Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Pentagon Is Closer to Deciding on Women in Combat

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Pentagon Is Closer to Deciding on Women in Combat

    US Secretary of Defense Ash Carter is expected to receive by October 31 a recommendation from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on opening combat arms positions to qualified women. This will give him two months to make a final determination on which, if any, military positions will remain exclusively the domain of men.

    At a press conference on October 23, Carter declined to comment on a leaked brief detailing results of the US Marine Corps' yearlong assessment of combat arms units that include both men and women (or "gender-integrated units," to use the DoD's terminology), stating only that his decision on the matter will be "analytically based." He also noted that the decision goes beyond the issue of of fairness to female service members, because it relates to the military's overall ability to effectively staff an all-volunteer force.

    "The more Americans that I can draw on, who can meet the standards no change in standards here but who can serve in the way that we need people to serve, the better off I am and our forces and my successors are," said Carter.

    The Marine Corps' experiment, which found that all-male units generally outperformed gender-integrated units, was criticized by Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus in a September interview with NPR. Mabus suggested that the study was tainted by both confirmation bias and by a low bar for female participants to enter the study.

    The experiment is just one source of information that Carter may use to make his final decision regarding whether any military positions will remain closed to women in 2016.
    Vice News - Full Article

  • #2
    I thought "Political" was spelled political, not analytical...

    Because you can bet your donkey that this administration won't be doing things analytically but purely politically.

    Comment


    • #3
      Typical political result - do a study that shows what we already know - male only units perform better - and throw it out because it doesn't provide the PC results that were supposed to pop up instead.

      Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

      Comment


      • #4
        Why are they even doing a survey? Twenty or thirty years ago women joining the military knew that the chances of getting combat roles and qualifying for star ranks were nil. I don't see changing the system so some women can retire a full bird colonel or better. Almost all will fail on physical strength issues unless they curve the test.

        Pruitt
        Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

        Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

        by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
          Why are they even doing a survey? Twenty or thirty years ago women joining the military knew that the chances of getting combat roles and qualifying for star ranks were nil. I don't see changing the system so some women can retire a full bird colonel or better. Almost all will fail on physical strength issues unless they curve the test.

          Pruitt
          The Marines and such screwed up the test / survey. It's pretty obvious the political minions wanting this wanted them to hand pick women to put in the units under test such that the results would show they are capable of being in combat units.
          Instead, the Marines did the test fairly and without bias putting women into the units just as they would men. That resulted in a fail.

          ...criticized by Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus in a September interview with NPR. Mabus suggested that the study was tainted by both confirmation bias and by a low bar for female participants to enter the study.
          That statement by the SecNav, an Obama appointee, shows exactly that thinking in an oblique manner. In affect he's saying "The Marines didn't screen the women being put into these units carefully to ensure that the study's results were the ones we wanted."

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
            Why are they even doing a survey? Twenty or thirty years ago women joining the military knew that the chances of getting combat roles and qualifying for star ranks were nil. I don't see changing the system so some women can retire a full bird colonel or better. Almost all will fail on physical strength issues unless they curve the test.

            Pruitt
            That will be the crucial deciding factor. If they say "women can do anything as long as they meet the same criteria" then any issues with integration will vanish quickly once people get used to the idea.

            If they say "women can do anything and have an easier set of criteria" then it will harm the men, the women, and the military itself. Such a policy won't last.

            Some might complain that because of those physical differences that means less women will get into those positions, but the standards need to be the same across the board.

            Still, once can look at the nations who have opened up combat positions to women (Israel, Switzerland, etc.) as examples for how such a system works out.

            Comment


            • #7
              Adding to what I posted earlier, this article by National Geographic may be an interesting read.

              Israel: In 1985 the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) began putting women into combat positions and by 2009 women were serving in artillery units, rescue forces, and in anti-aircraft forces. While women must take part in compulsory military service, they are conscripted for only two years, versus three for men.

              A study on the integration of female combatants in the IDF between 2002 and 2005 found that women often exhibit "superior skills" in discipline, motivation, and shooting abilities, yet still face prejudicial treatment stemming from "a perceived threat to the historical male combat identity."

              Comment


              • #8
                How are women in the IDF chosen for combat duties? That might have something to do with those that serve in these roles. I would also be interested in what jobs Israeli women are given in the Artillery and AAA units.

                Pruitt
                Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

                Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

                by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

                Comment


                • #9
                  I don't believe that the IDF has women in the infantry and other combat arms.

                  I also saw a piece a few weeks ago that the Marine Corps is dragging its feet and generally begging off because they believe it won't work. And the Marine Corps is correct.

                  Based on my limited experience the number of women that can qualify for combat arms is very small and the attempt to put this into effect is definitely not based on the needs of the armed forces but on some political objective of 'equality' which is absolute nonsense.

