The Marine Corps Times recently published a handful of articles in regard to opening Infantry Officer Course (IOC) to females and the possibility of integrating women into the infantry community. In mid-April the Commandant directed the “integration” of the first wave of female officers into IOC this summer following completion of The Basic School (TBS). This action may or may not pave the way for female Marines to serve in the infantry as the results remain to be seen. However, before the Marine Corps moves forward with this concept, should we not ask the hard questions and gain opinions of combat-experienced Marines (male and female alike) as to the purpose, the impact, and the gains from such a move? As a combat-experienced Marine officer, and a female, I am here to tell you that we are not all created equal, and attempting to place females in the infantry will not improve the Marine Corps as the Nation’s force-in-readiness or improve our national security.
As a company grade 1302 combat engineer officer with 5 years of active service and two combat deployments, one to Iraq and the other to Afghanistan, I was able to participate in and lead numerous combat operations. In Iraq as the II MEF Director, Lioness Program, I served as a subject matter expert for II MEF, assisting regimental and battalion commanders on ways to integrate female Marines into combat operations. I primarily focused on expanding the mission of the Lioness Program from searching females to engaging local nationals and information gathering, broadening the ways females were being used in a wide variety of combat operations from census patrols to raids. In Afghanistan I deployed as a 1302 and led a combat engineer platoon in direct support of Regimental Combat Team 8, specifically operating out of the Upper Sangin Valley. My platoon operated for months at a time, constructing patrol bases (PBs) in support of 3d Battalion, 5th Marines; 1st Battalion, 5th Marines; 2d Reconnaissance Battalion; and 3d Battalion, 4th Marines. This combat experience, in particular, compelled me to raise concern over the direction and overall reasoning behind opening the 03XX field.
Who is driving this agenda? I am not personally hearing female Marines, enlisted or officer, pounding on the doors of Congress claiming that their inability to serve in the infantry violates their right to equality. Shockingly, this isn’t even a congressional agenda. This issue is being pushed by several groups, one of which is a small committee of civilians appointed by the Secretary of Defense called the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Service (DACOWITS). Their mission is to advise the Department of Defense (DoD) on recommendations, as well as matters of policy, pertaining to the well-being of women in the Armed Services from recruiting to employment. Members are selected based on their prior military experience or experience with women’s workforce issues. I certainly applaud and appreciate DACOWITS’ mission; however, as it pertains to the issue of women in the infantry, it’s very surprising to see that none of the committee members are on active duty or have any recent combat or relevant operational experience relating to the issue they are attempting to change. I say this because, at the end of the day, it’s the active duty servicemember who will ultimately deal with the results of their initiatives, not those on the outside looking in. As of now, the Marine Corps hasn’t been directed to integrate, but perhaps the Corps is anticipating the inevitable—DoD pressuring the Corps to comply with DACOWITS’ agenda as the Army has already “rogered up” to full integration. Regardless of what the Army decides to do, it’s critical to emphasize that we are not the Army; our operational speed and tempo, along with our overall mission as the Nation’s amphibious force-in-readiness, are fundamentally different than that of our sister Service. By no means is this distinction intended as disrespectful to our incredible Army. My main point is simply to state that the Marine Corps and the Army are different; even if the Army ultimately does fully integrate all military occupational fields, that doesn’t mean the Corps should follow suit.
I understand that there are female servicemembers who have proven themselves to be physically, mentally, and morally capable of leading and executing combat-type operations; as a result, some of these Marines may feel qualified for the chance of taking on the role of 0302. In the end, my main concern is not whether women are capable of conducting combat operations, as we have already proven that we can hold our own in some very difficult combat situations; instead, my main concern is a question of longevity. Can women endure the physical and physiological rigors of sustained combat operations, and are we willing to accept the attrition and medical issues that go along with integration?
As a young lieutenant, I fit the mold of a female who would have had a shot at completing IOC, and I am sure there was a time in my life where I would have volunteered to be an infantryman. I was a star ice hockey player at Bowdoin College, a small elite college in Maine, with a major in government and law. At 5 feet 3 inches I was squatting 200 pounds and benching 145 pounds when I graduated in 2007. I completed Officer Candidates School (OCS) ranked 4 of 52 candidates, graduated 48 of 261 from TBS, and finished second at MOS school. I also repeatedly scored far above average in all female-based physical fitness tests (for example, earning a 292 out of 300 on the Marine physical fitness test). Five years later, I am physically not the woman I once was and my views have greatly changed on the possibility of women having successful long careers while serving in the infantry. I can say from firsthand experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, and not just emotion, that we haven’t even begun to analyze and comprehend the gender-specific medical issues and overall physical toll continuous combat operations will have on females.
I was a motivated, resilient second lieutenant when I deployed to Iraq for 10 months, traveling across the Marine area of operations (AO) and participating in numerous combat operations. Yet, due to the excessive amount of time I spent in full combat load, I was diagnosed with a severe case of restless leg syndrome. My spine had compressed on nerves in my lower back causing neuropathy which compounded the symptoms of restless leg syndrome. While this injury has certainly not been enjoyable, Iraq was a pleasant experience compared to the experiences I endured during my deployment to Afghanistan. At the beginning of my tour in Helmand Province, I was physically capable of conducting combat operations for weeks at a time, remaining in my gear for days if necessary and averaging 16-hour days of engineering operations in the heart of Sangin, one of the most kinetic and challenging AOs in the country. There were numerous occasions where I was sent to a grid coordinate and told to build a PB from the ground up, serving not only as the mission commander but also the base commander until the occupants (infantry units) arrived 5 days later. In most of these situations, I had a sergeant as my assistant commander, and the remainder of my platoon consisted of young, motivated NCOs. I was the senior Marine making the final decisions on construction concerns, along with 24-hour base defense and leading 30 Marines at any given time. The physical strain of enduring combat operations and the stress of being responsible for the lives and well-being of such a young group in an extremely kinetic environment were compounded by lack of sleep, which ultimately took a physical toll on my body that I couldn’t have foreseen.
By the fifth month into the deployment, I had muscle atrophy in my thighs that was causing me to constantly trip and my legs to buckle with the slightest grade change. My agility during firefights and mobility on and off vehicles and perimeter walls was seriously hindering my response time and overall capability. It was evident that stress and muscular deterioration was affecting everyone regardless of gender; however, the rate of my deterioration was noticeably faster than that of male Marines and further compounded by gender-specific medical conditions. At the end of the 7-month deployment, and the construction of 18 PBs later, I had lost 17 pounds and was diagnosed with polycystic ovarian syndrome (which personally resulted in infertility, but is not a genetic trend in my family), which was brought on by the chemical and physical changes endured during deployment. Regardless of my deteriorating physical stature, I was extremely successful during both of my combat tours, serving beside my infantry brethren and gaining the respect of every unit I supported. Regardless, I can say with 100 percent assurance that despite my accomplishments, there is no way I could endure the physical demands of the infantrymen whom I worked beside as their combat load and constant deployment cycle would leave me facing medical separation long before the option of retirement. I understand that everyone is affected differently; however, I am confident that should the Marine Corps attempt to fully integrate women into the infantry, we as an institution are going to experience a colossal increase in crippling and career-ending medical conditions for females.
