Earlier this year, I spoke with a roomful of field grade officers about the debate and controversy over women in combat. The officers knew my position. What was next to impossible for me to discern, however, was where most of them are when it comes to this topic — which is the challenge with trying to have an open debate about it. The topic is just too politically charged for opponents to feel they can speak openly or honestly.
Officers who balk at the idea of women serving in ground infantry units or on Special Forces Operational Detachments Alpha (ODAs) won’t publicly say so, let alone publicly explain why. They worry about retaliation that could hurt their careers. In contrast, those who have no reservations — usually because they won’t be the ones who have to deal with the fallout from integration at the small unit level — slough off the challenge as just another minor problem or “ankle biter.”
There is more to this dichotomy than just officers’ career concerns, however. As one member of the audience put it, even if special operations forces and Marine Corps brass are prepared to go to Capitol Hill armed with irrefutable logic and unimpeachable facts against integrating women into ground combat units, they will still come across as chauvinists. For any male who opposes full integration, the chauvinist charge is impossible to escape.
I am sure there is something to this; and if I were a male, the chauvinism charge might mortally wound me as well. Maybe knowing in advance that this is how I would be branded would cause me to fight only on grounds of proponents’ choosing. For example, I could use standards and measurable data — as if there is some scientific way to determine what the right ratios and formulae are to prevent anything untoward happening when young men and women are put together in the field for indeterminate lengths of time.
But fortunately, since I am not a male and have already been accused of being a reactionary, and thus have no need to worry about seeming to be politically correct, let me point to something else lurking in the gulf between those who don’t speak up and those who are okay with the lifting of the combat exclusion ban: a reality gap. On the one hand, there is what those who don’t speak up know. On the other, there is what those who see no problems only assume.
What do I mean? Those who oppose the integration of women into small ground combat units or onto ODAs have had at least one, and often multiple, bad experiences with gender dynamics when deployed. This includes women and not just men. Often these bad experiences occurred on staffs or in support positions, or in settings where the sheer number of other people helped prevent the effects from affecting the entire unit.
The public doesn’t hear much about this for understandable reasons. But there have also been instances of small units being torn asunder in the field.
Already, I can hear three objections to my suggestion that we examine the record of what already occurs. The first objection will be that any unit that falls apart due to boy-girl problems must have had issues to begin with, to include poor leadership. This is an easy presumption to make when you know none of the particulars (a point to which I will return).
The second objection will be that I am introducing a red herring. Men and women need to be trained together; you can’t just thrust them together downrange. If they train together they bond more familially. They become protective of rather than predatory on one another (not that protectiveness doesn’t raise its own set of concerns). When men and women train together stateside, commanders and senior NCOs can also assess the unit for its professionalism before it is ever deployed.
But my response: other relevant data from training also exists. What is the evidence from boot camp on? Maybe proponents are correct, and training together does leach out all sexual or romantic interest, and cross-gender tensions or relationships never surface thereafter. For instance, maybe no couples form after men and women find themselves serving together in the same unit. What does the record show?
Or, to return to a topic that always comes up: what happens to familial bonds in a unit when a woman gets pregnant and can’t deploy? What happens when a woman deploys and gets pregnant downrange? What good does all that prior training and gelling do then? Maybe proponents have an answer to this. As it is, they contend that whenever anyone — man or woman — needs to be replaced, that causes the dynamic to reset. To which it is hard not to want to respond: if you want to ignore the fact that gender introduces its own unique dynamic among sexually active adults then you must similarly believe the military’s sexual assault figures are fabrications as well. Proponents can’t have it both ways.
Finally, the third likely objection to examining what already goes on between men and women is that I am invoking anecdotal data, which isn’t really data. In many social scientists’ view, people’s personal experiences amount to nothing more than anecdata, which is their dismissive term for first-person accounts.
But should thinking you have captured reality simply because you quantify some aspects of what you see really be permitted to trump verifiable history? Do we really want to pretend that because the Table of Organization & Equipment (TO&E) says every ODA is structured the same, with two medics, two weapons sergeants, two engineers, etc. that each team will end up with the same inter-personal chemistry, or that the chemistry on any one team will be reproducible on others? While units may have identical structures, the military has never been able to control for inter-personal dynamics.