                  And the money wasted on these 'experiments' could be better spent on something worthwhile, which this is not.

                  By its very definition the armed forces are discriminatory in that not everyone can qualify either for a particular branch of the service or for the service itself.

                  No one has a right to be in the service, nor does anyone have a right, once enlisted, to actually choose what they want. It is based on the needs of the service and that is what counts.

                  Too many of the 'equality' politicians either have never served or are doing this to get elected/reelected.
                  We are not now that strength which in old days
                  Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                  Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                  To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Massena View Post


                    To put this into effect is definitely not based on the needs of the armed forces but on some political objective of 'equality' which is absolute nonsense.
                    Too many of the 'equality' politicians either have never served or are doing this to get elected/reelected.
                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                    100% correct and nonsense it is!
                    Trying hard to be the Man, that my Dog believes I am!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                      Adding to what I posted earlier, this article by National Geographic may be an interesting read.
                      On a side note;

                      In 1987 my S-2 was tasked with doing a CG uniform inspection of 12th Marines Headquarters Company. I went with him down to Camp Foster as his scribe. This was the first time that I saw a WM in a FMF unit, they had 5 in the headquarters company; 12th Marines is an Artillery Unit.

                      On topic;

                      The results of the test produced gender neutral standards:



                      The new rules, which require Marines to prove they can accomplish some of the toughest tasks related to their jobs, are gender-neutral. That means all Marines male or female will have to meet the requirements before they're cleared for graduation.

                      The requirements affect Marines heading into 29 MOSs in the following fields: infantry; artillery; combat engineering; tanks and amphibious assault vehicles; ground ordnance; and some close-air support roles.

                      A couple of the new standards are universal. Marines in all 29 of the MOSs must be able to perform a casualty evacuation and an MK19 grenade launcher lift. Others vary by job, such as carrying a casualty out of a tank, scaling a wall, swimming 2,000 yards or loading heavy artillery rounds for certain weapons systems.

                      http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/stor...jobs/73173524/
                      "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Massena View Post
                        I don't believe that the IDF has women in the infantry and other combat arms.
                        Then you would be wrong.

                        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caracal_Battalion

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Nichols View Post
                          In 1987 my S-2 was tasked with doing a CG uniform inspection of 12th Marines Headquarters Company. I went with him down to Camp Foster as his scribe. This was the first time that I saw a WM in a FMF unit, they had 5 in the headquarters company; 12th Marines is an Artillery Unit.
                          I was in 12th Marines from 1985-1987 my last billet being a battery commander in 2/12. The WMs in the regimental Headquarters Battery were not artillerymen. They were other MOSs such as administration and perhaps were communicators.

                          I was in 10th Marines during the invasion of Kuwait and we had WMs in the regimental Headquarters Battery. Again, they were not artillerymen and did not go into Kuwait with the invasion.

                          Generally speaking, the WMs in the artillery Headquarters battery at the regimental level could not keep up physically and were not in the artillery battalions.
                          We are not now that strength which in old days
                          Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                          Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                          To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                            I stand corrected and thanks for the information.

                            1.A couple of questions: What is the failure rate of the women as compared to the men to get into the battalion?

                            2.Are the physical standards the same and were the male standards lowered for the women if they are?

                            3.Has the unit been in combat?
                            We are not now that strength which in old days
                            Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                            Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                            To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Massena View Post
                              I stand corrected and thanks for the information.

                              1.A couple of questions: What is the failure rate of the women as compared to the men to get into the battalion?

                              2.Are the physical standards the same and were the male standards lowered for the women if they are?

                              3.Has the unit been in combat?
                              No worries. I've been wrong before and I know I've still got plenty of them left.

                              Unfortunately, I don't have the first two answers. That's one fault with the Israeli report about women having more discipline and being more accurate than their male counterparts - I don't have the report in front of me to fact check. However, Israel is a pretty pragmatic nation when it comes to its military, so I can't imagine them sacrificing their military effectiveness when they've so often been unconcerned with public perception on certain issues.

                              Still, I'd rather have the report itself to fully judge.

                              On part three though, they have been in combat. Not like the Yom Kippur war levels of combat, but the wiki article lists a few incidents, and they are a combat trained force and have been deployed. Currently they're based in the south along the Egyptian border, if I'm not mistaken.

                              But again, the very positive Israeli report runs counter to the American report, which does suggest that more information is needed to get a full picture, and one can imagine that a flawed method and/political issues could have tainted either study (both for and against female soldiers).

                              One could imagine Israeli soldiers/commanders were pressured to be more positive for political reasons, just like one could imagine Marines being unsure about female soldiers and treating the women differently, thus skewing the results south.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X