There is a drastic shortage of historical data on female attrition or medical ailments of women who have executed sustained combat operations. This said, we need only to review the statistics from our entry-level schools to realize that there is a significant difference in the physical longevity between male and female Marines. At OCS the attrition rate for female candidates in 2011 was historically low at 40 percent, while the male candidates attrite at a much lower rate of 16 percent. Of candidates who were dropped from training because they were injured or not physically qualified, females were breaking at a much higher rate than males, 14 percent versus 4 percent. The same trends were seen at TBS in 2011; the attrition rate for females was 13 percent versus 5 percent for males, and 5 percent of females were found not physically qualified compared with 1 percent of males. Further, both of these training venues have physical fitness standards that are easier for females; at IOC there is one standard regardless of gender. The attrition rate for males attending IOC in 2011 was 17 percent. Should female Marines ultimately attend IOC, we can expect significantly higher attrition rates and long-term injuries for women.
There have been many working groups and formal discussions recently addressing what changes would be necessary to the current IOC period of instruction in order to accommodate both genders without producing an underdeveloped or incapable infantry officer. Not once was the word “lower” used, but let’s be honest, “modifying” a standard so that less physically or mentally capable individuals (male or female) can complete a task is called “lowering the standard”! The bottom line is that the enemy doesn’t discriminate, rounds will not slow down, and combat loads don’t get any lighter, regardless of gender or capability. Even more so, the burden of command does not diminish for a male or female; a leader must gain the respect and trust of his/her Marines in combat. Not being able to physically execute to the standards already established at IOC, which have been battle tested and proven, will produce a slower operational speed and tempo resulting in increased time of exposure to enemy forces and a higher risk of combat injury or death. For this reason alone, I would ask everyone to step back and ask themselves, does this integration solely benefit the individual or the Marine Corps as a whole, as every leader’s focus should be on the needs of the institution and the Nation, not the individual?
Which leads one to really wonder, what is the benefit of this potential change? The Marine Corps is not in a shortage of willing and capable young male second lieutenants who would gladly take on the role of infantry officers. In fact we have men fighting to be assigned to the coveted position of 0302. In 2011, 30 percent of graduating TBS lieutenants listed infantry in their top three requested MOSs. Of those 30 percent, only 47 percent were given the MOS. On the other hand, perhaps this integration is an effort to remove the glass ceiling that some observers feel exists for women when it comes to promotions to general officer ranks. Opening combat arms MOSs, particularly the infantry, such observers argue, allows women to gain the necessary exposure of leading Marines in combat, which will then arguably increase the chances for female Marines serving in strategic leadership assignments. As stated above, I have full faith that female Marines can successfully serve in just about every MOS aside from the infantry. Even if a female can meet the short-term physical, mental, and moral leadership requirements of an infantry officer, by the time that she is eligible to serve in a strategic leadership position, at the 20-year mark or beyond, there is a miniscule probability that she’ll be physically capable of serving at all. Again, it becomes a question of longevity.
Despite my personal opinion regarding the incorporation of females into the infantry community, I am not blind to the fact that females play a key role in countering the gender and cultural barriers we are facing at war, and we do have a place in combat operations. As such, a potential change that I do recommend considering strongly for female Marine officers is to designate a new secondary MOS (0305) for a Marine serving as female engagement team (FET) officer in charge (OIC). 0305s would be employed in the same way we employ drill instructors, as we do not need an enduring FET entity but an existing capability able to stand up based on operational requirements. Legitimizing a program that is already operational in the Corps would greatly benefit both the units utilizing FETs and the women who serve as FET OICs. Unfortunately, FET OICs today are not properly screened and trained for this mission. I propose that those being considered for FET OIC be prescreened and trained through a modified IOC with an appropriately adjusted physical expectation. FET OICs need to better understand the infantry culture and mindset and work with their 0302 brethren to incorporate FET assistance during specific phases of operations to properly prepare them to serve as the subject matter experts to a regimental- or battalion-level infantry commander. Through joint OIC training, both 0302s and FET OICs can start to learn how to integrate capabilities and accomplish their mission individually and collectively. This, in my mind, is a much more viable, cost-effective solution, with high reward for the Marine Corps and the Nation, and it will also directly improve the capabilities of FET OICs.
Finally, what are the Marine Corps standards, particularly physical fitness standards, based on—performance and capability or equality? We abide by numerous discriminators, such as height and weight standards. As multiple Marine Corps Gazette articles have highlighted, Marines who can run first-class physical fitness tests and who have superior MOS proficiency are separated from the Service if they do not meet the Marine Corps’ height and weight standards. Further, tall Marines are restricted from flying specific platforms, and color blind Marines are faced with similar restrictions. We recognize differences in mental capabilities of Marines when we administer the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery and use the results to eliminate/open specific fields. These standards are designed to ensure safety, quality, and the opportunity to be placed in a field in which one can sustain and succeed.
Which once again leads me, as a ground combat-experienced female Marine Corps officer, to ask, what are we trying to accomplish by attempting to fully integrate women into the infantry? For those who dictate policy, changing the current restrictions associated with women in the infantry may not seem significant to the way the Marine Corps operates. I vehemently disagree; this potential change will rock the foundation of our Corps for the worse and will weaken what has been since 1775 the world’s most lethal fighting force. In the end, for DACOWITS and any other individual or organization looking to increase opportunities for female Marines, I applaud your efforts and say thank you. However, for the long-term health of our female Marines, the Marine Corps, and U.S. national security, steer clear of the Marine infantry community when calling for more opportunities for females. Let’s embrace our differences to further hone in on the Corps’ success instead of dismantling who we are to achieve a political agenda. Regardless of the outcome, we will be “Semper Fidelis” and remain focused on our mission to protect and defend the United States of America.
The Marine Corps Association & Foundation remembers the past and honors the present. Review the first one hundred years of MCA via historical photos and film clips of the organization that serves the men and women of the Marine Corps. Click 
Comments
I have my doubts
Played high school football, baseball, and basketball. Wasn't to bad. Honorable mention as a football player, second team all star in baseball. Mostly on the bench in basketball. Point is, I wasn't bad physically. Hit .288 in college baseball. Got drafted in 68 and consistantly performed in the top 30 during basic training. Went to Nam, how I survived I don't know. It wasn't the Cong but the elements that took it's toll. After a while seeing men get killed became the easy part of war. The monsoon, climbing 3 ft than sliding down 4 ft, insects, snakes, sweat, no sleep, carrying a 5 gal gas can of water, I could on and on. War is not for men, let alone Women.
women in combat
it,s become harder and harder to draw the line between the roles man /woman straight /gay/ transexual ects. in all the confussion we are begining to slide into a country of abnormal creatures not knowing our natural roles in the home & outside the myth that women are equal to men is a lie told by the same mind that once said the world was flat.to all the young women in todays arms forces becareful of the life you save may be your own take pride in being the support program for the servicemen if not we will soon see youngmen refusing to defend this country
the unlucky ones
the unlucky ones know hope of child bearing,over developed male hormones,know female qualitys,unattractive bucth type man haters who think they have something to prove to the world this is a dangerous road the arm forces are on be mindful the world is wacthing
Anecdotal, yet merits study
It had to be a difficult decision to inject specific, personally identifiable experiences into a process that is political, ideological, and emotionally charged. I have nothing but respect for the courage and concern for the Marines as an organization and the Marines as a vital part of the American military resources. I believe that the premises presented in support of a conclusion merit serious, deep consideration.
Great article but just two minor issues
Absolutely spectacularly written essay! It was fair to all involved and most importantly addressed key issues which are being ignored in our PC focused military.
That said there was an inaccuracy and an incomplete statement. The Army has not “rogered up” for full integration. Like the Corps it’s also evaluating the possibility. Also just like CPT Petronio stated, “the Marine Corps and the Army are different; even if the Army ultimately does fully integrate all military occupational fields, that doesn’t mean the Corps should follow suit.”, the same goes in the other direction.