It is too bad that someone with the time and the technical wherewithal did not begin collecting first-person verifiable accounts when this debate resurfaced more than a decade ago. It is also a shame that no one required the services to set up a website to do so. We probably shouldn’t be surprised that, between impossible budgets and political sensitivities, neither the Army nor the Marine Corps is now stepping forward to do this or to expose their dirty laundry. However, this is precisely the kind of information that needs to be aired.
For instance, what happened when all-female Combat Support Teams were sent out to Special Forces ODAs? Was the physician who told me in Afghanistan that, and I quote, “they’re fucking their eyes out,” exaggerating? Several former team leaders I know remain grateful they were sent females who could search and interact with Afghan women; their teams experienced no problems with American women living on their camps. It could be that firm leadership did make all the difference, and maybe no teams were torn apart.
But what are the actual facts? And if teams did unravel, why did they do so?
Where’s the data is the question I want to drive home, along with the broader point that evidentiary accounts add up to data.
Plenty of evidence about the downstream costs of “workplace” romances, never mind Thanatos-meets-Eros misbehavior, exists. (For a case in point regarding just how far it is possible to go astray, I recommend Ann Scott Tyson’s American Spartan.) The problem is that none of this evidence has been systematically collected. It now needs to be — for two reasons. First, so that the “anecdata” accusation can be put to rest. And second, so that retrospective real world data can be weighed against the prospective data being gleaned by the training experiments underway. After all, whatever is to be learned from comparing across two or three units being trained under experimental conditions seems no better a proxy for what might occur downrange than what soldiers and Marines (or sailors) have already seen occur.
Meanwhile, for anyone who suspects that eyewitness reports are too easy to manipulate or manufacture, there should be paper (or email) trails for investigations into misbehavior, particularly when personnel have had to be reassigned. All of this could be made public, with personally identifiable information redacted.
At the same time, there should be a way to count “man-hours” lost to investigations, disciplinary actions, and so on when it comes to sexual assaults, fraternization, and other gender-related issues. But in addition to collecting numbers to satisfy current cravings for quantitative data, we also shouldn’t overlook the power of the particular. Rivalry, jealousy, overprotection, favoritism, disdain, and/or abuse and love or lust generate plenty of drama, particularly when the emotional trauma that results ripples well beyond the small unit to the rest of the company or to families back home. The phrase “the power of the story” has been thrown around for well over a decade. Well then, let’s hear first person accounts.
Recently, the Center for National Policy and the Truman National Security Project announced “No Exceptions,” a campaign to “leverage the power of a nationwide community of post-9/11 combat veterans, allied organizations, and supporters like retired military leaders to raise public awareness, reshape the national conversation about women in combat, and influence policymakers.” Its objective is, clearly, to win the political war. But to do so, what will these advocates also do? Make it impossible for the sergeants, as well as lieutenants and captains, whose responsibility it will be to have to implement this policy on the ground, to argue back. By virtue of being in uniform, those who will be most affected and those with the most practical experience with this contentious issue can’t publicly push back.
I don’t mean to suggest that all sergeants, any more than all lieutenants or captains, oppose the idea of integrated units. But a lot do.
Meanwhile, because proponents like to accuse opponents of suffering from some kind of atavistic/preserve-the-boy’s-club fear, opponents need to demonstrate that fearing the unknown is not the issue. Instead, knowing what will happen is the issue because it has happened and is happening.
Of course, as I’ve said before, this entire debate should center around what would improve, or at least not jeopardize, a ground combat unit’s combat effectiveness. Particularly now, when none of our allies can do much of anything on the ground without us. Even a debate about equities and who is owed what when it comes to voluntary service would be preferable. But until the “data” is in, data seems to be where we are stuck. So, may the collecting of all the data finally begin.
Anna Simons is a Professor of Defense Analysis at the Naval Postgraduate School. She is the author of Networks of Dissolution: Somalia Undone and The Company They Keep: Life Inside the U.S. Army Special Forces, and is most recently the co-author of The Sovereignty Solution: A Commonsense Approach to Global Security. The views expressed are the author’s and do not reflect those of the Department of Defense, the U.S. Navy, or the Naval Postgraduate School.
