A password will be e-mailed to you.
Hide from Public

Charlie Mike

The Mission Goes First: Female Marines and the Infantry

June 3, 2014

Editor’s note: This is the latest offering from our Charlie Mike blog, a place to engage on issues important to service members, military leaders, veterans, and others.  We want an active and robust dialog, so please get involved by adding your thoughts in the comments section!  And you can email us at Charlie.Mike@warontherocks.com.

It was recently proposed on WOTR by Colonel Ellen Haring, USAR, that female marine lieutenants be afforded the opportunity to retake the Infantry Officer Course (IOC) and its initial Combat Endurance Test (CET), like many of their male counterparts who have also failed this grueling test.  Colonel Haring states that the CET is an initiation rite rather than a test of occupational qualification as it is only taken by officers, not enlisted, and is taken only once (unlike other tests for Marine officers).  She argues that this test should be remediated for those who do not complete it the first time, including women.  While as a female marine officer I am exceptionally proud and supportive of my peers’ ambition, dedication, and grit in attempting IOC, I disagree with the reasoning Colonel Haring offers to support her argument.

First, there is a reason females are not currently authorized to repeat IOC.  Women still cannot be assigned as 0302 infantry officers even if they pass the course.  The Marine Corps hires and pays its officers to perform jobs that support its warfighting function. Females giving IOC a shot are showing the best qualities of the Marine Corps, which demands continuous improvement, but eventually marines not bound for the infantry must be trained for and perform the jobs they have been assigned to fulfill the needs of the Marine Corps. Attempting and reattempting IOC can take the better part of a year on top of an already long training pipeline.  The benefits the infantry officer corps would gain from changing this policy need to at least be balanced against withholding officers, an expensive asset, from doing their jobs.

In the Marine Corps, there is more to the difference between officers and enlisted than a college degree, as Colonel Haring suggests. From the very beginning, marine officers are expected to meet certain high physical standards before even applying to Officer Candidates School (OCS) whereas enlisted marines may expect to be trained to standard upon arrival.  One of the more significant differences between OCS and boot camp is the level of physical challenge, which continues through follow-on training. The runs are longer, the humps are heavier, and the days and nights spent in the field are more intense. This remains true in the Fleet. While officers and enlisted have the same scoring system for the annual Physical Fitness Test and Combat Fitness Test, as Colonel Haring pointed out, officers are in fact required to attain a higher score.

While I by no means wish to demean the abilities of enlisted marines (on whom I rely daily and am proud to lead), there is good reason for this difference. Officers are expected to set the example for and lead our enlisted marines. As such, we are held to a significantly higher standard in all matters of our profession. This contributes to our ability to serve our enlisted marines, which is one of the values in which marine officers take the most pride and, in my experience, we do better than those of any other branch. This is no more important than in the infantry, where faith in and respect for your leadership can make all the difference in attaining victory and preserving marine lives.  Army Ranger School and the Navy’s Basic Underwater Demolition/Seals training (BUD/S) train officer and enlisted together and to a similar standard, but these are qualification schools for SOF, which has its own culture surrounding the relationship between officers and enlisted, and should not be compared to the Marine Corps infantry schools or even those of the Army which also holds infantry officers and enlisted to different standards.

While the Combat Endurance Test is only completed once in an infantry officer’s career, it is far from the only “one time offer.” For example, the Obstacle Course, standard across the Corps, is generally only required as a pass/fail event during initial training for officers at Officer Candidates School and The Basic School.  It is a test of endurance and agility meant to measure one’s ability to maneuver on the battlespace, particularly in an obstacle-heavy urban environment.  It is never run for score by the majority of enlisted marines. Moreover, the field and basic infantry skills training that allow all officers to act as provisional rifle platoon commanders if necessary rarely extends beyond the six months spent at The Basic School prior to specialty schools. Yet this training is seen as central to every officer’s ability to support the warfighter and to our fundamental belief that every marine is a rifleman first. The frequency with which training occurs should not be used as a measure of its merit.

Colonel Haring suggests returning to the previous standard of remediating the Combat Endurance Test over the course of IOC instead of having to recycle to the next class in order to allow women to continue in infantry training without delaying their other schools.  While lieutenants may previously have been able to remediate the CET, this is no longer the standard for infantry officers. Change is a long, slow process in the infamously obdurate Marine Corps, and generally when change happens, it is for good reason. Recently, lieutenants awaiting training at IOC have begun often months-long training in “Pre-IOC” where they are put through the rigors of what will be expected of them during the course and given ample time to build their strength and endurance prior to the CET. There is also no shortage of time to train, and marines with whom to train, during the previous six-month course for both males and females who wish to attempt IOC. All lieutenants are given a fair chance to be physically prepared for this test, the parameters of which are widely known in advance.

Nor is the Combat Endurance Test the only point of failure at which a marine can expect to have to repeat months of training, or to stand by in a holding pattern for that training to occur.  A friend and now outstanding marine officer completed almost all of OCS before failing to finish a climb up the rope at the end of the timed Obstacle Course, partly due to injury.  She had to wait to be re-selected by a board for OCS and complete the course a second time.  Others were dropped from my OCS platoon on the final hike and have since earned their commissions with later classes. This, more than being able to retake the test in a week or a month, is a true test of a marine’s dedication.  Requiring a marine officer to retake an entire course or wait for the next class is not an extraordinary or unusual request unique to IOC; it is standard.  This should not be changed solely to accommodate lieutenants’ schedules.