Be wary of the "same standard" canard
Kudos to CPT Petronio. She sounds like a great example.
There's only one issue with women in the infantry, rangers etc. (not the enablers). Many say that it's OK if they meet the same standards (I agree). The problem is we have NEVER in the last half century ever had the same standards for the men and women. So while I agree with the position it's absolutely and totally unrealistic but does open the door because we have plenty of experience camouflaging "same standards" under a variety of names and approaches. E.G. different physical performance scales based on gender, watered down or eliminated training from the POI are the most common tactics.
It's disingenuous to take a position saying "as long as the standards are the same" without acknowledging we've NEVER done that.
as A 03
I was a comm geek. 2 years in division and 2 with a weapons co. i worked with WM's that could haul the load. but they were very few. Plus a few men that should not have made it passed bootcamp much less made it into the fleet. girls you want to be a grunt pull a mans 300 pft then we can talk about it. i have to say do not lower the standards, for anyone! i do not care what their gender is. a bullet does not care how much you bench or your gender. your guts are still in the same place.
i was and still am a"beanpole" 6' and 145# used to carry a full load out just like guy twice my size. its not mass but heart. you have to keep putting out EVERY day. that will wear you down. 6 moths to a year + in a CZ that will break most people. When you preform at that level most bodies will hold up to that kind of stress
semper fidelis to all who have earned the eagle globe and anchor.
Moral Courage
Thank you Katie for standing up and telling it the way it is. Unfortunately there are people who push for their own social agendas withut regard to the real impact of their goals. Thankfully, you have the moral courage to stand up and raise the BS flag.
Semper Fi
Military Brat and former Marine wife
Marine Combat grunt vs PC
I have never served in the military, but I grew up as an Army brat and became the wife of a Marine. I am also actively involved in a women's leadership programs to help promote women's equality in the workplace within the tech industry. I work in a male dominated industry and I have seen the need for groups to help women gain the experience and skill to compete against men for positions within the industry. However, the tech industry is far different than a battlefield and the comparison does not lend any credence to the argument.
That being said, I don't believe that the issue here is one of equality. It is about our soldiers’' safety. The fact is that even the most physically fit and battle-tested female soldier will still be inferior to some male soldiers. Some male soldiers may be inferior to her. However, the objective is to build the strongest and best fighting force. This is not a fact that can be overshadowed or erased by political, ideological, or well-meaning rhetoric. When it comes to physical ability, we, as women are separate and not equal.
On the other hand, women can be effective in many other roles and positions within the services, as well as high ranking, commanding commissions. Future efforts should be aimed at developing the strengths and potential for male and female soldiers, not lowering some standards for some groups of soldiers. This results in a sub-par team, not equality.
However, the discussion is not just centered on the physical abilities of female soldiers, but also the emotional well being of the soldiers. While I cannot speak to that, it is obvious that the American public is not ready to see US female soldiers being captured, tortured. It is an unfair double-standard. How much more media coverage was centered on women prisoners in Iraq? Why was their capture more news worthy than the thousands of male soldiers? This is not equal treatment.
Our society is not equal and neither are the skill sets for women and men. I believe that there are some women who possess the skills and physical ability to be in the infantry, but I believe that is a rarity. This is not the norm. The infantry is not the best environment to test social theories.
To all of you who have fought for my freedom, I thank you for your service, your commitment, and your sacrifice.
Gender not needed.
The military exists not to provide soldiers with a P.C. life style but to protect the interests of its people. It's not here to cater to women’s groups or men’s clubs. They are here to do the dirty work so civilians can go on living their version of the American dream. It's a job that requires most to have some involvement in the death of another human being or forcing them to do or concede something that they don't want to. War's aim is to remove another group of individuals will to act as they see fit. Such a job demands a certain level of commitment and ideals. Commitment in the idea that it’s purpose is the driving force of all actions. Ideals in that the system grows and matures with the environment and never against it. If the purpose of the military is to defend the United States and its interests the qualifications for each job in the military should mirror those requirements. When there is a job requiring external or internal reproductive organs then it should be considered a factor. If the mission or job requires an individual to perform a certain task requiring a certain level of fitness then that level of fitness becomes the cutoff point. I started at The Citadel in 1997 during the transition period from being an all-male school to a co-ed school. Somewhere around 154 years of being all-male (I say around because I forget when Sharon Faulkner fought her two year battle for 2 weeks of college) to being co-ed is a big transition for such a tiny tradition steeped college. I respected those that put out (not a sexual term but a term meaning to do what’s expected of you without complaint or that the group doesn’t see them as a weak link) like they put the group ahead of their own comfort or desires. There were no “girl push-ups” for them. Those women belonged there. However there were some men who didn’t. Granted I still believe that a good portion of the women there couldn’t perform to the previous standards and thus should not have been allowed to graduate but there are several who could perform and deserved that little band of gold. The question is not “Are your balls inside of your body or outside?” its “Can you perform the job?”. We charge these people with protecting the nation. There should be a single set of minimal qualifications. If you can and I can’t (assuming you’re female) you should. If I can and you can’t it should be me. Gender need not be involved.
History Shows This Won't Work!
The introduction of women into West Point and Annapolis resulted in a substantial reduction in physical training standards because the women simply could not do what thousands of males had done for years. In many instances, the physical events were completely eliminated and with them, the near certainty that females would fail graded physical events.
Standards were indeed reduced and anyone who wants to can simply ask to see unedited copies of the training syllabus before females were integrated and since then.
I was on the staff of The Basic School from 1992-1995 and saw the same thing happen. It was decreed that women would be put into previously all-male training platoons and that "the standards will remain the same."
What I saw was much of what this Captain writes about - many of the women experienced serious injuries due to carrying heavy loads, etc.
Standards were indeed reduced, events eliminated, etc.
WM's had great difficulty passing a very tough event called the Endurance Course - a cross country run through hilly terrain, over obstacles, etc., while carry a pack and rifle. The standards of this event were systematically reduced to the point it became a joke.
As the good Captain infers, women are not men regarding physical attributes and capabilities. Insisting that they are has ALWAYS led to the degradation of physical standards.
I'm disgusted by the obvious lack of moral courage in our senior officers and enlisted for not speaking up on this issue. They know in their hearts this is not good for the Marine Corps, the Marines in the affected units, and the WM officers themselves.
S/F
"Evil One"
This article really didn't
This article really didn't seem all that well researched. I don't know the particulars form the inside, but thought the article and interview contain plenty of anectodal details and suggestions, the only actual science in here is the attrition rates, and that's not a whole lot to go on. In both article and interview, Captain Petronio repeats that we don't have the evidence on women's issues regarding the physical demands, but the only specific aspect she mentions is her brief mention of her estrogen levels being low, another strictly personal detail.
The question is an interesting one, and the Captain is brave to raise it. It could have been done with a lot less words and a more open admission that she really doesn't know.
