Discussion in 'Academy/Military News' started by AROTC-dad, Dec 3, 2015.
Oh boy! Great. (denoting sarcasm).
Defense is now officially just a jobs program.
Like it never was?
More of an experimental jobs program. Hopefully they'll keep the standards the same although that will become politically
incorrect over time.
I served in Afghanistan alongside some brave and effective women Marines who helped our mission. There will be a lot of complications to play out, but I hope people do not engage in knee-jerk assumptions about the qualifications of individual women or make sweeping statements about some overnight loss of effectiveness/warfighting ability of the military as a whole. This Wall Street Journal article (see link below) on the Canadian experience (Canada has had women in ground combat roles since 1989) is instructive -- it reasonably likely that women seeking ground combat roles will continue to be the exception, not the norm.
They used to pay at least lip service to warfighting capability.
I know Canada has had involvement in various war zones because of NATO, but I am wondering what that chances are that their battle-ready women ever see any action. Well, maybe now my dreams can come true. I have recurring dreams that I have joined the Marines. I have slept in the back of a pick up truck with them, inside tents, and have zipped around on a hover board. I am one step closer to these dreams coming true. Just have to wait for them to raise the age limit. I mean really, really raise it!
I stopped at 1:39
Too bad, he rest was very informative.
So, they only told one lie, then. That's good.
There's no shortage of lip service. Just listen the next time DOD tries to kill a weapons system or close a military base in the US.
It goes both ways. NPR interviewed a former West Point grad, that served on a female engagement team that was attached to the 75th Ranger Regiment. My interpretation of her statements were that female engagement did the same thing as the Rangers - "we carried the same load," "we were searching the houses," and etc. I am a technical guy so I highly doubt that the female engagement team members carried SAW or M240B or they were the first to enter a house with their weapons ready. I have no problem with females being assigned to the 75th Ranger Regiment if they are qualified. But a female engagement team attached to the Ranger regiment is not the same as a female performing a rifleman duties. I was at Iraq, got my "combat" pay and have a right shoulder patch, but I will never say I saw combat because I didn't.
The administration is now looking into seeking congressional approval to have women part of the Selective Service. No matter how you feel about the new rules, this seems like a needed move.
I agree with that. If they can serve in combat roles and are just as good as us men (in theory), then (in theory) they should participate in Selective Service.
I am totally unqualified to opine about about women serving in combat roles, but someone sent me this and I thought it was interesting. I have no idea about the quality of the source and certainly there are folks who were there and disagree with the author.
From the article:
"In Darby, the female students in our company dispelled any doubts of their ability to hump weight on patrols during the first few days in the field. If I remember correctly, Ranger Griest carried the M240 for her squad on day one of patrols and another female in her squad carried the radio as the RTO. The next day of patrols, they switched, with Ranger Griest humping the radio and the other female student carrying the M240. Physically, they were studs. They carried their own weight and then some."
This has nothing to do with what a female engagment attached to the 75th Ranger Regiment would have done. We need to compare apples to apples. What happens at Ranger school stays at Ranger school. We cannot equate what a top 1% 0r less of female soldiers accomplished in a training environment to a real life situation. Let me rephrase is no commander will send in a highlyspecialized/trained soldiers male or female to perform same duties or perform riskier job that a grunt can to do (i.e. Be the first person to do a force entry into a house.) There are plenty of Ranger riflemen, but only few engagment team memeber.
And for the different point of view:
Understanding the different perspectives: that of a Marine Infantry Sergeant Major and that of an Army Infantry Officer, I agree with most of what each one is saying, but I have to come down on the side of the Sergeant Major.
I would just hope that there are other places for the female bada**** in other combat arms. I'd hate to lose a single one of them.
Just make one standard, not a "gender norming" standard. Just MHO.
Separate names with a comma.