I acknowledge that IOC is undoubtedly harder now than it was in years past when it still produced exceptional infantry officers. And I will not argue with the idea that the CET is as much a rite of passage as an actual test of physical ability. The Marine Corps also has a habit of mistakenly conflating physical ability and professional competence.  (For an eloquent illustration, I direct you to this Terminal Lance strip.)  I have no doubt that many who fail the CET could have gone on, and in the case of many recycled lieutenants, do go on, to be outstanding infantry officers.  However, changing this rite of passage will be doing female marines no favors in trying to be infantry officers. Female marines often have to work much harder than their peers to earn the same respect, and entering the infantry under the dark cloud of even perceived lowered standards will make this a practically impossible challenge and potentially cause real harm to unit cohesion and the faith between leader and led. I firmly believe that female marines deserve to have the best opportunities and equal respect for the work we do, and I have high hopes for our changing role in combat and in the Corps. However, in trying to attain an ideal of equality, we must always hold our mission—to be prepared to fight and win battles—as the highest priority. If the Infantry Officer Course and its initial test are to be changed, it needs to be done first and foremost in service of that mission, with serious deliberation and in the spirit of improving the corps of infantry officers overall.

 

2ndLt J. Emma Stokien is a Marine Corps intelligence officer and a recent graduate of Georgetown University.  She is currently stationed in Okinawa, Japan with 3d Marine Division.  The views expressed are her own.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

42 thoughts on “The Mission Goes First: Female Marines and the Infantry”

  1. Lt. Stokien – thank you very much for expressing your views. Your clearheaded focus on the mission and the war-fighting capability of the Marine Corps is one that seems to go all-too-easily by the wayside in this discussion (a surprising and pernicious oversight in the wake of over a decade of war). A refreshing read.

  2. Several excellent points eloquently put.
    Thank you and good luck in your career, the Corps is lucky to have bright young officers like you to carry on the tradition.

  3. Excellent response to COL Haring’s article. She has written many articles requesting the standards be lowered for females who want to pursue a Combat Arms MOS. Your article is the best response so far.

    There is a reason the Marines are “The Few,the Proud.” Standards must not be compromised for political correctness. S/F

  4. Eloquent, articulate, and likely the best forumlated rebuttal I’ve seen thus far.

    Perhaps gratuitous, but a huge thank you from women like me who don’t believe in lowering standards to “meet standards.” Perhaps that makes me an outsider, but you called it: “Mission First.”

    V/R

  5. A Debate by Proxies
    In responses to my initial piece I admitted to receiving information about Marine IOC from currently serving Marines, men and women. How else would I, an Army reservist, have known so much about a sister Service and the intricacies of Infantry training if I had not been advised by Marines? Now there is a new piece by a brand new 2LT who surely has little experience in the Marine Corps and is unlikely to have garnered this much information about IOC through her Intelligence branch initial entry officer course. This has clearly become a debate by proxies which is an unfortunate testimony to the state of the Marine Corps. Why aren’t currently serving Marines who have experience and knowledge having this debate? The answer is that they are afraid. They are afraid that they will be identified with one position or the other and that the identification will have a long term impact on their careers. Men and women who have literally put their lives on the line, countless times, are afraid. Why? Why am I, an Army Colonel, debating a topic with a 2LT that should be debated openly, honestly and publicly by experienced Marines? Lest any Marine become offended and think that I am singling out the Marines; I am not. I think that this is a Service wide problem.

    1. Your third to last sentence comes across a little condescending Colonel but you do ask a good question; one that you too should answer. After all, what interest does a reservist Colonel in the Guard have with how another services chooses to train its people, more specifically a combat arms MOS such as the infantry? In fact I saw a lot of great questions posed by many responders that went left unanswered by you. I guess it’s easier to target the young 2ndLt though? Last but not least I remember many conversations between Marines regarding this subject when I was on AD and no one that I remember felt “afraid” to express a personal opinion. Of course, social media wasn’t quite in vogue yet (I’m dating myself now) and anything that went to publication was usually something related to current events or military history. With the current mandate for full integration of the services, now this debate is taking place in open forums much as any “hot topic of the day” has been in the past. The biggest difference today is how fast a subject can be taken to print and how large the audience has become.

    2. COL Haring: I am very disappointed in you. After I encouraged readers commenting on your piece to focus on the arguments rather than engage in ad hominem, you just went ahead and engaged in ad hominem and dismissed the Lt Stokien’s response based on your remote appraisal of her experience. I also resent the accusation that Lt Stokien is somehow a proxy for another actor. She is a female marine officer who has come into the Corps while these debates are at their peak. She has an informed opinion on it. She was at Quantico while a lot of this was happening. And as for your claim that experienced marines are somehow avoiding the debate, they have commented in great numbers on your own article, openly, honestly and publicly.