Photo credit: The U.S. Army
Pave Low John 
strategicservice 
Jay Reardon 
Ranger Rick 
Jim 
Thunder 7 
ADM64 
Phil 
John Jackson 
John Brayshaw 
Mac Mahmood 
MM 
11b 
ilhan 
Madhu 
Jon 
Mark T 
Jonathan David 
RS 
Surfer Girl 
Herkbloke 
TheRaiderStrategist 
Bob Quinter 
No one is going to collect any accurate data on men and women in military units. They know what they’re going to find, it’s the worst kept secret in the DoD. I’ve flown in both types of units (male-only and units with men and women) as a helicopter pilot and there is no comparison, the male-only units were vastly more effective and cohesive. Mixed-gender units are a mess of internal bickering and sexual disciplinary problems. This isn’t a guess, this is what I saw with my own eyes.
Besides, this ship has sailed already. Women are going to be forced into Infantry and Special Operations units and no one outside those units gives a damn if anyone gets killed or maimed as an end result. The guys at the pointy end care, of course, but no one is listening to them. The decisions have already been made, and no one in the DoD is going to risk their career, which they value more than anything in the universe, to voice any solid objections. Look at how much of a fight the generals put up over openly homosexual troops in the ranks. If the President and Congress instituted a rule mandating at least a 20% female presence in all combat units, there isn’t one general or admiral who would resign in protest. Not one.
Someday, the U.S. will fight, and possibly lose, a big war and suffer massive casualties. It will be horrific and humiliating but it will happen. Only then will the age-old lessons on how to build combat effective units of fighting men be re-instated. Quite frankly, the only reason all of this is being done as quickly as it is because it hasn’t had an immediate negative effect. We’ve been fighting small wars so long that we think Iraq and Afghanistan were real wars. A “real” war is coming, though, and no one, much less women, is going to be clamoring to be in the infantry when the full fury of modern warfare becomes obvious to everyone. Hopefully I’ll be dead and not have to witness that, but with the way things are going these days, I may be around to see it all fall apart…
Well said. If I could add one thing, it’d be that in the eyes of many officials within our government, military force is either not ethical or not useful for achieving political objectives in the manner of Clausewitz, so the better alternative is to use the military to achieve policy objectives. What better way to demonstrate your commitment to LGBT rights than use your authority as a civilian in control of the military to dictate that the military must allow enforce full equality for transgender soldiers, for example?
What is the difference between “political objectives” and “policy objectives”? Your post makes no sense.
PLJ, you’re spot on. I’ve been saying the same thing for years now, when a real ground war comes and they always do, and we can’t dominate the air, the lessons relearned will be most unpleasant. Its a pity that those so enthusiastic for combat integration won’t be experiencing it themselves.
As a grunt, I wholeheartedly with Ms Simons and Pavelow John’s sentiments. Y’all hit the nail on the head!
“…knowing what will happen is the issue because it has happened and is happening.”
*I wholeheartedly agree with Ms Simons and Pavelow John…
I’ve been retired now for over six years. I did my whole 22 years active duty as a infantryman and the times that I did work with females (Drill Sergeant duty with males and females along with PLDC) were more challenging then if it were all male.
While being deployed to Iraq 2004-2005 we had females on our FOB that were basically F*** trophy’s for “joe” and there were a lot of UCMJ action taking place.
This is completely going against what is right and normal. I am soooooo glad that I am retired and don’t have to deal with this garbage!
Pave Low John hit the nail squarely on the head and sadly many great careers and more importantly, lives will be lost!
Thunder 7 SFC (Ret)
There is ample data on the physical deficiencies almost all women bring to the game. There is ample data of misconduct in the Navy and Air Force, long integrated, and long trained fully coed. There is ample data, long suppressed, of pregnancy rates in the Navy. There is ample data that women cannot perform certain casualty evacuation and damage control tasks, and of those tasks being “redefined” to ensure success. In short, the data exists. It is, however, meaningless, unless someone wants to actually look at it.
