Women in combat (but not really) Vol. III

Marine infantry who have deployed on a MEU-SOC are "special operations capable", so they wouldn't necessarily be an impediment. My platoon did a seven month training package with SOTG on the 31st MEU. We were the "trailer platoon" for the recon marines. Our job was to provide logistical support and suppliemtnary security and firepower. There is actually a good deal of cross-over between SF and regular infantry. Every Marine sniper started out in a grunt unit, for instance. That doesn't mean grunts are capable of doing SF missions but they can sure as (*)(*)(*)(*) provide some security and extra support outside the wire.

 

There are higher security clearances required in special operations, on some missions;
but I'm sure there are cross-over in some missions, I think Black Hawk Down showed a mixture of
Delta and regular 82nd airborne infantry troops...this was in Mogadishu trying to capture war lords.

Just to haul them around in-country requires a top secret security clearance.

 

Special Forces units (SEALs, ODA, Rangers, MARSOC, Delta etc.) are all infantrymen. They're just highly specialized and elite Infantry.

 

I said...

Where did I refer to Delta as other than infantry in my example of the '93 operations in Mogadishu?

Guess who else was part of that operation?

160th SOAR and I'm sure the folks in the 160th SOAR will be glad to know they're in the infantry now.

or in the USAF

1st SOW
24th SOW
27th SOW
353rd SOG
919th SOW (Reserves)
193rd SOW (ANG)

These airman will be pleased to know they're in the infantry.

Not all special operations units are infantry...the fact someone is issued a pair of boots does not make them
infantry...yes at some point everyone walks on the ground, but does that make them infantryman?

 

If you'd bothered to read my post, I clearly indicated what units I was referring to.

The 160th's mission is to support Special Forces contigents...aka Infantry. Almost all the "non-Infantry" units that fall under SOCOM, like the USAISA, TACP, are attached to traditional ground pounders.

The Air Force's "special operations" units are very whacky. I see things like 1st Special Operations Dental Squadron, 1st Special Operations Contracting Squadron, 27th Special Operations Maintenance Operations Squadron, 1st Special Operations Civil Engineering Squadron etc. Those look like regular units assigned to SOCOM for support. Whatever floats your boat though.

 

The Army defines the role of Infantry as "Infantry closes with the enemy by means of fire and maneuver in order to destroy or capture him or to repel his assault by fire, close combat, and counterattack."

Your boots comment is silly.

 

You're avoiding the issue.

You said.

Not all special operations units are infantrymen.

 

You can play lawyer all day long. I clearly specificed the units I meant. I still stand by the idea that the vast majority of Special Forces units operate as infantry. I don't care if the Air Force plays games with the SF title and throws it out to every unit supporting SOCOM.

Would you consider a dental hygenist in the 1st Special Operations Dental BN a member of the Special Forces?

 

Can they meet the minimum requirements...and are they issued the same color beret? If so, let 'em in. Equality for all.

 

.....and around and around we go.

 

As painful as it may be, I'm saving it from Herkdriver's kangaroo court.

 

You "clearly" did not specify the units you meant....
You didn't say "vast majority"...you said

You said

Etc?

Etcetera...As defined

I'm not a mind reader, as to what Spec Ops. units continue in the same way...
therefore I pointed out that not all Spec Ops. units are infantry...
not even desiring an argument, just pointing out that not all Spec Ops units are specialized trained infantry troops...which is a fact, you seemingly still deny.
Giving a nod to the Night Stalkers of the 160th SOAR...or the USAF Pararescue Jumpers....
Special operations who are not infantry...just giving them a nod...

Now regarding your contemptuous remark regarding AFSOC...

Please tell this airman's family this he doesn't deserve to be in the same ranks as Delta, or SEALS, that the Air Force only "pretends" to be special operations...

The 21st SOS is a unit within the 352d SOG

Assigned to a Special Operations unit, and combat controllers are not infantry...before you bring up that argument again...they are
FAA-certified air traffic controllers who do their job, often times, in a hostile theater of war facing the same risks as anyone else on the ground in combat.


Good day.

 

Mark Forester was a combat controller who died "during an assault of an insurgent safe haven in Uruzgan Province, Afghanistan." The article doesn't specify, but he was almost certainly attached to a traditional "boots on the ground" SF unit. His job is to act as part of a ground assault element. Combat controllers are Infantrymen by every definition of the word. The Infantry skills of these guys probably trumps 95% of traditional Infantrymen. Just because he's a certified air traffic controller, doesn't mean he can't also be serving as an Infantryman.

How about you answer my question about the guys in the SF dental squadron.

 

You're utterly ridiculous with this bolded comment. Where did I ever say the Air Force pretends to be SF? I simply said they're extremely loose with their classification of SF, and that most of their units don't fall into the classic definition of SF, which is what we're talking about. If you would quit lawyering my posts you'd see that.