    3. Colonel Haring,

      This is not a forum in which any Marine can or should make a statement on behalf of the entire Marine Corps. This forum is not the place for anything other than personal opinions. Marine leadership is having the appropriate discussions in the proper forum.

      The personal attack you have submitted is weak, and you are not fostering an environment for logical discourse. Your response has made your bias known. You are more interested in perpetuating your cause instead of reason. You have also made it known that a Marine 2ndLt conceptualizes force readiness better than yourself, a Colonel in the Army.

      I find it disheartening that you indicate rank directly reflects knowledge. It is also a bold statement for one to claim they understand the intricacies of anything without experiencing it themselves.

      For background information, 2ndLt Stokien is currently serving at an infantry division intelligence shop. On a daily basis she has the benefit of working and engaging in intellectual discourse with experienced officers.

      BARNUM, MT

    4. In response to Col Haring’s comment to the 2nd Lt:
      There is a huge difference between the Lt and the Col in this instance. As the Col pointed out, the Lt has little experience due to the fact that she is new to the military and being an officer. Also, the Col is an advocate of the inclusion of women in the infantry for the sake of fairness where the Lt is in favor of how that affects the mission of the infantry and the ‘why’ behind it.
      I dont think that the Col can point to ANY facts that will support her arguments that women need to be in the infantry, much less the Marine Corps Infantry, where the Lt can point to common sense and pulling us all back to what we should be considering, the mission.
      As for the notion that there is a “war by proxy” going on with this topic because of “fear”. I think that there are reasons to support the latter. As ‘0331’alluded to, there is the general feeling that the infantry doesnt come out as a whole to speak out on these blogs because they know that their opinions are not going to matter. I would agree. This venue allows an idea to be advanced and then discussed, but youre not going to see a large movement via WOTR in order to sway opinion from the USMC Infantry. The point that unnamed posters come out to support the Lt and remain unnamed is for a good reason, though and I would say that there is ‘fear’ and for good reason.
      Right now, the level of political correctness in the military is through the roof. Not going along with the program and being a vocal dissenting opinion via blogs, letters or otherwise could reflect badly upon you and have repercussions that could effect your career. In the case of the Marine Infantry, you would be hard-pressed in a one-on-one conversation not to get an unvarnished answer. But in a public forum, we tend to be a little more conservative.
      I have mixed feelings on officers and enlisted members that use their names and ranks on these forums in order to talk about politically charged topics. I applaud the efforts to advance ideas, but my personal opinion is that you can do that without stamping your name to them, just for name’s sake.
      In any case, if the Col wants to discuss this topic, great. But misdirection by calling out the Lt based on her ‘newness’ to the organization or chiding commenter’s by saying that they are afraid by not advancing thier name or being involved directly is a non-starter.
      BTW, I know the Director of IOC would be more than happy to entertain any questions the Col has about the ‘why’ in the training Marine Infantry Officers. This is after the Col understands that this training is done in order to accomplish a specific mission — that the Lt has already explained.

    5. COL Haring, I disagreed with your initial article. I have mulled over the logic of women in the infantry, I have a daughter serving as an Army officer, I have the proud distinction to have served in combat with many outstanding female officers. I have also had extensive service serving as a forward observer in the light infantry and I’m simply convinced that introducing females into this tight-knit community of light infantry will have far more cons than pros. At the end of the day, the infantry is meant to close with and destroy the enemy, not provide society a platform for experimentation in gender neutral roles. At the end of the day, I’ll salute the flag-pole and support whatever the leadership says, but I won’t adopt an intellectually dishonest attitude.

      So I commend you in your response to the lieutenant’s article in having the fortitude to be honest and logical in your argument. I hadn’t considered the point as you presented it, but you’re absolutely correct. Neither of you is really qualified or positioned to have this argument on behalf of the USMC. A brave and self-depracating position to adopt. You’re a fine officer, and I mean that.

    6. Ma’am,

      Framing 2ndLt Stokien’s response to your article as some sort of “proxy” is both insulting and wrong. You assume that because her conclusions do not match yours she is being controlled by someone else. I work with Lt Stokien daily. She is intelligent, analytical, possessed of integrity and entirely capable of doing her own analyis. To suggest without evidence that she is merely a front for the opinions of her seniors is insult to her, and accuses me, and her other leaders, of cowardice. I take offense at this accusation. I commend 2ndLt Stokien for her initiave, but the truth is neither I nor any other officer in 3d Marine Division tasked, directed, edited or approved the article.
      You claim to have received information about Marine Officer training, yet fail to recognize that The Basic School is the same course for all Marine Officers – combat arms and combat service support. Lt Stokien has received six months of basic infantry officer training while the Marine Corps was developing it’s plan for integration. Only later did she attend intelligence officer training. Based on her recent experience in this environment, she is better qualified than most to comment on the rigors of the training. She confines her assessment to the topics she is qualified to assess, and then uses sound reasoning to predict consequences of getting integration wrong.
      I respectfully recommend you take a look at your own biases, measure experience by relevant yardsticks, and refrain from ad hominem attacks on people with valid experience. If you see an error in her analysis, great, but personal attacks on the Lt and her leaders are uncalled for and bring nothing to the debate.

