Women in Combat? Yes. Sex integrate units? No.

LOL my messages are just absurdities? You thinking GI Jane should run the infantry classifies as such. Especially since making up **** about something a "squad leader" you can't cite "told you".,

 

What the Marine Squad Leader I know has knowledge of is hunting. A hunter all his life since a very young child. The only person I know who joined up not only specifically to go into combat, but specifically to hunt the enemy. Hunting animals no longer any challenge. It was his thing. Highly intelligence and now with a masters degree.

Curious reasoning. He saw it as: His squad had semi autos, 1 light full auto, had to wear uniforms, had body armor, and night vision, intel support and going into unfamiliar territory not knowing the language.

The prey also were equally hunters. They has full auto AK47s, PRGs, possibly light mortars, did not wear uniforms, did not have night vision, possible IED usage, and knew both the territory and the language.

Seemed like a fair contest. Each side had advantages and disadvantages that about balanced out. Both sides are predators. Both sides are prey. Which side is more skilled? He joined up for that experience, proved exceptionally skilled leading to his being a squad leader in the Helmand District, had the ultimate hunting experiences he wanted, served his full term, declined re-enlisting. Declined other military offers for how proven successful he was, specifically to be a trainer to teach others his skills and experiences, and moved on in life.

Or are you also claiming that there never were small unit seek out and destroy missions in Afghanistan too? Just lots of Rangers, Army Infantry and Marines running really fast really far with massive ruck loads?

When you went to enlist, did you tell them you specifically are enlisting because you want to be deployed into an active combat zone and want to go out on seek and destroy missions as your reason for joining up? He is the only person I know who did so and gave that to everyone asking why he joined as his reason. Most probably wouldn't say what comes down to wanting opportunity to legally hunt and kill people, but that was the essence. As for Afghanistan itself? He sees the military only as acting as police and that the enemy basically is just a form of a criminal gang wrapping itself in religion wanting to control territory - and that the moment we leave everything will return to as it has always been in Afghanistan.

 

The best part about your posts is that they are all your guesses, and complete lack of ANY mission SUs in Iraq and Afghanistan. You need to watch the documentary "Restrepo" to get a more accurate view of combat deployments.
Highly doubt you will

 

More talking about things you have no idea about. Funny you talk about other people only doing a short stint in the military and judge them while you never served a day in your life. Pathetic.

And just so we are clear I am currently sitting at 12 years and counting with every intention of doing the full 20. Started out as 11B now a 18C. Have five deployments total to Iraq and Afghanistan and have earned my CIB many times over.

So before you go spouting of some more fairytales you should realize that not everyone on this site is talking about things they only see in movies like you. Some of us have actual experience doing real world things.

And would you care to quote me or anyone else claiming that Marines don't go on foot. Seeing as we both know you can't how about you just apologize for lying and stop putting words in other people's mouths.

 

Dude you have to stop. You are making yourself look more dishonest and clueless with every post. You really should be embarrassed.

 

Civilians talking about war as if they know what a deployment is....nothing more frustrating.

18C? damn man. Good for you. I'll hit you up if I ever need a door opened lol

 

It is like he doesn't realize that movies like Rambo and the expendables are not based on reality so simply swapping the male character for a female does not make the story believable.

It's been a fun ride. I can't think of much else I would rather do.

 

I'm former 11b, now commissioned. Holdover awaiting BOLC.

 

"G I Jane" is not infantry. You ever kill any enemy? Ever under direct fire? I notice you rage to avoid answering that.

Did your service not equal all you claim as to why you used that message to attempt diversion from telling of your actual experiences you claim your knowledge is based upon?

 

My service proved that women could not meet the standards needed. Almost all. There are few that can. That's the point of this whole discussion. You disagree, but have been proven wrong. There's nothing much to address here. You are creating these wild elaborate stories about people you "know" but their "experiences" don't match reality.

 

Congrats. sincerely so.

 

I suppose we could now take turns claiming the other is lying is that is how you want to divert from my rather obvious and simple asking you to tell of actual combat experience. You haven't proven anything.

Your messages are narrow tunnel vision and at the end of that tunnel you is a mirror. Thus, lucky you, you are certain all is about you, nothing else exists. Missions are need-to-know and clearly you don't need to know much, just yourself and such as you might be called upon to do - nothing else.