Military women, particularly the officers, bear much of the blame. All are more interested in their careers than in an effective military, none are willing to acknowledge that not once, not one single American woman, has ever been held to ALL of the same standards in the military as a man, and none will entertain the idea that they aren’t Georgina S. Patton or Jeanette Paul Jones. And yes, that’s you Katie van Damm and Ellen Harring, amongst many others.
Regarding the chauvinist claim, let’s say its 100% true. How does that change the physical differences between the sexes? How does it change the way they interact. If a bigot also happens to be right on an issue, sexist pig or not, the truth needs to be upheld. A military that lies to itself about itself will do poorly in battle and foster a culture of dishonesty. I’d suggest the coed, diverse, AVF is already there.
I’d also note that if men relate to one another in a particular way, a way that is beneficial to them and contributes to a collective endeavor (which is not the same as the regular work place), then it is not sexism to desire that.
Don’t blame just the women for careerism allowing this shit to happen. The majority of the military’s senior leadership are careerists — in the pejorative sense of the word. When is the last time a General or Flag officer resigned/retired in protest over principle? I won’t wait for an answer.
I agree with you that it is not just about the women. You are 100% right that the military’s senior leadership has a big role and they have been the worst sort of careerists (political whores would be a more accurate description). Resignations would not have been required had they simply told the truth.
What bugs me about the women officers is that they have been overtly political while in uniform, lobbying Congress on this point, using the press for their talking points, and actively smearing their comrades as sexist pigs for not agreeing with them.
Speaks to the lack of real men with character.
Mr Reardon,
I believe the only answer to that question, at least in the last half-century, is Gen Ron Fogelman, AF Chief of Staff, 1997. Many more, most of whom ended up being lap dogs for various administrations, should have.
Speaking of data — there are relevant and objective data which the military has but does not release: accident & pregnancy rates, and phystical and mental disability claims — for men and women by MOS and deployment history.
It was widely said after Gulf War I that it was easier to get the Presidential nuclear war codes from the “football” than pregnancy data from DoD. We now have a far larger body of data about this aspect of women’s performance in a broad range of roles (including some forms of front-line duty). It should be released for outside analysis before taking further steps.
To mention just one factor, there is some evidence that women’s health is adversely affected by some forms of military duty. Such as stress fractures in basic training and some kinds of heavy duty. This can have bad effects on both the women affected — and on the government if it results in disability claims (40+ years of payments).
I was stationed at Ft. Bragg NC during the 1-yr. mobilization period for Desert Shield/Desert Storm. Once the troops on Ft. Bragg were notified that they were going, the pregnancy rate for female service members went thru the roof. It increased over 200% in a few months. Many off-post civilian OBGYN doctors had to be contracted to take care of the instant glut of now non-deployable service members. At the time, a simple survey would have revealed much valuable, maybe embarrassing, policy related data and information. Nonetheless data pertaining to why the pregnancy rate increased in such a dramatic manner should have been collected. Did the service women simply not want to deploy, or were there other reasons that drove the decision to get pregnant at that particular time?
Joe C.
The problem with the demand for data is larger than you may think. In the first place, there is essentially no possibility of getting data that hasn’t been massaged for political reasons. More importantly, though, all the really measurable things aren’t very important and all the really important things are not very measurable. For example:
What’s the objective morale value of a pickle?
How many standard deviations to the right is victory?
What is the square root of defeat?
Had Whistler answered that silicon was not a gas, would he have been a combat effective major general?
Taking a standard college freshman English class, how long can they delay the Third Mongolian Shock Horde? How long can Harvard? How long can Yale?
How many Thespians does it take to convince 298 or so Spartans to die?
What is the precise relationship between scores on the rifle qualification range and enemy dead in Falujah?
Which is the greater value, the Knights’ Cross to the Iron Cross, the Victoria Cross, or the Medal of Honor? Please defend your answer.
What is the precise value, in morale terms, of officers eating last?
What is the relationship between Article 15s in the 11th Air Assault Division in 1962 and the first engagement by 1st Cavalry Division in the Ia Drang Valley?
What is the precise value in morale and esprit from paying an engineer battalion, while under fire, iin Japanese currency in the vicinity of Manila?
What is the precise value in recovering the bodies of your dead?