      B. R. Tattersall
      Maj, USMC
      3d Marine Division, G-2 Operations

    7. Colonel Haring, your notion that a 2ndLt can’t form a reasonable and/or valuable conclusion because he/she lacks experience is an unfortunate delusion often held by senior officers. 2ndLt Stokien graduated from The Basic School within the past year and received the same understanding that 2ndLt Santangelo (author of the infamous Op-Ed about failing IOC) received of what was to be expected should she attempt IOC. As a recent graduate, 2ndLt Stokien’s testimony is an extremely valuable perspective in this ongoing debate since she is very familiar with the training that all female Marines (AND male marines) endure prior to attempting the Combat Endurance Test. I believe that 2ndLt Stokien’s advocacy for maintaining current standards is due to her realization that there is nearly complete uniformity between male and female training in preparation for the CET. The ONLY difference in training between males and females in the 6-8 months prior (depending on the wait between TBS and the start of IOC) is the standard to which females must meet on the graded physical events such as the obstacle course, endurance course, PFT, and CFT. Despite what 2ndLt Santangelo may have claimed, I guarantee that no Marine has ever suggested that females limit themselves to train only to the published female requirements.

      Again, my point is that 2ndLt Stokien is forming her conclusions based off the fact that she was just exposed to the training leading up to IOC, present at Camp Barrett at MCB Quantico while this debate/study was taking place, and also has numerous friends that have recently succeeded and failed at IOC. Yet your logic is that because she wears gold bars on her collar, her opinion should be rendered invalid? Furthermore, your decision to write your own opinion editorial because you “received information from other Marines” indicates that you believe YOUR experience renders your opinion legitimate, correct?

  6. I commented on the Colonel’s article. I really didn’t even go that deep into my opinion, just pointed out some facts based on my own experience. Since everyone has thrown it out there, I deployed twice to OEF as a machine gunner and squad leader with a standard weapons platoon. I was never an officer, just a dumb grunt.

    Col Haring I respect anyone’s opinion. If you really want to go to experience, ask infantry officers in the rank of Captain and below, or squad leaders and platoon sergeants. I could easily say you’re a POG, and Lt Stokien is a boot POG (sorry ma’am, couldn’t resist), and discount your opinions. I don’t do that because that’s, well, unproductive.

    As for the opinion of Marines – nobody ever asks Infantry Marines. The reason is probably that 98-99% of infantry Marines don’t support it.
    I have my own reasons for not wanting females in line companies, and have given them before. I got called a sexist along with the usual insults. Then it hit me that my opinion really doesn’t matter. I served with a lot of fellow infantrymen during my time in, and have never met a single one that thinks this policy is a good idea that will make us more effective at killing the enemy. You have to understand that as grunts, we recognize that our opinions on a policy from the DoD simply doesn’t matter. We just have to figure out a way to implement it while keeping as many of us alive as possible.

    There is more to this than the CET, ladies and gents. It’s a couple of days of misery to simulate combat conditions, but no training event will come close. A bad infantry deployment leaves mental scars that are impossible to get over. The cliche that ‘war is hell’ doesn’t even begin to describe it. Losing friends, having 10 year old kids with AKs shooting at you….trust me when I say that you don’t want any part of it. I’d give it all up to bring everyone back in a heartbeat, but it doesn’t work that way. A social experiment that makes us less effective at doing our jobs is morally wrong.

    Lt Stokien – I wish there were more officers like you. You seem to have the qualities I’d want in an officer, in addition to already grasping the ‘big picture’. Just please remember to capitalize Marines.

    S/F

    1. Former0331,

      If I recall correctly, a survey went out to a large portion of the Marine Corps, junior enlisted included, on whether or not women should be allowed in the infantry and it was met with a predictable lack of enthusiasm. I have no idea whose desk drawer that got buried in, or if it actually came to anything.

      I wholeheartedly agree that the discussion on whether or we should have female 0302s needs to be focused on combat, not on a Combat Endurance Test. It is absurdly myopic to do otherwise. I alluded to this in my last paragraph, but as I am absolutely a boot POG, I have no real basis on which to assess the importance of officer training to leadership in war, and I thank you for providing your more experienced insight. (I felt more confident commenting on IOC and the CET as during my six months at The Basic School, I and my fellow female lieutenants partook in regular mandatory discussions on attempting IOC with our leadership and those overseeing testing; I trained alongside many of those, male and female, who were bound for IOC; and I have had close friends and the majority of my colleagues go through the course.) I direct readers to comments by you, “Marine Infantry Officer”, “Jay”, “John”, “Think about this…”, “Lost Boys”, “thomas”, and “0302” on the original article by Col Haring for an eloquent discussion of this point on officers in combat, particularly “0302”’s quote from the director of IOC.

      I assure you I do not think of myself as an outstanding officer; I just have a good grasp of reason and a strong appreciation of the Marine Corps ethos. And rest assured, Former0331, first thing this morning I got a lecture from my major on why we always capitalize “Marines” (it is, however, WOTR standard to not capitalize it).

      S/F Lt Stokien

      1. Lt Stokien,

        That survey came out just as I was getting out. I was on terminal leave if I remember correctly, and didn’t even bother with it (it was on MOL). I always found it interesting that these ‘anonymous’ surveys the Marine Corps sends out require either a CAC or MOL login. HQMC kept the results from the public, and one can only guess why.

