity on how the military actually operates, any more than claims about the proper role of the Judiciary require knowledge of the actual operation of the current rogue Judiciary.

Since I don't remember equating any US law or treaty to a piece of furniture, I believe I can be forgiven for not seeing the point of the comment.

I'm not gonna study a damn thing before I'm given some at least a sliver of a reason to doubt the veracity of what I said.

Somehow I suspect that's not much different from the situation in Japan in the early 40's, but somehow I also suspect that the US military wouldn't have given a damn at the time.

Then the proper course of action is either to exercise the minimum amount of force required to ensure that no Muslim can think of attacking any American without loading up his underwear, or to get the hell outa there.

I probably was, in the back of my mind somewhere, but it refutes nothing I've said anyway.

Yeah, well I don't think the nudets at Hiroshima and Nagasaki did much to endear us to the Japanese in the short term either, but I'm lots more OK with the results of that than I am with the fruits of all these "kinder and gentler" wars.

None whatsoever...

...and clearly I don't need any to make any pronouncement about which laws US military personnel are subject to.

 

And this is the very reason why what you are saying is full of crap and full of fail.

We are not at war with either Afghanistan, nor the people of Afghanistan. We are their ally, and we want peaceful relations with both them and their people.

If we go in as you say, all we do is alienate the very people we are trying to help. They are not our enemy, we are not an occupation force.

Forgive me, but you are an arrogant ass, who apparently has no reason to be trying to comment on military actions or practices, because you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. And you gladly even admit you do not know, do not want to know, and do not need to know.

 

Question for the Marines.
Are female recruits obliged to participate in the Crucible phase of training.
I'm asking out of ignorance, logic would say yes, but I just want it confirmed.
I ask because the Army, apparently, has their own version of this for infantry training, at least the advanced
portion of infantry training....again speaking with no direct experience in the matter, here's a description of events.

The Bayonet is a 25-mile endurance course with numerous events, challenges, and tasks. The Army course is 24 hours and is focused on tactics by platoons of trainees.

The Wall: A squad must evacuate two "wounded helicopter pilots" (dummies weighted with sand) over a rough terrain course including a ten-foot wall.

The Bridge: The platoon must make a tactical movement across a rope bridge.

Ammunition Carry: The platoon is given a stack a heavy ammunition cans (weighted with sand or other material) and must work together to move them "to the front line".

Casualty Evacuation: Several members of the platoon are "wounded by artillery fire" and must be carried to an evacuation point.

The Cliff: The platoon must attack up a 70-foot cliff using ropes already in place. As always, the platoon must work together with stronger members assisting others.

I've bolded the areas I believe a female may struggle with in keeping up with her male peers. Even though these appear to be squad/platoon level functions, a weaker member may slow down the unit as a whole as others stop and assist or carry a larger portion of the physical buden.

I'll concede, a female infantryman would, on average, be a detriment, but as alluded by Mushroom, they may be an asset in other areas. Cultural relatibility..for example. while deployed. Some may interpret that as feminization of the warfighter, and to a degree it's true; yet more and more our troops our tasked with security missions that don't necessarily involve killing and breaking stuff. hearts & minds is important as well...we may not like tasking our troops as both warfighters and diplomats, but in reality sometimes multi-tasking is required. A female infantryman on the ground, interacting with the indigenous peoples, may be helpful in terms of a "softer" approach to diplomacy than bombs & bullets.

 

It appears I've been bamboozled as "The Bayonet" arttcle I looked at was satire and not an actual Army course to rival the Marine Corps Crucble...regardless, still a pretty good analogy to the strengths necessary for infantry training. I can't confirm this alleged "Bayonet"course even exits outside of the hypothetical, but still a good measure of the upper body strength required for most, if not all the jobs in the infantry. Set something like that up and if a female can pass it following the same measuremetnt applied to a male recruit. I thnk 24 - 48 hours is enough time to develop a course to thin the herd. Allow anyone who fails a chance to re-apply, let them work on their weaknesses in other words. If they still can't pass after 2 or 3 attempts. Well it's clear this person doesn't belong in the infantry. I mention the Crucible, which does exist, seems to me that might make a good test for a female recruits potential as a member of a combat infantry unit. It's already firmly established in the Marine basic training itinerary. Why not use that as a measuring stick, no special standards applied to females, they endure the same 54 hour course.

 

No, we get their full and undivided attention, just as we got it from the Japanese.

The US military has no business "helping" anybody; and even if it did it could hardly do so under current circumstances, seeing it is being directed by an administration whose understanding of human nature is far too addled to allow for anything but the further corruption of those it presumes to help.

Then we don't belong there.

You have me confused with someone else. I know exactly what I'm talking about, which is presumably why you are so determined to steer the conversation towards what I'm not talking about.

 

No, you do not know what you are talking about, and I am done with this.

For some reason, you seem to want to treat Afghanistan as an Occupied country, and the people there as hostile enemies. That is not the case however. All of your proposals will do is breed hatred for our forces, and achieve nothing positive.

I am not trying to "steer" you anywhere, except to the truth of how the military operates, what conditions it operates under, and what the mission is. If you want to see that as unimportant, it just makes me glad you are a civilian who's beliefs are as unimportant as they are idiotic.

This again shows why I have nothing but contempt for people who try to inflict politics onto the military. And I know that Herk knows exactly what I mean when I say that

 

You haven't understood a word I've said.

No, you're trying to steer me away from the truth of why you believe women have the right to try for infantry positions - probably because you're afraid to find out the idea was implanted into your belief system by others.

It's plenty important, but it's at least as important to recognize when the mission becomes detrimental to US interests.

Then presumably your contempt for the current CiC has driven you to drink - which might explain some of your conduct in this thread.