 

Thank you

 

I think what the Chief said earlier was the most accurate you can get. RE-read Nightmare's quotes. It's the most accurate explanation.

 

I agree with much of what he posted but you also may not have noticed he somewhat backed off sharing your hardcore absolutist opinion.

Rather than us just going back and forth - at this point it just getting personal for no good reason - let's try a DIFFERENT direction... particularly since you are active duty.

FACT: The US military IS putting women into infantry, Marine, SOF and other combat roles. So rather than just going on and on how wrong you think this is, how about let's discuss how to make it work since that is THE REALITY and since you are active duty you MUST act within REALITY, which among other things means not only respecting ALL fellow service members, but also to pursue making rules, orders, procedures, protocols and missions you vehemently disagree with work anyway - plus not allowing your personal disagreement to cloud your better judgment.

So, with that reality, what do you say - with all your experience/knowledge - is the best way to facilitate and use American female troops in their combat classifications AS NOW EXISTS AND IS BEING DONE? Or as active duty is this simply not possible for you to think of? If so, there may be a real question as to whether you should be kept in if you are incapable of thinking in terms of actual current reality rather than your personal opinions.

The topic I raised is should there be all female and all male units within the military - that the entire military does NOT need to be 100% sex integrated. Just like it has a huge collection of divisions and specializations - even in "combat" roles - that division should also not be an impossibility and, in fact, men and women were 100% segregated until not long ago and still are in most other militaries.

I suspect the reason the male leadership insists on total sex integration is this assures that there can always be found some potential task few women can perform as then proof that women should not have any combat roles whatsoever. Yet the military does not hesitate to integrate otherwise based upon abilities, tasks and duty areas. Nor does it hesitate to downgrade standards to allow for age and race/ethnicity genetic differences between men.

So far, no one has agreed - leading to what I see as a bizarre claim of 1.) women - nearly all - are not suited for the same combat roles as men but 2.) men and women in combat roles should not be segregated into separate units to allow different missions assignments.

Understand, I 100% agree that men and women are different physically and in many other ways. I'm not a feminist. "GI Jane" is neither a GI or infantry. Not only only a brainiac, but extremely physically capable. To a fair degree compared to most women, she is Wonderwoman - but a big brain Wonderwoman too.

When pursuing joining, she was urged by the military to go into a fashion of specialized fields of combat SOF in a specific way I won't mention - and at first interested and then not - because upon exploration she realized she'd have to get past a lot of officers who share your low opinion on women's physical abilities and values; meaning she had no interest in such a struggle thru that deep seated prejudice. Her physical abilities are way above average and it was ranking females in the military actively wanting her to go for it, hoping she could be one of those first females to make the male-standard grade.This was due to recruiter having a practice of having those wanting to sign up first literally start doing all the stuff of the physical standards - running, pull ups, push ups, etc. Day 1 she met male standards.

So ranking females saw her as the woman to try to break the barrier. To be the first female to make it. But also there are some extreme missions only a female could carry out - among the most dangerous of all missions possible. But she's not a feminist and had no interest in being the sacrificial lamb put into the anti-female male military world firing line. She was not joining up to fight for women's rights whatsoever. Instead, to avoid that conflict in the military as much as possible.

Before deciding, she deliberately sought out met men - particularly officers and ideally trainers - in those roles. They made it clear to her there was not a chance in hell they would let her make it, though did not directly say so. It was more their rolling their eyes at the mere thought of any woman being able to do what they do. So she opted out before signing up and instead she was put on a very different path that took one fast turn after another. She's way up there in actual authority - but in ways having no relationship to what you do or have done - nor have few others. Even if you did outrank her, she could fully ignore you if she saw it necessary, though she would salute correctly and not be tactical about it. There are a lot of officers like you, only one her and a dependency upon her due to obscure high specialized skill and knowledge sets in a specific way.

I'm talking skunkworks, black ops, off the map, need to know and virtually no one will - ever, cutting edge prototypes brainaic stuff. Not just theory, but application. In the field. In combat. How many defense contractor engineers and geeks meet with you? How many special missions high rankers? Ever a general and someone stateside in the defense industry waiting to hear if you were successful on a mission? Yes, "unbelievable" stuff. Fascinating stuff. The future in the present. She'll never wear a rucksack. She has come under small arms, mortar and missile fire on numerous occasions. I think that qualifies as "combat."