Truth
I hear Congress is looking into putting women in combat arms. Well what does Congress know about anything, especially when it has to do with combat? I mean really they know nothing of what it takes. They know nothing of operational success. Their children will never serve. And then there are the rest of the lots of people who love to throw in their two cents and see everything so black and white. The majority of these close-minded judgmental folks are hypocrites whom have never served. Why are people so judgmental about things they know nothing about? This isn’t reality TV. This is about a having an edge, an advantage in combat. Why bother trying to explain ourselves to those who haven’t served in the old Corps. Tradition, what is tradition to your average person, just a word with no meaning? Men in the Marines are willing to die for it. Yet as soon as a man opposes females he is labeled a chauvinistic pig who can’t see that society has evolved. It’s always so simple for everyone who doesn’t rate; women should be able to do whatever a man can, women have been serving alongside men the last 10, 20 years and there are no clear lines of the battlefield, some men shouldn’t be in or aren’t as good, women are in the IDF, women fought for Russia on the eastern front, women can shoot. Isn’t that all it takes?
There’s just one problem, they’re not men. Men in the infantry are a band of brothers. They’re the epitome of team players. They go above and beyond and exceed their own standards because of the man next to them. They live together and eat together. They are straight forward, vulgar, and brutally honest with each other, the polar opposite of politically correct. They can’t risk sensitivity or drama. They are the instrument of policy, and they have no time for experimental socialization. They are proud and down to their inner core they believe in the unit. They have the warrior’s heart. They want to live up to those who came before them, from those who fought in past wars to mythological heroes, men who suffered and gave their own blood. To win, they must be able to take anything, laughing when others would crumble. They must raise their level of excellence, not only an individual but as a close nit team. To do this they must abstain from fitting in with normal society. They must always incorporate new training, tactics and technics but stay committed to values and lessons learned for thousands of years. Some believe they are knights, others barbarians, all have honor and most are stripped of their innocence at a young age.
So before thinking about women servicing in an infantry platoon let’s start over. Chivalry would not only have to be dead, it would have to have never existed. Forget having men go down with the ship. Make everything including bathrooms unisex. Next, start having women go head to head against men in bowling and billiards. They don’t even do that here in 2012. Next golf, then tennis and all other individual sports. Then how about cycling? Then every other event in the Olympics including rowing. Once they can compete on an individual playing field, move on to team sports. Is football as violent as combat? Even the girls don’t play soccer against the men. Why, isn’t it just a game, not war? Maybe excellence requires the highest of standards. You mean the Super Bowl is more important than protecting our nation? Next have women start signing up for selective service. Then let’s start at the beginning and get unity back in units. Train everyone in open squad bays. Start training over before they dropped standards for integration. Have all the women shave their heads. Go back to disciplining troops the way they used to. Pain, pain and more pain making professional killer who can have the mental and physical toughness required to go up again real threats. And then show me how many women can climb a rope and get through and obstacle course requiring her to lift her own body weight, and sometimes the weight of someone else. Show me how many women can do 12 pull ups and 60 pushups which every infantryman can do. Then let me see a woman carry a heavy pack with a crew served weapon strapped on. Then after all this we could reevaluate. Even then, it’s probably still not worth lowering discipline or tarnishing the spirit of alpha males.
Now I’ve seen soccer moms at the gym who seem to have outstanding cardiovascular endurance and some personal trainers who might be able to pass standards. But is the few selfish women (1 in a thousand) who do join the military and can pass the physical requirements, which are not these elite female anomalies, worth emasculating the men and possibly jeopardizing combat readiness? Is it worth building separate living compartments on deployments and at home? Is it worth men being sidetracked by their God given natural instincts that could affect their ability and focus during training and war?
What I have seen is that there is a lie. There is not an even playing field and I don’t trust that there will be any factual evidence going forward. Modifying standards is lowering standards. If America has proven one thing consistently, it’s that it drops standards and then says there’s equality. This is the reason why some men, who women compare themselves with, shouldn’t have made the cut. It’s a disgrace and a disservice to the greater good. With a drop in physical standards I have also seen a drop in discipline over the last 23 years. I’ve seen boys and girls doing what we would expect from boys and girls. Oh no, Congress would be shocked. And although every case of sexual assault is unique, could it be that leaders who are aware of unfair standards use their primal instincts to set things straight?
It’s all lies, women in Academy’s, integration in boot camp. There is documented truth that standards have dropped making training a joke because of gender-norming for affirmative action. Not just lowering qualifications but giving easier alternatives to women. Will the North Koreans, Chinese or whomever give us that latitude?
I won’t even get in to health and physical differences. Men are men and women are women. I think all parents would agree boys need discipline and physical activity challenges. Image if they do try to make the qualification equal? DIs will have to say “get down and give me 5” or “get down in give me 15 good ones on your knees”. Top pull up score 8? The best of the best men that our country will need will no longer see a challenge and may pass up joining and our special forces may have an even smaller pool of candidates to pull from. They have enough issues with the MTV/reality TV generation. The ones that are in will be further demoralized and believe me other countries will know about our moral and training. Those that don’t think it matters known nothing of operational security nor how important it is to have that edge. Half the battle is one before it even starts.
All this started from the repercussions of Tailhook 1991 shortly after Desert Storm and the reform during Clinton’s regime in the mid 90’s.
From decorated Blue Angels commanding officer Bob Stumpf, who was denied promotion and retired simply for having gone to Tailhook '91 to receive an award. Stumpf himself has decried the post-Tailhook climate and its effect on morale and readiness: "[T]he essence of that warrior culture has been severely diluted in this decade. Politically inspired social edicts enforced since Tailhook '91 have rendered a ready room atmosphere so different now that it is nearly unrecognizable... Pilots are hampered in their ability to train as warriors by the policies of their senior leaders. They are faced with social experimentation and double standards in training. Experienced pilots are forced to qualify certain trainees who may or may not demonstrate established quality standards. This leads to distrust and resentment, two powerfully harmful factors in terms of unit morale, and thus military effectiveness.
We’ve learned nothing.We are all equal but different. Respect that.
You wouldn't understand
I read all the responses above from so many different people and I notice a common theme, so few are actually in the Infantry or have been recently. No disrespect to those who have served, you did your time and should be commended, but things are different now.
I am a Lieutenant in the Infantry right now and I can say with 100% conviction, women have no place and no right to serve in the Infantry. Every day I come to work I experience another reason not to have women in this field, if you are in the Infantry you know exactly what I am talking about. Why do we have separate standards for Physical Fitness tests for men and women if we are trying to argue that women are "equal"? Why has the Army and Marines said for 100+ years that their physical standards are not the same. it's funny that you don't see Congressional Committees or Women's Rights groups begging for a standardized PT test or for some equalization on the physical fitness standards but you can't get them to shut up about how they deserve to be Infantry.
Try a 12 mile ruck march with 50+ pounds on your back and see how long the women last, they are always last. Try putting on your full battle rattle (45+ pounds) and patrolling for 24hrs and see how fast the women fall out or have to give their gear to somebody else. I don't say any of this to be masogonistic or demeaning but rather it's the truth and anybody who has spent a minute in the Infantry knows it.
Do me and the rest of the Infantry a favor, leave us alone. We have been doing just fine for quite some time now and we don't need anybody to tell us that allowing women is going to make us better.
she's right
The IDF pulled the women from combat units. They draft at age 18. The bloggers above are right. The IDF has been at war for more than 60 years==and they are non discrimnatory. They have had to be effective to survive. They rely on reserves to a greater extent that we ever have.
I don't want to put my life on the line or your life on the line to meet a social goal that lessens the quality of leadership you and I are entitled to have when somebody is shooting at you.
Capt 38th Infantry Regiment 2d US infantry division 1952
It's not DACOWITS
Finally, some reality interjected into this rediculous subject (albeit just a little bit). The only thing I will add to this article is for every woman that can barely meet the lowered minimum standards there are ten men that can excell well above that standard and sustain it. Mediocrity has now become the watch word in our Armed Forces. Lastly, the problem is not DACOWITS, it is our spineless military leaders who cave into this garbage. What ever happened to Commandants like Commandant Barrows (if you don't know find his comments to congress in the 1960s on this subject, then you will understand).