        I appreciate your experience with what’s going on at the IOC trials. I went through Machine Gun Leader’s Course, which was more knowledge than ‘gut checks’. The closest course enlisted Marines have to IOC is IULC (Infantry Unit Leader’s Course) which is for SSgts when they get the MOS 0369. I’ve heard it’s very similar to IOC, which would make sense.

        I have some friends that are still in, some of which are combat instructors at SOI-East. There are plenty of issues on the enlisted side as well. In fact, the issues there are magnified. Keep in mind that a training environment (IOC, SOI, whatever) is ‘controlled’. Life in a victor unit is a different animal. Also, SOI is pretty dang hard to fail. I knew guys that finished the 11s course that probably don’t even know how to read.

        Hazing is a huge ‘problem’ in line companies. Being a boot infantryman is miserable, and this is where the cultural issues of integrating the infantry will manifest themselves. I recognize that you’re an officer and officially (and personally) probably wouldn’t approve of what goes on. For what it’s worth, I never took part in the stupid games when I was a squad leader. I didn’t make anyone do something that didn’t have a learning objective. Having said that, I also recognize that it’s so ingrained in grunt culture that changing it would be like changing the concept of ‘every Marine a rifleman’. Some of the worst offenders for that were money in a firefight.

        To put it bluntly, junior enlisted infantry Marines are a bunch of alcoholics who hate their lives. We spent most days in garrison doing absolutely nothing, and some of the things that go on in the barracks are….disturbing to this day. I really hate to say it, but putting 1 or 2 females in a rifle company is just asking for trouble. The simple fact is that men act differently around women, especially when it’s 1 woman surrounded by 100 men.

        The bottom line is that I could sit here and point out the problems with integration, but I still haven’t heard a convincing argument as to how it makes the infantry ‘better’.

        I’m glad this site has some adult conversations about this topic. These discussions usually end up with one side doing a bunch of woman bashing, and the other ‘I am woman, hear me roar’ side.

        If you have any questions on the enlisted side, I can try to answer them. I’ve only been out for 2.5 years, so I’m still fairly current with what’s going on. In many ways, some things never change. Whether they support your argument one way or another, I just make a point to try to be honest.

        1. Former0331,

          I would hazard to guess MOL/CAC login is more for “quality control” among responses rather than potentially punitive. I’d also posit that while the results of this and similar surveys are not bandied about in the media by our fightin’ PAOs, this does not mean that they are not being discussed in the appropriate forums to which commenter “BARNUM, MT” refers. I suppose I am recommending faith in our highers that the all of the pertinent information is being fully evaluated, even if not publicly discussed.

          I had the very good fortune of being friends with several former, current, and future enlisted grunts during my time at school, so I have a bit of a window into that perspective (and you can’t beat tapping into the LCpl Underground). I personally wouldn’t have even become a Marine without their guidance. I know I am far from the only officer who values such opinions, and I’m sure I am one of the least important.

          Again, thank you for your experienced contributions to this discussion.

          S/F, Lt Stokien

      2. LT Stokien, my sincerest apologies if you were offended. It was never, ever my intent to insult or diminish you in any way. I have been a longtime advocate for all service women, even those who I do not agree with and I am especially interested in the welfare of young, junior officers. My own daughter is a currently serving junior officer who hails from Georgetown’s Hoya Bn. I very inarticulately tried to make a point that has been taken out of context by many readers and perhaps by you as well. The point of my post was to get people with first-hand knowledge of the training standards and what I believe is an initiation rite to weigh in on the conversation. A few have but most have not. Anyway, I’m glad that we sparked a conversation together.

        1. Ma’am,

          I assure you I took no offense at your comment. I suspect many of those who recently completed IOC do not speak up about their experiences for one of two reasons: 1. Many of these officers do not feel the need to make their opinions known in the media, which, as commenter “BARNUM, MT” correctly notes, is far from the most important place this conversation is being had. These officers’ opinions, while valid, will not somehow be made more so or carry more weight with decision-makers by being shared with the American public, rather than being discussed in-house. 2. As a secondary matter, lieutenants at IOC and graduates thereof are not actually supposed to speak with any sort of specificity on their experience at the course. Much of the training benefit of IOC comes from the unknown factors, the “fog of war”, which necessitates that the curriculum and requirements remain as much of a mystery as possible to future classes. Of course, much of this information has been published and discussed, particularly as the course has gained increasing attention, and standardization, as a testing ground; however, lieutenants are still expected to limit what they say for the sake of the integrity of the course.

          Most importantly, I assure you that none of the recent IOC attendants with whom I have spoken (as friends and colleagues, not a formal poll), sees the CET as more of a rite of passage than a useful training and evaluation tool. They all have had cogent arguments to support their opinions, all of which have already been eloquently captured by Maj Scott Cuomo as director of IOC.

          Hoya Saxa to your daughter.

          v/r
          Lt Stokien

        2. I would like to note that if there is anything I know about the Marine Corps, the cause of junior officers’ reluctance to join the debate sure as hell ain’t fear.

