Women in Combat Arms
January 25, 2013Let’s get something straight: the courage and commitment of women Marines are not an issue.
From helo pilots to up-gunners to crew chiefs to running convoys; Women Marines have participated in more combat in Iraq and Afghanistan than in any American war – and they’ve performed admirably.
But Sect Panetta’s announcement opens the worlds of infantry, artillery, and armor to women for the first time, and the commentators, blogs, and discussion boards are extremely unhappy; ‘using the military to push social engineering’ is one of the more polite phrases used. Are they correct?
Let’s get something else straight: if this is the law of the land, I have no doubt the Marine Corps will enthusiastically – and properly – lead the way in implementing women in combat arms MOS’s.
However most of the TV and web comments refer to hygiene, sex, and the chivalry of a male Marine putting himself at risk to assist a female Marine. These arguments are non-starters; hygiene’s an issue for every Marine in a Helmand village, a Marine is going to defend either his brother or sister Marine with equal valor, and somehow I don’t think any Marine fighting in Fallujah thought about stopping for a quickie.
But at the same time, the differences in physical strength between men and women are more pronounced when carrying an 80/lb combat load through the fields and canals outside of Marjah, or carrying and ramming 135/lb artillery shells all day and night at an-Nasiriyah; are women able to do so?
Last year the Marine Corps opened the Infantry Officer Course (IOC) to women; two applied-both dropped out. No knock on them; IOC has an approx attrition rate of 25% with male recruits. It’s difficult for a reason; combat is exhausting and difficult and it’s better to discover in Quantico than RC SW who can make it and who cannot.
So long as the standards in boot camp, MCT, and IOC remain unchanged; what is the harm in allowing women to qualify (or not) for combat arms? It’s not ‘social engineering,’ but rather ‘equal opportunity” and that is a huge part of the American way the Marine Corps has been defending since 1775.
But standards are important; in 2009, 2nd Bn, 8th Marines were engaged by Talibs down in the Helmand’s Fishhook where the fighting was hand-to-hand. That’s not the time to find that reducing training standards was a mistake – the Taliban certainly hasn’t cut back on theirs.
Comments
women in combat arms
The "social engineering " accusation is correct . And my question is how many young WM enlisted troops even want to be in combat arms ?
Women In Combat
Personally, I know that few women will make the grade physically and therefore should not be used in Infantry combat. Of course there are many brave women in our armed forces and I salute them. I simply don't believe in lowering standards for entry. War is not a game that one can "reset" if things go wrong-people DIE. I hate it when male soldiers are captured or killed. What do you suppose will happen to women who are captured? God Bless and Protect All of our Service Members.
P.S. I am a woman.
Standards are Standards
If Male Marines who do not want to be in the Combat Arms get assigned to Infrantry based on needs of the Corps, does this mean that female Marines will be involuntarily assigned to combat units?
It is time to move to Mars!
Dutch non-profit organization Mars One intends to be the first to be able to bring humanity to Mars and build a city. Following the schedule , this event is going to happen in 2023 , that is, for a couple of years before the other participants of the " Martian Race" - the U.S., China and Russia .
Who has any thoughts on this? # Notraty
The Burden to Justify
It may sound threatening to those leaders identifying the standards their unit needs, but it's not. General Dempsey, CJCS, has an obligation as the senior ranking service member in the nation to keep his subordinates "honest."
General Dempsey stated, "that with women now eligible to fill combat roles in the military, commanders must justify why any woman might be excluded – and, if women can’t meet any unit’s standard, the Pentagon will ask: 'Does it really have to be that high?'”
He follows that up with an excellent point: we have never asked this question. General Dempsey said, “Importantly, though, if we do decide that a particular standard is so high that a woman couldn't make it, the burden is now on the service to come back and explain to the secretary, why is it that high? Does it really have to be that high? With the direct combat exclusion provision in place, we never had to have that conversation.”
Remember, the law of the land is now that women are allowed to participate in previously closed MOSs. The burden is on the service to justify its exclusion. Expect some exclusions to stick, if well supported.
What will be interesting to see is which justifications will be accepted and why.
Post new comment