A very concerned former Marine Corps Infantry and Force Recon Platoon Commander.
Semper Fi!!!!!
I'm quite certain I am not the only exception!
Former USMC. I went into the military at the age of 29 and I could PT til the cows came home. The DIs tried to starve me to make the 159lb weight requirement and they gave me fire watch every single night just because they could. Sleep deprived and food deprived I still kicked ass. During the crucible I had NCOs telling me they would fight next to me in battle.
SO! My point is in reference to infantry...I COULD DO IT!...AND I am not a top elite athlete(close but not top), but I even under those conditions I was stellar. I'm sure I am NOT the only one. The Marines just need the motivated elite women...just like me.
And by the way, I am now 43 and it I shock myself how I can still gain mass like even more efficiently then back in the day. I'm going back into law enforcement. I can PT I can SHOOT and I am tough-as-nails. So, you yahoo's who believe women aren't capable I guess you've never met a motivator like me. THE ELITE!
NO LOWERED STANDARDS AND NO QUOTAS! IF SHE CAN THROW DOWN THEN SHUT YOUR PIE HOLES AND STEP ASIDE. IF SHE CAN'T THEN SHE CAN'T. NUFF SAID.
Comment from the author, Capt Petronio
As the author, I feel it is essential to reiterate that I know there are female Marines out there that could probably hack it in the infantry, but we are talking about a .001% of females. My concern is the price tag on the institution and the gender specific medical concerns we will be faced with.
Any successful war fighting institution doesn’t change policy for ‘the elite’. I understand you are passionate about this and you think you could have made it, I too thought I would have made it following OCS and TBS. I don’t know you and I will not pass judgment on your abilities…obviously you can hold your own, however, its worth pointing out what the cost will be to identify these ‘elite’:
- Volunteer basis: I can see how you would support this integration on a voluntary basis, however, MC isn’t pick and choose. This will be a blanket policy assignment, not volunteer based. Every PFC or 2ndLt, female or male, regardless of their desire, will be on the chopping block to be slated as an infantryman.
- Price tag: Lets say hypothetically 50 female officers are slated to attend IOC next year; 20 quit from the start, 20 break and 9 fail, leaving one female standing on graduation day, congrats. The 49 who don’t complete training sit in Mike Company for an enduring amount of time, collecting a pay check and time in grade while they either rehab, wait to be medically separated, or to be slated for a new MOS school. Not only do we have 49 female officers sitting around delaying the start of their career, but now we have voids in the fleet, an ever rising medical bill and thousands of dollars being reallocated to send these women to new schools. For the one or two who make it to the fleet, the constant abuse of enduring combat operations as an infantryman breaks most men, which is why I stress the concern of longevity and gender specific medical conditions. All of this cost and for WHAT?
-Combat readiness: If we are faced with integration, we will struggle with our recruiting numbers. A vast majority of women and a decent amount of men don’t see the assignment to infantry as a blessing. But looking further, every recycle at MOS school causes a void in the fleet. Every Light Duty or LimDu Marine negatively affects our combat readiness. Women attrite at a faster rate than males….its a proven fact….being held to the standards of an infantryman will result in skyrocketing numbers of non-deployable females as longevity comes into question. Again I ask, how is this benefiting the institution?
BLUF, each of us took an oath and made the conscious decision to put an institution before ourselves. We should be proud to wear the uniform and serve in whatever capacity we are asked. Regardless of whether we feel like we could hack it as an infantryman, we should be able to understand WHY this change will not benefit the institution and severely injure/set back females in effort to provide the few ‘elite’ with the opportunity to prove ourselves.
I am all for integrating certain MOSs, however, the change must be first and foremost for the betterment of the institution and then the individual. Integrating infantry is not cost efficient and will not enhance our war fighting capability, therefore I cannot and will not support it.
Good for you!
I'm so glad you wrote in, and so glad you are still going strong. We know there are men that train for infantry who don't make it and we know some women will and can. Some women have broader frames and are willing to train. We need to stand up and prove ourselves
Plain and simple
Women are not designed to handle the physical demands of boots on ground combat. Hell there are more than a few males who end up washing out because they could not handle it.
We can sit here and try to convince ourselves otherwise but that won't change anything. Being a grunt is hard physically, mentally, and for some who still have em emotionally. Yes there is always the exception with anything. There may be one or two or ten females that can hang with the males for a while. But sooner or later it is going to catch up with them. More than likely a lot sooner than any male and the damage done will be far worse for a female than a male. I am not gong to go into statistics and case studies because from what I have read so far they aren't enough for the femenists (pardon the bad spelling) out there. It is time to wake up and smell the roses. Men and Women are not equal. Each gender has its areas where it excells over the other. Combat arms is and will always be for men and not for women. If women are allowed to join the combat arms branch of the military it will be devastating to our combat arms force. Prove me wrong. Thee most fit Female athlete can come no where near the Male athlete competing in the same event. Prove me wrong. You cant.
Plain and simple
Women are not designed to handle the physical demands of boots on ground combat. Hell there are more than a few males who end up washing out because they could not handle it.
We can sit here and try to convince ourselves otherwise but that won't change anything. Being a grunt is hard physically, mentally, and for some who still have em emotionally. Yes there is always the exception with anything. There may be one or two or ten females that can hang with the males for a while. But sooner or later it is going to catch up with them. More than likely a lot sooner than any male and the damage done will be far worse for a female than a male. I am not gong to go into statistics and case studies because from what I have read so far they aren't enough for the femenists (pardon the bad spelling) out there. It is time to wake up and smell the roses. Men and Women are not equal. Each gender has its areas where it excells over the other. Combat arms is and will always be for men and not for women. If women are allowed to join the combat arms branch of the military it will be devastating to our combat arms force. Prove me wrong. Thee most fit Female athlete can come no where near the Male athlete competing in the same event. Prove me wrong. You cant.
Crazy
It's crazy the the woman suggesting that female training should take an extra 6 months to build condition. It's just not cost effective to wait half a year for a woman to build herself up to frontline fighting strength.
If that's the hoops they have got to jump through, why bother, you are taking more than triple the training time to get to the standard strength.
Crazy, waste of resources, and I doubt whether they would reach that strength or maintain that strength like a man would.
Females shouldn't be in the military, it's all to feminized as it is, the Russians laugh at the feminized American military, they think they are pansies.
Girl power.
I just wanted to say I think the Capt.wrote an excellent article and leave it at that. Semper Fi.
The Cost
One thing completely overlooked in the article and all these comments is the cost incurred. This is beyond an indivdual deciding whether she is willing to accept the risks and potential physical damage to her body. The author's research predicts increased operating costs of the military/government.
The data seems to indicate females in such roles will pose a siginificantly higher burden on the VA and military medice. This represents yet another long term, unfunded liability on an already stressed system.