  7. First Col Haring, the reason you correctly identified this as a “debate by proxies” is that you are an outsider and as such have absolutely no 1st hand experience as a Marine and that alone says volumes.

    Secondly, I would think that you as an Army officer would be more interested in asking the question why there are not opportunities in the Army for females to train or test as infantry officers and soldiers instead of the looking at the failing of the Marines to train the way you think they should or modify what they have found to be successful. After all, the Army of the Republic has infantry, they have Rangers, they have Special Operations, all of which you could target for your comments and as an Army officer wear the same uniform even if the badges are different might have more influence.

    Thirdly, you ask why currently serving Marine are not having this debate and that they are scared to wade in. Again, you really have no clue about Marines. What the real answer is I really don’t know, but I can assure you, fear is not it. Based on my 20+ years in the Corps, things that happen in D.C. are far removed from the “Fleet”. I never recall voting for a position the Corps was looking at taking and in the “Fleet” we were more concerned with doing our jobs, than the politics. Do we bitch? Absolutely and if it was loud enough our officers (more importantly our SNCO’s) took notice and let the commanders know about it. Do we write letters to the editor or the Commandant about how we just got screwed because of some rule or how we failed the test and got dropped? No.

    Col Haring, Why don’t you just go and try to fix the Army is you perceive that there is an issue and leave the Corps to Marines. We’ve done a fairly good job so far.

  8. You can all blast the Colonel and attack her personally (engaging in exactly what you accuse her of), but you are missing her point.

    “They are afraid that they will be identified with one position or the other and that the identification will have a long term impact on their careers.”

    As a Navy Lieutenant, I have seen enough to know that the above statement is true. Far too many officers withold their opinion at the wardroom table or keep their mouths shut in the ready room. Just yesterday a LTJG SWO was telling me in private his opinion of the officer corps and how far too many quality people leave as soon as their commmitment is up, thus leaving only those who cannot succeed in the real world. Those who, unfortunately, are just in it for the retirement. An unrelated issue to this article, perhaps, but the point is clear. The Colonel is right. Good officers have been trained through hazing and retribution to keep their damn mouths shut. And it’s a pity.

    Is there not a Gunny or a Master Chief somewhere who falls out of his seat when he reads things like this from a 2LT?

    “This contributes to our ability to serve our enlisted marines, which is one of the values in which marine officers take the most pride and, in my experience, we do better than those of any other branch.”

    I, too, was naive when I was an Ensign. I cringe when I hear brand new officers say “in my experience.” What experience? In what experience has she seen me take care of my Sailors? Has she seen me do the dishes so the FSA’s have a day off? Has she seen me dig through weeks of trash to help a Sailor find a lost uniform? Has she seen me sit on the fantail in the middle of the Pacific mentoring a Sailor whose wife has just sent him a Dear John letter?

    No. She hasn’t.

    In my humble experience, O-1’s don’t know very much, but I applaud her courage to speak out in public. There are people far senior to her who are, as the good Colonel put it, too afraid to speak out.

    That is the root of the problem.

    1. Nobody is “missing” her point. Her point is irrelevant to the substance of the debate. It’s essentially, “Pfft, you all are a bunch of babies! I think you should be blaring your opinions, under your real names, in blog posts and comments! And I will conveniently ignore all critiques.” There are non-fear-based professional reasons for not sharing rank (like actually trying to have an open discussion environment where there is no deference based simply on rank or perceived experiences). And even if everyone not using their name was “afraid” of the professional repercussions, it’s (at best) subject-changing to attack the character of the writer rather than the substance of what is written.

      And then, as though to present an exercise in missing the point, you take exception with 2ndLt Stokien’s particular service pride. She is responding to Haring’s article, in which Haring claims the only major difference between officers and enlisted is education. Taking care of the troops, inspiring the troops, etc., apparently doesn’t really factor into it. Perhaps some of your ire should be directed at Haring.

  9. COL Haring,

    By your logic, you have no basis to begin discussing Marine Corps training. You have little firsthand knowledge of the Marine Corps, the infantry, and the ‘research’ that you’ve done appears to be quite limited given the sheer number of rebuttals on your original piece concerning several technical and service-related issues concerning combat arms training.

    Your comment comes off as an ad hominem attack – a logical fallacy – that fails to address the analytical methodology employed by Lt Stokien, who rightly notes that this is a question of mission, and an organization’s capacity to excel at that mission, not individual rights. Given your rank, experience, and other writings, I would certainly expect that you’re capable of a more constructive and informed rebuttal.

    By employing your rank, you will certainly estrange those to whom you appeal – the folks that are actually affected by such changes (the E-1 to O-5 realm in the active-duty Marine Corps) and who will likely eventually be directly responsible for implementing such changes, if they should occur. Your analysis should stand on its own – and not need a prop, such as your rank and so-called research (given your erroneous claims about BUD/S and Ranger School, not to mention IOC, all of which veer well off the mark, I doubt there was much rigor employed in finding out the ground truth experiences of officers attending such training).