How much injustice can a combat unit withstand?
What is the followership value of military bearing?
What is the rate of transmission of courage?
What is the half life to failure of decisiveness?
What is the cube root of dependability?
What is the miles per gallon of endurance?
What is the frequency of the sound of enthusiasm on a night infiltration?
What is the range, in meters, of determination?
What is the certain reciprocal of loyalty?
What are the group tasks, that must be performed as a group, of Poli Sci 101? Under what conditions? Under what conditions that simulate war?
What is the burst radius of tact?
How many casual perusals of basic texts on education will get the 29th Infantry Division ashore at Omaha?
I think I have to go back and read your Military SF books. A SF MAJ (R) fan
There is no longer any need to flex the longbow or wield a great big sword or mace to kill people in battle. Present day weapons inventory means that killing now has become more gender neutral. But is this the end of civilisation that women should be enabled to kill with as much facility as men?
Sound like you have never been in ground combat.
??
I take it you’ve never actually served in the military let alone deployed to a warzone
I would agree that the infantry’s basic task of killing has become *somewhat* more gender neutral when compared to wielding “a great big sword”, but only somewhat. I’ll take it you never deployed as a grunt.
My rucks weighed over 100 lbs consistently, not including 25 lbs of body armor, 210 rounds of ammo, water, food, random bits, etc. All told I was likely carrying my body weight of 150 lbs around 7-12 hours a day. That’s just as a rifleman- imagine the poor machinegunners.
Perhaps the physical requirements have changed from “swinging a big sword” to “carrying a lot of crap on your back”. Slightly more gender neutral, but still physically demanding nonetheless.
Yes, great suggestion! Let’s look at the data.
I wish there were other countries that we could look at to see how they are faring.
Oh wait, there are!
See here:
http://carryingthegun.com/2014/05/08/women-in-the-infantry-a-reflection-on-the-experiences-of-allied-nations/
and here:
http://www.breachbangclear.com/females-in-the-infantry-er-yes-actually/?hc_location=ufi
But none of this matter because neither of you will actually care to look at the data, despite what you say.
The pregnancy problem could be easily dealt with by providing proper health care and free condoms. And emphasizing safer sex.
Maybe the problem is Americans, though. Maybe it is just not possible to mix American males and females without expecting them to have a big orgy?
This conversation overlaps with the data vs information versus knowledge versus wisdom convo. A systems theory/science/art….man himself conversation.
At any rate, collectors of oral history can generate any of the above, depending.
THE DATA:
15 lbs. of 5.56/magazines (13x).
8 lbs. of water. (1 gal)
35 lbs. of armor and helmet
6 lbs. grenades.
2-4 lbs. medical pack.
14 lbs. weapons.
10 lbs. “other”.
Total: 90 lbs
That, is just what you’re carrying on your body on an ODA.
To that, in the ruck on your back, you can add food, coms, batteries, GPS, NVGs, Claymore, 5-6 loaded pistol mags, your share of the extra 40mm rounds, an extra belt or two for the MGs, sleeping bag/personal items…and any mission or team gear.
Call it 150 lbs. or more…and you have to be able to carry it in any climate, in any terrain. Not just for days or weeks, but for months and years. If you can’t, then why waste a million bucks and 1-2 years in training?
What other “data” is needed?
Plenty of males don’t make the cut to serve in special operations, why do they think there are any women that can, when they don’t even have to pass the same standards as males in conventional units.
“Making the cut” is only part of it. Once you’ve made it through selection, there’s 1-2 years of hard training. More wear and tear. That’s just to get you to an ODA…where your real training begins.
Once on an ODA, it takes about 3-5 years to get an SF guy trained/sent to schools and enough experience to the point of being really useful…then on average, he’s got about another 3-5 years worth of wear and tear left in him. And will probably average 300 days a year deployed. Call it maybe 10 good years max. Then he’s either a team sergeant, on Group or battalion staff, permanent profile/instructor.
If he’s a team sgt…now he’s an overage, wore out, broken down guy gritting his teeth, popping pills, to keep functioning and keep up with the young guys. By that point, every minor and most of his major joints have been dislocated at least once, he’s had multiple broken bones, he’s typically had at least one major spinal trauma, and his knees are wore down to bone on bone…but he’s afraid to have surgery, because they always end up worse.