Set them up for success
In 3000 years of warfare, no female integrated infantry formation has ever carried the day, ever! Nothing has changed in the past ten years, worse many tend to ignore the hard fights in the Pech River Valley, Shahikot Valley and Helmand River Valley in the early days. Fallujah in April and November 2004 a month long slugfest with no time-outs, steel curtain and countless others. LtCol Hal Moore fought for 3 days in Ia Drang Valley then hiked 3 miles through dense vietnamese jungle to LZ X-Ray, into an ambush and another brutal fight (missing from the movie we were soldiers), Gen Lee was losing ground at Wilderness in May 1864 and called on Gen Longstreet, who force-marched his 1st Corps 43 miles non-stop in 24 hours straight into a 12 hour firefight (SIMILAR feats occurred in afghanistan and iraq recently), Napoleon had no women in the line infantry, scharnhorst kept them well back from front line prussian infantry formations, Alexander had none among his formations, Ceasar welcomed only the strongest warriors across the rubicon (females were absent in his phalanx), Hannibal crossed the Alps bringing only the strongest warriors to Cannae(no women in the phalanx), Sun Tzu turned a platoon of concubines into swords-women to prove a point, but left them behind as he marched on woo with his male formations, King Leonidas marched into battle with 300 Spartan men (plus 700 other mercenaries) at thermopylae. In all of history, at no time have grunts carried more weight than America has put on her warriors in the past ten years, nor has the battlefield been more uncertain and complex, yet scrutinized from afar (in this case 8000 miles). Chaos, violence, brutality, uncertainty and friction remain as certain in warfare today as they have for the past 3000 years. We cant take a 6 month breather, or ask North Koreans/Iranians/Syrians/Taliban/Al Qaeda to take a knee while we condition ourselves. Lest we forget too, a majority of American allies hedge their national defense strategies against their alliance with us!
The issue isnt whether females serve, it is how to set conditions for both their success, and the success of our military. So we can win as a team, period! Having served on 4 hard deployments to Iraq, and being married to a female Marine whom i'm extremely proud of, it is imperative we untangle this messy problem in order to provide our combat proven females every opportunity to excel.
I applaud, commend and take my hat off to Capt Petronio's bold, candid and well researched argument. It's a case that must be presented in the face of a dangerously inward looking and self-serving political/social agenda.
Capt Petronio, thank you for penning this article and sharing your thoughts, some of which are quite personal. This is a bold act of leadership, ensuring the well-being of Marines we lead..
Anonymity
I couldn't agree with the Captain more. I am particularly appalled that those pushing this policy are themselves lacking in the ability to do the job they want women to do.
I understand that speaking one's mind has a price. It no doubt cost me while I was on active duty. Nonetheless, I am appalled that almost everyone of those commenting lacked the fortitude to use their name.
Ross Hieb, Colonel, USMC (Ret.)
This was a well written and
This was a well written and thought out article. It's unfortunate that most Marines disagree with women in combat and infantry roles not because of the reasons articulated above, but because of the sexism that runs rampant in our "beloved Corps." It's the elephant in the room that everyone chooses to look away from because the Corps can do no wrong. To prove my point, you not only can look at the sexual assault statistics but also the various "humorous" pages on Facebook.
And this is coming from an active duty male Corporal. When are we going to start living the Core Values that we proudly proclaim, yet sparingly follow?
Comments from the author, Capt Petronio
I am quite satisfied to see that my article has caused much thought and debate. I was compelled to write this article because 5 years ago I would have fully supported integrating the infantry. I was young, motivated, fit and fresh out of TBS. Since, I have served side by side with my infantry brothers during two deployments (Iraq and Afgh) and my perspective has drastically changed. It was from my ignorance that I thought I could cut it as an infantrymen and I wanted to use my experience coupled with fact to attempt to educate/stimulate thought on certain issues integration will undoubting reveal.
I am going to attempt to respond to some of the larger counter arguments etc in follow on posts but I want to clarify why the Corps, and other services, are even looking into integration as some of this information was not public knowledge when I wrote the article in March.
There was a Congressional Mandate in 2011 requiring ALL services to review any law, policy or regulation restricting female service members. The Corps, along with our sister services, are doing exactly as directed and will brief their findings at the end of the year. As of now, no policies have been changed.
WM's
As a former 0311 Marine Vet, I don’t believe women should serve in the infantry, however, keeping an open mind I am not entirely sure-maybe 85%. I believe my experience in the grunts has shaped my opinion, but without this point of reference as an 0311, I would likely support women serving in the infantry. Brotherhood is shaped by violence against each other, including barracks brawls between Marines- if I can’t fight the Marine next to me in garrison, I don’t want to deploy with that individual. Pregnancy is another issue to consider- unlike non-infantry units, cohesion and readiness is paramount before deployment, pregnancy = combat ineffectiveness. Basically, POG units are much better at handling the absence of a Marine due to pregnancy than an infantry unit…. regardless, its an interesting topic which needs further research....
"Equality for All" - the double-standard eroding us all...
A well written, honest article which I found touched on many issues that were never brought up in the debate here in my home country - Australia - when our politicians changed the laws recently to 'abolish gender inequity within in our armed forces'.
In my time served in my nations army, I have seen the cost of a previous politicised, issue-motivated policy to improve representation of women in rank paid out in terms of loss of valuable knowledge and experience lost as good male operators were overlooked for promotion in order to get more women into the pool. I can't say I blame the guys for deciding to persue higher paid careers in civillian street after putting in the hard yards, performing well and getting good reporting only to be told that the promotion pool had greatly diminished and that their next opportunity might be a year or two away and seeing people promoted ahead of them solely on the basis of gender discrimination.
Women that I served with also had an issue with this policy essentially odevalued their overall merit (when compared against all other personel in their peer group) and placed the emphasis on the fact that they were women with their additional achievements being a bonus for reporting on the success of the policy.
I can't say for certain that this was the intended effect of the policy, this was the perception that was formed from the way it played out to those of us on the ground, especially as it did see more people who were not ready to lead placed into leadership roles than in the past.
That isn't to say men are better leaders - I saw some shockers who slipped through the cracks during my time - rather that an issue motivated agenda forced onto an organisation as policy leads to a decline in quality as standards do have to be lowered to satisfy the expections of the policy makers. It's easy to move a goal post an inch at a time and not think about when it will be 3 feet away from where it should be. And this is a problem I have with the left-wingers 'equality for all'.
The 'equality for all' argument disregards the fact that the modern, western military enviroment functions well because theoretically it works on the principles of equity and fairness (YMMV in practice). Equity recognises that we have our differences and that those differences can enhance our work enviroment but does not mean we all have to be treated equally. The "equality for all" argument would be fine in principle if it wasn't double-speak for "selective and preferential treatment for a group identified by the agenda motivated as victimised and unfairly discriminated against despite all evidence to the contrary". It has a tendency to focus on groups within the organisition who have little recourse from policy. There are certain trades within our Defence Force that are off limits to females due to a requirement to work with hazardous chemicals known to produce birth defects as a result of absorbtion and retention in the human body. There's never been any kind of push by the activists to make those trades 'equal'...
The other problem with the "equality for all" argument is that once it becomes policy, it tends to gloss over the negatives and effectively deny the individual the right to be given sufficient information to make an informed decision. I doubt recruiters will be briefed on the health risks that extended combat operations in the arms corps role will expose women to. Older male recruits are lucky just to get concerns expressed to them about the effects that keeping up with the physical demands of training in the barracks and field training enviroment, so what will the ladies be told when the push comes to recruit more women to these roles? I doubt that young women will be told to think carefully about where they see themselves in 10 or 15 years, regardless of their intentions post ROSO, and that maybe this isn't the job for they envision themselves starting a family or having good health without the worry of premature onset of geriatric type diseases...