    Your use of rank and position to validate your perspective also fails in that I sincerely doubt that your perspective is consistently shared by the other members of your service with the same rank and experience. As a result, your opinion really falls into the realm of being a personal one, informed potentially by professional experiences, but still uniquely yours. If you think your rank has a place in this discussion, so be it – but you’re going to find an incredibly small audience that gives a hoot that you’re an Army reserve colonel, and probably a smaller one still that believes that gives you any analytical credibility when it comes to gender, warfare, and leadership.

  10. Good discussion, worthwhile subject. Clearly showing that it takes more than just muscle power to be a good Marine. Greetings from The Netherlands, where the Marine Corps is for men only.

  11. Lt. Stokien,
    Eloquently written and a good topic of thoughtful discussion. Emphasis on thoughtful, which isn’t necessarily dependent upon the depth of one’s experience. PS: congrats on Okinawa as your (presumably) first duty station. I hope you find it as rewarding as an experience as I did. S/F

  13. What Colonel Haring is missing from her current and previous articles is, infantry is not always about minimums – but maximums. The IOC designed to weed-out the weak that can’t perform at the maximum level. This is the same for BUD/S, Force Recon, SWCC, Rangers/RASP, PJ’s, MARSOC, Special Forces, etc. “Nothing personal, just business.”

    Colonel Haring’s rational is infantry should lower standards to minimums so females can qualify. This denotes that females will never reach their full potential to become capable future Operators or leaders because they will always perform at the minimum level and/or be given a pass.

    If enlisted infantry Soldiers/Marines knew that their female Officers and NCO’s/SNCO’s did not pass the advanced Combat Arms training courses with maximums and/or were given a pass (i.e., IOC, Ranger, AIBT, etc.), how would they ever get respect?

    If she is a true advocate for women in Combat Arms, why not include Special Forces/Operations in a in-depth discussion on why it is unfair to exclude females, instead of the IOC where she is, obviously, not a SME; however, paints 2ndLt J. Emma Stokien as a “Proxy” – who is a Marine.

    The reason Colonel Haring does not go into detail on these MOS’ is because she knows that a majority of females will never qualify unless the standards are lowered. I am pretty sure she will get a heated response from the Special Forces/Operations community if she crossed that bridge. Also, I am sure the JCOS are not willing to touch this one.

    Her main agenda is to advocate lowering standards for females in infantry is to give them a foot in door to rank and pad their 201 file – that is all, disregarding National Security implications.

    Personally, I don’t believe there is a problem with the current promotion system for females being promoted to Field Grade and Flag Officers.

    Excellent article 2ndLt J. Emma Stokien!

    S/F

  14. As a DoD civilian, I can claim even less practical experience than most here. But as a woman, I have a problem with the concept of a test being “dumbed down” for me. I don’t see that attitude DoD-wide, and I’ve never seen it in the programs where I guest instruct for military members. So why is there such a push for it in infantry?

  16. More of the same from the Lt. Colonel. Nobody is going to hump your pack for you Lt. Colonel when you can’t pull your own weight. Good argument from the 2nd LT – it is ALL about the mission. Glad your Major had a talk with you about capitalization.

  17. To: Army Haring

    There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines and the enemy. Everyone else has a second-hand opinion.
    Gen. William Thornson, U.S. Army

  18. Well said Emma. The Corps is feeling out this female infantry thing methodically. However, the Corps cannot afford to let female officers stay in the training pipeline forever for the sake of an experiment. They joined to be Marine Officers in order to lead Marines. This is expected regardless of MOS. Many officers who want to be in the infantry don’t get the chance to even attend IOC because of the MOS assignment process at TBS. So I think the fact that any female officer who wishes is given the opportunity to give IOC a shot is more than fair. If they want it bad enough, they will prepare appropriately. Furthermore, the fact of the matter is that the CET is more about testing one’s will and mental toughness than it is about an occupational standard. How badly do they want it, and how much pain are they willing to take to get it? No infantryman wants an officer who doesn’t want the job. And therein lies part of the problem. Please correct me if I am wrong here Emma, but I don’t think any of the females who attended IOC had any real expectation that if they passed they would go on to be infantry officers.

    I don’t see any reason why at least a small percentage of females can’t pass IOC. When a female officer enters the Corps with the goal of attending IOC in order to lead infantry Marines into combat, instead of attending is as some sort of personal challenge, you will then most likely see your first females to pass IOC. For now, it doesn’t make sense to keep them from their most basic task to lead Marines.

  19. Seems to me that many commenters are missing the main points of both the lieutenant and the colonel.

    1. COL Haring does not, in her article, advocate for a lowering of standards. Nor does she, in her response to Lt Stokien, diminish her or try to pull rank on her. She simply says that both she and the lieutenant’s opinions are based more on others’ experiences and knowledge than on their own.

    2. Lt Stokien does not say IOC or the infantry should not be open to women. The positions of the two writers are remarkably similar – that standards should not be lowered and that women should be allowed to compete alongside men at IOC.

    Let’s take the focus off the ranks and services of the authors and stick to the topic. Commenters who attack the authors based on their rank or MOS or branch of service would not be doing so if the authors’ views mirrored their own.

    Also, to argue that women should not be in the infantry because, since they have never been in the infantry, their arguments are invalid because not drawn from personal experience is a catch-22. Yet it’s one of the most cited arguments out there.