Where women fit into that…escapes me.
How are things working out for Israel?
Also what does the data show on performance of women-only versus male-only units? Might want to get that nailed down first before you start mixing the two.
As for pregnancy: I know this is really hard for some people (especially old white men who are politicians), but most effective way to prevent pregnancy and/or abortion is to use birth control. What’s so hard about that? It’s not like it’s permanent like sterilization.
” new book sums up 13 years of research on female participation in IDF combat units and declares the feminist experiment in the Israeli military a failure. “Lochamot Betzahal” by Col. (res.) Raza Sagi, a former infantry regiment commander, points to high rates of serious injury among women serving in combat units, and to involvement of radical political groups behind the scenes of the campaign for combat service by women.
The book’s name is a Hebrew play on words that means both “female combat soldiers in the IDF” and “women fighting the IDF.”
“The study found that a particularly high percentage of women who served in combat roles suffered physical harm during their service and will suffer for the rest of their lives from ruptured discs, stress fractures in the pelvis, uterine prolapse and more,” Sagi told Maariv/NRG.”
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/181604#!
Even so women in the IDF have got to be better soldiers then all those dumb looking Haredi bastards; oh wait they’re all too busy standing around praying or protesting about women having jobs outside the house.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t all IDF females serving in combat MOS’ in segregated units? That’s what some IDF guys told me anyway… but we were drunk in a bar. Take that with some salt.
I give the author credit for asking a legitimate question.
I also agree that the issue is so politically charged, it is difficult to engage in dialogue without someone taking it personally. I am incredibly tired of this debate, and the writing is on the wall- our elected political leaders want full integration, so it IS going to happen.
I will certainly do my best to have an effective organization whether there are females or not, as no one that makes decisions has asked for my opinion and they surely won’t be asking for it. BUT- I have a responsibility to uphold standards- be they physical, skill level 1-4 tasks, or moral and ethical- and you can be sure, that no soldier that puts the mission at risk will ever leave the wire.
Owning lady parts, I appreciate one the points Ms. Simmons’ brings to light. I have spent plenty of time working in the field and in country with combat arms men who were my peers- even (gasp) sleeping next to them and returning unscathed. I wonder if on my separation physical the VA will offer me new eyeballs. Given the undeniable attraction of stale body odor, piss, decaying foliage during training or moon dust in country, how can a gal help but fuck her eyes out?
I’m sure we all have stories, but misconduct is nothing new because we have armies of human beings. Treat sexual misconduct like any other misconduct, put the fear of God into subordinates for crossing the line (like we do with everything else), and move on.
So, back to my original question, where do I get some replacement eyeballs when the pheromones of the field overwhelm my professionalism and I forget I joined to defend my country and not for a rather grotesque lay?
slide.
I have “lady parts” and I am a career soldier who works alongside other professional soldiers. I have been assigned overseas pre-9/11, I deployed in support of overseas operations twice. I have stories to tell that I could not possibly make up of people destroying marriages and families and compromising careers and unit effectiveness all in the name of sex. I have been a victim of assault and have been harassed–invoking the fear of God doesn’t matter because the lengths that “leaders” took to protect their own was appalling. CID humiliated me further. My story is not an isolated incident. SHARP training is a joke and is a check the block exercise and everyone knows it. So, RS, if you believe that soldiers would not compromise their professionalim and their families for an opportunity to “fuck their eyeballs out” you are blind or naïve.
Simply because you have the moral compass not to fuck every guy or gal next to you doesn’t mean most people do. Lets be real here- most privates are pretty dumb (I know I was). Also, we shouldn’t put the onus completely on women. Males are just as responsible for getting someone pregnant as females are for getting knocked up.
The #1 priority for the military is preventing sexual assault,not fighting or winning wars.
Prof. Simons make excellent points. I am going to re-read her SF book when I find it. This website has well reasoned comments. Too many attacks for chauvinism on the elite soldiers who have worked with women in combat, on other sites. Senior leadership who ignorance the facts, for political correctness or worse personal benefit, need to be condemned.