Admittedly 17 - 21 year old girls aren't any less susceptible than their male counterparts to the youthful fallacy of that such things can't happen to them, so the issue then comes to be one of what the long term cost born by society will be. What happens when enough female veterans exist to demonstrate the clear link between those adverse service conditions particular to that enviroment and a raft of quality of life issues that are exclusive to females? You can bet the farm that the people who pushed their agenda and instigated the policy won't be reaching into their pockets to settle any litigatious actions on behalf of women who weren't made aware of all the risks.
To summarise a long post, there's nothing to say that women can't serve their nation if they are willing. In fact many of them have done exceptionally well and been decorated for their achievements.
However, a woman should be allowed the same right as a man to be recognised for her merits as an individual and not be preferenced on her gender. If she meets the baseline to apply for types of service that are traditionally male oriented, then she should be given all the information required, including the expectation units may have of their soldiers to maintain a higher than baseline standard, to make an informed and carefully considered decision regarding her choice of career and the impact it may have on her future desires in her life outside that job.
And, in an equal world, the agenda/issue motivated will got out and walk that proverbial mile before imposing their double standards on everybody else.
The other green
It is a relief to see a point of view from a combat-tested female. I will say that I had (past-tense) no qualms with a woman being in an Infantry unit. I had not even considered the medical aspect of women in infantry.
That being said there are females out there who can crush my APFT score. Strap on a ruck and full kit, hand them a weapon and tell them to cover 12 miles in 3 hours and it will probably be a different story. Still, there are surely a few out there who could once again smoke me. My issue wasn't with them being there. As a soldier who is bound for Ranger School within the next year (where females are due to be intergrated soon), my concern is with the standard being lowered. I foresee that while some females may make it through RS, a large percentage will not. There will be an outcry that the standards are unfair, and the politicians will get there way and the standards will be lowered, producing something that is sub-Ranger qualified. And for what? To make someone feel better about themselves? The military is not a place for self-gratification. If someone has a job they shouldn't have in our profession, people die. Typically the wrong people.
I firmly believe that this portion of the article is all the needs to be said:
"The bottom line is that the enemy doesn’t discriminate, rounds will not slow down, and combat loads don’t get any lighter, regardless of gender or capability. Even more so, the burden of command does not diminish for a male or female; a leader must gain the respect and trust of his/her Marines in combat. Not being able to physically execute to the standards already established at IOC, which have been battle tested and proven, will produce a slower operational speed and tempo resulting in increased time of exposure to enemy forces and a higher risk of combat injury or death."
Women in combat?
The bottom line is the decision has been made for PC reasons and stands as is. To everyone else, get on board or get off the train before you get run over. You, Capt - pick up yr discharge papers on the way out. - CMC
Joe Valles 0311 USMC....
as much as I hate the above comments, i realize like or not, change is coming Marines, only time will tell if it works, if this is Vegas, I bet it works and lives on, but the Marine Corps will for the first time in its history, since 1775 will be disconnected....RIP GRUNTS....thank you mothers of American...God Bless America because we sure as hell will need it!!!!....
grunt
as much as I hate the above comments, i realize like or not, change is coming Marines, only time will tell if it works, if this is Vegas, I bet it works and lives on, but the Marine Corps will for the first time in its history, since 1775 will be disconnected....RIP GRUNTS....thank you mothers of American...God Bless America because we sure as hell will need it!!!!
Is America ready to accept the consequences?
You know the one thing that everyone has seemed to ignore, either by, ignorance or just due to avoidance in the subject, is that a large majority of the world does not view women with the same respect that we naturally do here in America! The sad fact of the matter is, that a large portion of the counties that we are waring/disagree with in this day and age see women as an sub-spieces or object that is a little less useful then a good horse or camel.
This would create a huge problem in several ways: first lets talk about the fact that the US is among a few countries around the world that actually try to adheare to the law of ground conflict and abide by the Geneva Conventions especially in the areas of treatment of enemy prisoners of war. Concerning females, in combat they would be used as leverage against the males in ways unspeakable to the American general population. Secondly, just like the videos posted on the internet and news channels across the world of naked American soldiers and Marines paraded through the streets of Africa in the early 90's, is America ready to see their Wives, Sisters, Daugters, and Mothers treated in that same manner? Lastly, why don't we ask ourselves what the effects of combat readiness is going to be when you start integrating females into males units and things like: pregnancy, STD's, and adultary start shooting off the charts? Or the family members at home while their spouse is overseas, knowing that they are sharing a dark fighting hole with a member of the opposite sex?
I can also tell you from personal experiences that male Marines are much more affected with mental anguish and distress from seeing and dealing with females blown into mushy pieces of goo and hunks of body parts! Since the beginning of time the males of this world have always been in the role of protector within the male/female relationship and it is something mentally ingrained into our DNA and not something that can be breed out. A male will 99.9% of the time choose to save a female over another male even at the determent of his life, the lives of those in his charge, another wounded male (more likely savable), or at the cost of the mission itself. PTSD from all of these factors would shoot off the charts through sustained combat.
I personally think that in this case, America is just not ready for that and when these things start happening on a large scale that it will cause this Country to revert back to large scale protests over keeping troops in combat around the world. We also, as a Country need to take into account the third and fourth order effects of what this will actually do to our combat ready forces. Me, personally, the juice just isn't worth the squeeze!
great article and i agree, but...
Two things up front: First, the Army has not "rogered up" on this issue. The Army is in the same boat the Marines are in at this time. An upcoming testing phase. As for the possible policy change: if Congress/DoD driects one serivce to change, theyll have to direct both to change the policy.
Secondly, its not her fault, but the author doesnt understand that light Army units basically have the same job and metnality as the Marine Corps. (please, Ive served with some incredible Marines and have some great friends in the Corps, so please dont take that as a pissing contest invite and spare me the challenging commments on that). Furthermore, if sustained combat is the measurable standard here, than the Army absoulutely cant be counted out, as the Army tends to have much longer deployments. My point here is, this idea is horrible for both the Marines AND the Army.
All that being said, her article is spot on in every other regard. However, everyone is leaving out of the discussion the more "taboo" issues of this topic. Sex, for example. You put one female and 43 males on the side of a moutain in eastern Afghanistan or in an occupied Kalat in southern Afghanistan for MONTHS at a time, and there WILL be issues. Its one of the oldest drives of mankind. Sex will happen. Pregnancies will happen. Jealousies will result. Coehesion...one of the MOST IMPORTANT ASPECTS OF A SUCCESSFUL COMBAT ARMS UNIT will deteriorate. And for anyone that tries to say, "well, maybe you need to work on unit discipline..." I again say to you, its one of the most fundamental and oldest drives known to human kind. You try to stop it. You isolate young men and women somewhere, there WILL be sex. And it is NOT always initiated by the men. Unforutnately, there will be rapes as well.
As a combat arms officer, I have served in both combat units and in a mixed unit. Having females...even when they are hardcore...changes the feel to a unit and the overall chemistry. It just does. Sorry. As I said, cohesion is vital to combat success.
Finally, lets be honest. As much as I love her, this is America. If they decide to do this, they wont even do us the courtesy of making it the "1 in 10,000" females that can phsyically cut it to the same standard. They will force this down our throats wholesale. Id be willing to wager there will end up being an unoffical quota per Infantry or Armor or Cavalry platoon of X number of females. Standards WILL drop. You can kid yourself all day long and say they wont, but they will.
Oh yeah, and right now we are fighting an unconventional war. What happens when we have a convnetional one again one day? And I dont mean month long invasion of Iraq type of thing. I mean a real, straight up, sustained war. It WILL happen again one day, unfortunately. What then? Picture the first 20 minutes of "Saving Private Ryan" with females making their way up that beach. This is a complete joke. I love women. They are our equal as intelligent, wonderful people of courage. But that doesnt mean this situation should be FORCED to be equal for all.