She still butts heads with officers fully incapable of having a woman in their unit, but she can deal with that quite well because, candidly, usually she is mission critical for critical missions and they are not nor can be because they lack the knowledge and skills sets. The Marine squad leader? He was good at what he did and maybe an unusual perspective. But not unique and fully replaceable. As for now, she isn't.

Since women ARE in combat roles as a fact, how do you think this should be handled/used within the military? Pretend your are the 4 star over the Army. The president and Congress tell you that you are to have females in combat zones and in combat roles - period. Do it or get out. But it is up to you how this should be structured and done. How would you do it different than now, other than defying them by saying "no, I refuse to allow any women who can't run 12 miles with an 80 rucksack as fast as men can."

 

Yes, I usually back off sharing my personal experiences. Trying to explain them to civilians is like flying to a remote village in Cambodia and expecting them to speak English.

Yes, the military is PUTTING women in these roles, but they all are failing out. The 18xray (candidate) female in 11x most recently washed out. The two female "rangers" as they were tabbed, yet given chances males couldn't, washed out of combat roles.

Women can't meet the standards. It's just science.

 

I knew you had posted that you were going to OBC but I missed where you mentioned that you passed and were commissioned, congrats!

 

Don't you mean if you "ran to Cambodia carrying 80 pounds?" I didn't ask you to explain anything, did I? I asked have you been under small arms fire and have you personally directly caused any enemy casualties? Most, even deployed, have not. I only know a few who have been in recent or current warfare other than in passing who have been in both situations and more than once. Some others were in combat zones and on missions, but that does not answer those questions.

By your messages you seem ill-suited for military service in terms of cohesion, acceptance of both civilian and military authority, respect for other members of our armed forces, and unable to clear-headed function in collective future military planning or purpose - or at least not have any position relevant to combat missions. Maybe a desk job in logistics might work safest and best for you and everyone else to make your 20 if that is what you are going for.

I may understand why you will not tell of your claimed all-encompassing combat experience.

"Gentlemen, I am 25 years old and I have killed 309 fascist invaders by now. Don't you think, gentlemen, that you have been hiding behind my back for too long?"
Lyudmila Mikhailovna Pavlichenko, WW2 female Russian sniper

Then again maybe not. Maybe you were in combat, a true hero, or maybe severely wounded and earned a desk job staying in, or some other history. Maybe bad memories you don't want to revisit mentally or emotionally. The spouse of a distant friend committed suicide a couple years ago for a firefight he had been in during which civilians including children were killed by our fire including his own. He couldn't deal with it. Regardless, the military does not revolve around you or rucksacks and your messages indication you are increasingly past history that leads to distraction and endangerment. Not to disparage your military service, but...

You should be VERY cautious what you post online. If you are ever up for a high security clearance advancement or position you would be asked about your social media activities, accounts, IDs and passwords. One person I know in the military recently declined still another step of that ladder tired of the endless interrogations regarding security ratings and an ever growing list of secret matters and codes to remember, absolutely forbidden to keep any written notes.

People do mess up their lives messing around online. Be careful, friend. Again, thank you for your service and congrats.

 

This message can be perceived as a threat. You should be cautious of OPSEC when threatening other users.

Also, stop claiming to "know" people in the military. No one in the military would back your fundamentally insane (and hilarious) conspiracies.

 

Also, if you wish to discuss how SM evals and OPM reviews are conducted, they are not secret. You can call your local OPM representative and ask for all boundaries. Once again, you've proven that you know nothing of Industrial Security, the Infantry, and Military Sciences.

 

My apologies, JakeJ. I misread your post. You did not make any threats. I sincerely apologize for misreading. But see post 245 to clear up your last paragraph.

 

You are correct. I was not making any threat and it was a true friendly warning, if you want to call it a warning. It was more a "think about what you post." This is not just about today. Think, analogously, of Roy Moore. They dug up something entirely legal and largely socially allowable from 4 decades prior and destroyed him with it. What if it was 20 years ago - still legal and largely acceptable in Alabama, and he was General Roy Moore when these accusations came out. Would he still be a general? Any possibility of further advancement?

I started a thread on this forum this: "Maj. Gen. Ryan Gonsalves' nomination for a third star has been pulled in the wake of an Army Inspector General's probe that found he disrespected a female congressional staffer when he called her “sweetheart.”