I have served in both conventional and unconventional forces. I have personally observed the majority of what is being written about in the article, especially favoritism, during my service throughout the GWOT period (start to finish). I have also watched a quality SF guy get his name drug through the mud because a formal investigation was kicked off by Generals in Afghanistan. The short story is a female was attached to a group of guys and had sexual relations with a few different guys in that group that were VERY influential. This can be looked at the same way we always hear about sleeping with those in power and inheriting certain qualities through osmosis. The allegations ramped up with accusations of drug use when those influential people in the group realized what was occurring and put a stop to it. The female obviously lost her leverage and claimed erroneous accounts of misconduct. Needless to say those accusations were never founded, even after drug tests; however, those individuals were kicked out of country and none were allowed to remain in the military. I also observed a female get passed from team to team in theater causing internal conflicts similarly to other case. The second female started tossing around accusations of misconduct and an instance of sexual assault and threatened black mail. A third female had relations with a senior ranking officer which should not have happened but thats what happens when a fox is in the hen house. She walked around with the mindset she could do whatever she desired. One occasion she was told “excuse me but I don’t think you’re cleared to be in here”, her response was “you’re mother’s not cleared to be in here.” She definitely had a sense of entitlement and everyone knew what was going on but no one wanted to risk their career by putting her in place.
Homosexual males can shower with heterosexual males, but heterosexual males cannot shower with females? Please explain the logic. Every male is not attracted to every female just like every homosexual male is not attracted to heterosexual males. This is just an example of how catering will be performed with new amenities that will not be provided to males in the same unit. For example, new showers are built for a female squad in a male oriented infantry platoon. That squad would have showers for themselves while the males have to pile into limited amenities. Think of how often male bathrooms are used than females bathrooms comparatively in military units. In this example males would be expected to complete hygiene in the same amount of time as females even though they have less traffic. I know this is kind of generality but just emphasize a simple daily task that emphasizes how the snow ball effect works.
I am a true believer of equal opportunity but not selective equal opportunity. The standard is the standard! Stating (SecDef Leon) that a “female was in the turret of my vehicle” and so she must be capable of carrying that machine gun mounted on the truck up a mountain is naive and downright retarded. These are the types of people the American people blindly follow. I agree with another poster that our country is on the verge of a “real war” but I do not believe it will be with a foreign superpower. Writing is on the wall as HISTORY shows trends resulting of CAUSE and AFFECT, which many folks so easily dismiss until they get slapped in the face with the “circumstantial evidence”. Encroachment on civil liberties have been snow balling for about three decades now, at least more so then previously. When does the inch worming stop? History is filled with prime examples of overstepping limits; and perhaps why more emphasis is placed on liberal arts and sports then historically accurate world education in schools. Keep people dependent on something and they will know nothing else, the truth is what they are told…. Keep thinking everything is coincidental and people will wake up sadly disappointed because they are delusional…. Father does not always know best!
Ms. Simons:
Just finished your “Why Integrate…?” and “…”Where’s the Data” articles and found them to be interesting, perceptive, and, unfortunately, accurate:
While I will grant my perspective would be regarded as from the dinosaur age (1966-89), certain instances stick in my mind of the unspeakable influence of women in the service, much less the infantry are vivid in my mind after all these years.
The first was while serving as a pilot during an exercise with the Canadian off of Vancouver. This was c. 1979. There was a Navy public affairs officer assigned aboard the carrier. While this has become common today, at the time it was a novelty. She was an attractive, vivacious Lieutenant and quickly became a favorite of all the officers aboard. As we were sailing back to San Diego, she suddenly disappeared. Scuttlebutt was that she had been sexually active with more than one of the officers and possibly enlisted and was assumed to have fallen overboard. While accidental overboard incidents do happen, they are not that common. I have always wondered if somehow it was related to her activities, either a stroke of regret on her part, or more likely an attempt of someone to cover their trail of activities with her.