Yes sir
well said.
What do you thinks goung to happen?
Want to know what happens to a western female when she falls into the hands of our enemy? Google "Amanda Lindhout", and find out what the politicinas and TV talking heads are not telling you.
you're right
Thank you for being willing to say so!
In just a few weeks
The first two female lieutenants will be attending the Marine Infantry Officer Course in a few weeks. There are only two because only two volunteered. That is too small a sample size to get meaningful results. If they both fail or quit, one side will say "there were only two." If they both do great, the other side says "there were only two."
Whenever the militaries of the world have tried intigrating weaker members into rough environments, it has resulted in a lowering of standards. Hopefully, America does not see her Marine Corps lower the standards at IOC so as to facilitate the passing of these two women. Equally wrong or worse even would be to insert TBS graduates into IOC who are weaker, lower performing physically and tactically, and lower ranked than some of their male counterparts, just to level the playing field for the women. That would be a story of its own, one in which a good reporter should investigate.
Thanks for sharing it. I'm certainly going to search for a copy.
thanks about your post. very gud.
Strength Training
MCO 6100.13 Clearly states the following:
(5) Commanders/OICs will ensure Marines perform at least five combat
conditioning sessions, of 30 minutes duration, per week. This requirement
can be satisfied through combining organizational and individual CCP
participation with Marine Corps Martial Arts Program (MCMAP), Marine Corps
Water Survival Training (MCWST), or other mission/operational specific
training.
So how is it that females don't have the opportunity to maintain standards after bootcamp? It is guidance brought down from the Commandant of the Marine Corps. Not to mention this lovely little excerpt:
MCO 6100.13
1 Aug 08
Chapter 1
Combat Conditioning Program
1. Objectives
a. As professional warrior-athletes, every Marine must be physically
fit, regardless of age, grade, or duty assignment. Fitness is an essential
component of Marine Corps combat readiness. Furthermore, physical fitness is
an indispensable aspect of leadership. The habits of self-discipline and
personal commitment that are required to gain and maintain a high level of
physical fitness are inherent to the Marine Corps way of life and must be a
part of the character of every Marine. Marines who are not physically fit
are a detriment and detract from the combat readiness of their unit.
-Enough Said, Thank you Gen. James T. Conway
Semper
Women in Combat
For 5,000 years, combat has been a male function. Yes, women have sometimes served in disguise, but in very small numbers. In the 20th Century, the Soviets used women in combat roles for propaganda purposes, promptly removing them from combat roles when the Second World War ended. In addition to the physical considerations involved, I'd add emotional factors. Yes, I've seen men break down and cry, but not on the job. I've seen women do it several times, and I'm talking about in the office, not in combat. Also, a lot more "games" go on when women and men serve together - it's biology and human nature. I've seen no analysis of disciplinary problems, pregnancies, ect., but the problems are there for all to witness. The Captain is right - the issue needs to be looked at in terms of effectiveness, and the truth is that the costs are not worth the perceived bebefits.
Good article
I have alot of respect for that Marine female who spoke out the truth on this topic. I don't hear alot of people, man or woman, saying these things that are in fact true because people are afraid of being honest! I was a 11B & served 6 years with the Army. I guess I'm a woman hater but introducing females into a man's job will only deplete our abilities to stay effective for our missions. Mission first! Sure, I've probably come across 1 or 2 females in my life who were really rough/tough but they could still not compare to the mental/physical/emotional/psychological demands actual firefights and constant day/night patrols place on the men, both younger & older. The men have a hard time sometimes enough and were much more equipped for these jobs as the natural order has made us for. To have women serving along with the men in this job with the Marines & the Army would effectively make us weaker and would endanger lives. End of discussion. The ONLY people qualified to really give an opinion on these sorts of things are the people who have actually served in real combat and done the patrols and had to carry the gear/rucks and do the job. Nobody else.
cpt Peronio's article
Well written article. Thoughtful, objective, provides the pro's and con's and offers a solution of creating a new MOS.
Cpt Petronio's article is a demonstration of the Marines' high standard for intellectual discourse.
Thank You
As a currently deployed Special Forces Soldier, I agree with the Marine Captains comments. First and foremost we must remember tat there is a difference between men and women. She made a good point to understand we do not sacrifice safety while flying so why should we do it on the ground. I have no problem with opening up any all jobs however studies should be conducted to ensure equality and safety. The responses that elude to the fact that technology is making this job safer and easier has never been deployed. Technology is giving us an advantage yes but it is not easier. The equipment is heavier and you are expected to carry more to be more combat effective. The military always makes decisions in black and white yet it is probally the one job in life that all decisions are made in a gray area. In a gray area of life all research and options must be taken into effect. If anything should be done research and studies should be done before we fly in blindly into a decision that can effect the people and more importantly the entire force that defends this nation. I strongly advice this article to be passed around and ingested as what it is, a well written and research document of one persons point of view.
Retired Marine Colonel (female) agrees with the Captain
Women have performed well in Iraq and Afghanistan. The POG women who ended up standing at checkpoints to pat down the Iraqi women were not afraid to step back and use a weapon. They saved lives when they discovered weapons under robes. They earned respect from their male counterparts. Combat patrols? Carrying one's weight on one's back? Men and women alike suffer later in life from this. Men have bad backs, necks, and arm issues as do women. Ask any neurologist or orthopedic who treats former military. Ask the VA who sees these maladies all the time. I am 5'4" and carrying a pack that weighed more than I did was not easy, but I did it. I earned the title Marine. I was not a combat Marine although, like the good Captain, I was pretty sure I could handle it when I was a lieutenant. But there are a number of physiological differences between the sexes. I did my job to the best of my ability and supported the combat troops at every turn. I am a MARINE!
This article was well written and appears to have been well researched and though out. It took courage to put pen to paper on a controversial subject of this caliber. This ols Colonel has read every comment. The guys always want to state that the women can't handle it, the women always wnat to argue that, and then there are the people who say men and women can't fight together because sex gets in the way. All three groups have legitimate points. I just hope DACOWITS calls me. Semper Fidelis to all Marines and all service members, past and present!
Bring the women in!!
Former 0311, and I say let's bring the women in. Would help with the "down-time!" The infantry is a completely different world. Ethics have no place in the infantry platoon! Morals have no place in the infantry platoon, and there is no room for women's rights. Let's just be honest; women would be raped, beat, killed, and fragged. Yes, they would have hits put out on them. I'm not supporting these actions, but that's exactly what would happen. Use some common sense, and set aside this women's rights BS. The 03' world is not for you. There is a mentality in combat that cannot be replicated by women, generally. I would NEVER want my daughter anywhere near an infantry platoon! I have seen sisters, or cousins harrassed. I have seen women become objects in an infantry barracks. The infantry world is primitive, and IT WORKS! Don't place women in a potential hazard.
Women in infantry
If you are not an infantryman or been in combat with them, then you don't have the first hand experience to give an educated opinion period. I just got back from Afghanistan as a bomb dog handler, on the front lines the whole time. And I can say with the backing of about 99% of all combat marines, that the infantry in not the place for woman.
Female Warriors
Thank you Capt. Petonio for your service to the US.
I see there are many opinions about the matter of females in combat. I believe that there was only one femaile who had "been there." Capt. Petonio's experience trumps, in my opinion, all of the opinions.
Post new comment