Petty, huh? Truly absurd. But what do you think that really means now and about the future the military and women? Do you think that only applies to generals?

In fact, there are women in combat roles and units in the U.S. military. You repeatedly claim women are inherently inferior. Is that ok? Ok 5 years from now? How is than any different than if you were posting that African-Americans in the military are inherently inferior to white people like you? Many people, including in civilian government, the media, society and even the military would see little difference between claiming a demographic is inferior due to race from claiming inferiority due to their sex.

It is not just what you may post now that may affect you now, but even what you may post now that affects you 2, 4,10 years from now. The military is not real big on "free speech rights" when it comes to many topics, including political officials and - currently - women. All I was saying is you should consider your messages in the context of active military service and what potential roles you may have in the future play out. But, as I tell everyone including my own children, "it doesn't matter what I think, YOU are who lives the consequences of your actions and decisions."

For what it's worth, I never THREATEN to report anyone about anything. If I report someone for their message to forum staff, rare, then I do so. I neither threaten I will or advise that I have on the forum.

There are tiers of security clearance, review, investigation and interrogation. At certain levels do they ask of social media activities? Yes they do. Whether you reach a level or are offered a position that might involve doing so is another question.

I suggest you try listening to other than only yourself. You are posting against a current and growing reality in the US military - like it or not, right or wrong as it is. Increasingly, men vehement that women are inherently incapable of combat roles are going to be people that might as well spit in to a hurricane, cursing the hurricane's existence.

And I am sincere, not threatening of puffing, in my view that you need to get these thoughts out of your head because if not someday you might make a mistake - and everyone does now and then - and at the core of that oversight or misjudgment is your sentiment about women-in-arms. Or the military might decide that was the reason for your error, even if it was not. The military is neither a democracy nor a free-speech zone. I'm just suggesting you keep that in mind. Nothing more. Nothing less. No threats. I can't harm you.

Of the few women I know of military experience, when it comes to combat areas there are male officers who try to egg them into making a complaint of harassment. While that might get the officer a mild reprimand, the woman's career would be sharply harmed if having a records as a complainer and accuser. None have made such complaints for that reason. Yet on occasion, some officers couldn't let it go and ultimately it lead to poor judgment that bit them in the ass. The poor judgment also having something to do with a female under his command can be an additional conclusion reached, even if the female doesn't claim this. That has happened.

Never create weapons any potential adversary could use against you - now or in the future - another good guideline to consider.

On some matters I know more of what I am talking about than you could guess or I may tell. Obviously on other matters you know more if your presentation of yourself is accurate. You know more about rucksacks for sure. I know more about some other relevant topics.

 

Questions like that coming from a person that has never even served is rather pathetic.

 

Lol I never said women are inferior. I said they have smaller bone structures. That's a scientific fact, not an insult. Because of that scientific fact, many cannot meet the standards required for combat roles. Mountain warefare SPECIFICALLY is the most relevant. Even carrying 50 lbs up the mountains of Afghanistan takes a massive toll on your average soldier. Having someone with smaller bone structures makes it 10 times worse.

There's a REASON there's a standard and a reason your views are not reality.

 

Yes and there are white men who claim blacks have smaller brains as a scientific fact. Would you care to answer to an inquiry explaining "my telling people including black people that blacks have small brains is not saying they are inferior. It is just saying a scientific fact."

Black men have larger bone structure than white men. From this, we must conclude that white men can not carry as much up a mountain in combat warfare. Compromising for the purpose of letting in white men and Asians is certainly not acceptable. Accordingly, you would agree that it is "scientific fact" that white men are not suited for mountain warfare in relation to black men and therefore no white man should be in the infantry, Marines or SOF. "Scientific facts" on bone strength speak for itself.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5004623/

All combat is not going up mountains with a heavy load. Yet you pick that out as what must be a universal skill - but the standards should be LOWERED to allow white men in - like you - meaning a lower standard to suit your race/ethnicity, while you oppose doing so for over half the population of the United States. How do you justify that?

Why isn't the ability to fly a helicopter a required universal ability? If a chopper pilot is hit while in flight then everyone dies unless someone else can fly it. I could list many abilities where lives could be lost and missions fail because it is not a universally required ability.

However, it seems that we are just repeating ourselves.