    Further, to say that men have always protected women and that to go against that is unnatural is to buy into a romanticized and unfortunately false view of history. See http://www.history.com/news/women-and-children-first-on-sinking-ships-its-every-man-for-himself
    And if men were so naturally inclined to protect women, I doubt we’d see the levels of violence against women that we have here at home.

    And a final note: I am glad Lt Stokien has the opportunity to serve as an Intel Officer in an Infantry Division. In my day, those billets were not open to women.

    The women who speak out and question the status quo are often ostracized, mocked, shunned, and shamed – most often called careerist, selfish, or, worst of all, FEMINIST. If it weren’t for their courage to speak their minds despite the fallout, the next generation wouldn’t have the opportunities they now enjoy. I hope the newest generations of women warriors don’t forget those who came before them and who paved the way, often at great personal expense.

    1. If you re-read the articles, you’ll see it was the Col that attacked the Lt, not the commenters. We were standing up for the Lt, and not because I agree with her either.

      Experience in the infantry is important if you are going to try to give an opinion on a change such as this. It would be like me (a grunt) giving my opinion on who should go to flight school. I don’t even give my opinion on other Combat Arms fields. I’ve never served in the Artillery or Tanker field, so why would they care what I thought about females in tanks or as gun bunnies?

      If someone really wants to make an effective argument for integrating the infantry, attack it the same way you do anything else – show us how integrating the infantry will make the Marine Corps more effective at killing the enemy. Show me the BENEFITS of it instead of nitpicking how we train. This isn’t directed at you, specifically, it’s for everyone.

  20. @Marine Vet, COL Haring has advocated lowering standards in previous articles. Nothing new. Reference the below link:

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/12/army-colonel-physical-strength-not-end-all-be-all/

    In reference to males protecting women in combat, it not as you stated -“Romanticized.” The IDF prohibits females infantry soldiers from serving in direct combat roles because of this issue.
    They were banned in 1950 because IDF male soldiers abandoned their objectives to protect them; enemy soldiers fought to the death to eliminate them.

    Female IDF infantry mainly perform garrison and border patrol duty; the OKETZ female commandos are dog handlers – only.

    S/F

      1. COL Haring, I apologize for not posting the original link to your article. There was, at one point, a hyperlink to your article from the Washington Times article that many of us read and disagreed with.

        You stated in your article below:

        “If the commandant of the Marine Corps wants to keep women out by establishing nearly insurmountable barriers that rely on antiquated notions of strength as the basis of warrior competence, then the Corps will continue to cede soldiers like Audie Murphy to the Army. And if the Army follows suit, we may not get such troopers.”

        Are you not stating that standards should be lowered for the IOC because females can not succeed because of “insurmountable barriers?”

        Also, did you not compare Audie Murphy who was awarded the MOH (and other valor decorations) to a female soldier/Marine?

        Maybe I am missing something here?

        1. “This is belied by our less-than-optimal performances in many instances during the past 12 years. Fixating on physical standards is a tactical-level approach that misses a strategic-level opportunity.”

          I’m curious what these ‘less than optimal performances’ are..

        2. Marine 75,
          I’m not comparing Audie Murphy to a male or a female Marine. The simple fact is that you all rejected him when he tried to enlist in the Marine Corps. At 5’5″ and just 110 lbs you thought he was too small to be a Marine. The point of using the Audie Murphy analogy was that judging an individual’s capabilities based only on physical evaluations like relative size and strength is a mistake. Audie Murphy is the single most decorated American war hero but the Marines didn’t even let him through the door. You had erected a barrier that eliminated a supremely capable combatant. This gets to the point, which I thought was clear in the original article, about erecting artificial barriers that screen out potentially great combatants, male or female.

  21. COL Haring, below are a couple of quotes from your article comparing Audie Murphy to a female. I have no doubt(in which you stated, “none of the important qualities that Murphy possessed: endurance and strength”) would have completed the IOC “insurmountable barriers” due to his determination, courage, endurance,and strength; most of of all – testosterone, which women do not possess an high abundance of.

    Please read the details of Mr. Murphy’s citations before making the assumptions that he did not possess these attributes.

    BLUF, I am pretty sure there is a female out there that can complete the IOC; however, there are more men of Mr. Murphy’s statue/size who would complete it and not wash out at such a high percentage.

    COL Haring quotes:

    “The first phase of the Marine Corps’ IOC consists of a timed, endurance- and strength-based obstacle course. A large percentage of candidates, including three of the four women who have attempted the course, wash out in this phase. We can’t be sure, but odds are that Murphy would have washed out here, as well. An obstacle course that relies on physical prowess tests none of the important qualities that Murphy possessed.”

    ” It is highly probable that Murphy would not have made it through the Marine Corps infantry officer course today.”

  22. Audie Murphy was rejected(by all the services initially)mainly because he was underage.

    It was only after he falsified his birth certificates that he was able to get admittance into the army.

    Whatever physical shortcomings Murphy may have possessed; he still passed basic training and advance infantry training at Fort Meade. Physical fitness standards, at the time, were anything but lax for the infantry.

    By the time Murphy made it to Europe(2 years after his initial rejections), Murphy was hardly a weakling. He wasn’t 5’5 and 110 lbs when he actually fought.