More directly pertinent to operations was an incident that occurred while I was a commanding officer of a 1400 person support unit. Of those 1400, approximately 30-40 were women. Some were mechanics whose tool boxes I had to equip with roller skates since they could not lift them, others were drivers and still others served in administrative billets. My point is, in garrison, they were well integrated into the unit operations. In the field they were a novelty and, after a few days the object of many of the males attention. It got to the point I had to put guards on their tent to turn back the Marines low crawling to the women’s tent at night, and finally, created a wall in my own over sized tent out of blankets and moved the women into the area I was not using. A few months later, one of my Lance Corporal Marines became pregnant by one of my Gunnery Sergeants. After talking with my Sergeant Major concerning the relationship, I decide to interview the couple separately to see if there was some intent on a long term relationship that I might be able to handle administratively. It turned out that while the young Marine was entertaining a permanent relationship, the SNCO had indeed regarded it as a fling. I ended up having him Court Martialed and he was discharged with over 16 years service. I was convinced I did the right thing, but still had regrets over ending an otherwise honorable career and somewhat incensed that, under the culture of the time, the young Marine was a “victim”, despite the consensual circumstances.
I gather all my women into my office (yes, it was slightly over sized) and proceeded to tell them of the undeserved reputation Women Marines had during my enlisted service, In short, they were either whores, lesbians or looking for a husband. I then proceeded to explain that I had just discharged a career Marine because he did not have the wisdom or will power not to consort with one of them, and their conduct was proving that old attitude. I then warned them that if it ever occurred again I intended to send both parties to court. Needless to say, my wife had a telephone call from one of them within 10 minutes of my releasing them.
My point is, even in peaceful normal operations, integrating women into the operations resulted in complications and demanded increased command vigilance to ensure operational capability and attention to duty. I also served a year in Viet Nam. While there, I flew 892 missions and was involved in combat situations both in the air, and then on the ground when the pilots manned defensive positions on the base. As a junior officer, there were many variables and life threatening circumstances that required my full attention to survive. Although the current wisdom says that men stop regarding women as women once they have grown accustomed to working together, I question that wisdom. Chivalry may be hidden, but you only have to see a battle hardened Marine with tears in his eyes at the sight of a slaughtered women or child to realize how firmly the protective trait men hold toward others is ingrained into men’s being.
I often think back on Gen. Barrow’s testimony before congress. Although a great portion of that testimony was a direct reflection of his “older generation” values. On sentence of his closing has always stuck in my mind. He opined that he was sure there were women who could psychologically handle the horror that is combat, and some who could physically handle it, but why should be require them to do it.
Your suggestion that women could serve in responsible billets and make operational decisions without service in direct combat has merit. I can certainly remember males with such responsibilities who were not particularly credentialed to do such by their service record prior to their assignment. Integrating women, both enlisted and commissioned into operational decision billets where they can learn that area without demanding that they hump a mortar base plate, or prove themselves capable of hand to hand combat is a much better way to go.
Sincerely
Bob Quinter
“He opined that he was sure there were women who could psychologically handle the horror that is combat, and some who could physically handle it, but why should be require them to do it.”
Exactly. War screws up many men no matter how tough in civilian life. Why make war fighting more complicated and painful than it already is by injecting unnecessary and dangerous political constructs?
“For instance, maybe no couples form after men and women find themselves serving together in the same unit. What does the record show?
Or, to return to a topic that always comes up: what happens to familial bonds in a unit when a woman gets pregnant and can’t deploy? What happens when a woman deploys and gets pregnant downrange? What good does all that prior training and gelling do then? Maybe proponents have an answer to this. As it is, they contend that whenever anyone — man or woman — needs to be replaced, that causes the dynamic to reset.”
I have not served and so I have zero personal experience, but the answer seems clear. War is difficult enough under the best of circumstances for front line commanders and soldiers to have to navigate. Why should they – Pentagon officers included – be expected to wage war under the handicap of the socio-political constraints that are present in peacetime civilian life? By definition war is not a normal or desirable condition of life. Therefore it must be excluded from the usual and customary rules of civil society. Killing human beings and destroying property is again, by definition, excluded from these rules.
Any accepted governing social construct not directly required to achieve success in combat should be studiously avoided. Attempting to blend women with men in a combat situation – not to mention homosexuals and transsexuals – creates bizarre dynamics that will certainly lead to horrible unintended consequences, not the least of which is failed missions.