Your little rant about telling his family is also stupid. Anyone who's killed in the service of the nation deserves to be respected. You somehow seem to be implying that SEALs, ODA who are killed in action should be honored more. That's not how it works. Dead is dead in the military, regardless of what your position is or what you were doing when you were killed. Do I give the SEAls, ODA guys a little more respect for willingly putting themselves in the most danger? Sure, but when were talking about KIA that all goes out the door.

 

I would argue that the combat controller's primary job is not to engage bad guys...they take airway science courses, and infantry skills are part of the curriculum
but this is not their primary directive. Their job is to control the airspace over a battlefield. Collision avoidance.
They are certified FAA controllers...not unlike the guys and gals at your average airport....but trained to do so in a combat environment with added infantry skills.

I believe you are using the term "infantry" too broadly.
Alot of jobs can be called "infantry" using such a wide scope of definition.

Is the Blackhawk helicopter pilot assigned to a 160th SOAR an infantryman?

No his primary job is transporting infantryman into, and out of a battlespace...he may engage bad guys in the course of that job...
directing his door gunner or allowing the door gunner an opportunity to engage the enemy...but this is not his primary job.

I wasn't looking for an argument, as I say...just pointing that well..they're not ALL infantryman in the special forces..at least in terms of their
specific jobs within a given operation.

The guys who flew the stealth helicopters in the Bin Laden mission...same level of risk...but I wouldn't define them as specialized infantry skills...
that's all I was trying to convey.

 

What is the 1st Operations Dental BN?

There are no battalions in the Air Force structure.

Wing
Group
Squadron
Flight
Section
Airman

The Dental Squadron would be assigned to a Medical Group which takes on the number of the Wing they're assigned to.

Hence 1st Special Operations Dental Squadron...
part of the 1st Special Operations Wing
You're just not understanding Air Force structue and making the assumption an Airman dental hygenist considers themselves special forces.
That's not the case.

 

it's not the beret that matters, it's the tab.

 

Both of the women who attempted the Marine Corp's Infantry Officer's Course have dropped out. For some reason none of the mainstream media is paying attention to the story. I'm sure if one had passed they would be all over it.

http://www.businessinsider.com/bigg...in-the-marine-infantry-officer-course-2012-10

 

26 males didn't finish the endurance portion of the course either, there's no shame in two females DNF. Why spotlight just the female wash-outs?

1 in 4 washed out...

The important element of the story is that females were given the opportunity to take the course...even thouh they would never be assigned to a direct ground combat unit...
Proponents of females in combat are not asking for special treatment or a lowering of standards be given to the women in training, they're asking simply for the chance to participate and compete along with the men.

A conclusion can't be drawn, just based on two females who couldn't complete the course...1 in 4 males dropped out also.

 

The media and the Marine Corps made a significant deal over this. I don't see the issue in following up on it. About 25% of males fail the entire course. Right now that number sits at 100% for women. They're also having a very difficult time finding female volunteers. It has nothing to do with "shame." My argument was never that women weren't "honorable" enough to finish.

 

Significant deal? Women are still banned from direct ground combat roles, even if they passed the course they would not be assigned to an actual deployed ground combat unit...
They were given the chance, two stepped up and I'm sure, did their best...why spotlight their failure? Why not single out two males who couldn't handle the endurance course either...?

Females wash out of flight school all the time, should we conclude all females are therefore ill suited for the task?

 

Allowing women into IOC is a test to eventually determine what if any ground combat roles they should be integrated into to. Do you think we should ignore the results of the test because they're inconvenient to your beliefs? This has become somewhat of a mainstream political issue and IOC has become the testing ground for the issue. Ignoring the results is silly. The test is by no means over anyway, but it's important to pay attention to the first round.

Hundreds of females have passed flight school. NO females have ever passed IOC. That's the difference. By your logic, because SOME males failed out we should ignore the 100% failure rate of the women? Every class has roughly 25% of it's male population fail out....NOT 100%. Also, why do you think the Marine Corps is having such a tough time finding willing female applicants?

 

Allowing women into IOC is a test to eventually determine what if any ground combat roles they should be integrated into to. Do you think we should ignore the results of the test because they're inconvenient to your beliefs? This has become somewhat of a mainstream political issue and IOC has become the testing ground for the issue. Ignoring the results is silly. The test is by no means over anyway, but it's important to pay attention to the first round.

Hundreds of females have passed flight school. NO females have ever passed IOC. That's the difference. By your logic, because SOME males failed out we should ignore the 100% failure rate of the women? Every class has roughly 25% of it's male population fail out....NOT 100%. Also, why do you think the Marine Corps is having such a tough time finding willing female applicants?

 

This is an experiment. Males are the control of the experiment and females are the variable. I don't understand how you can't understand this concept. I'm spotlighting their failure because it's part of an experiment. We already know that men can pass IOC (tens of thousands have) but we don't know if females can. That's why we ignore the two male failures and not the female ones. Females are the variable in the experiment.

Either way, I'm not claiming the experiment is over. There's still a lot more to be done, but as I said earlier, they're having a very tough time getting women to go.

If these two women had passed you would probably be on this very forum saying how it was proof that women can hang and possible be integrated into ground combat units. The reverse should hold true too.