Panel: Let women serve in combat roles

[Pima]

As an aside, I don’t think the pregnancy issue matters all that much in the SEAL Teams. As much as I hate the analogy, I believe it would be dealt with in the same way as a major injury. SEALs like to be deployed, particularly to any “hotspot”. Many would be happy to jump in and take her place

Nobody believes every woman in combat will be SEALs or Rangers. However, they could still deploy forward and that is when pregnancy becomes an issue.

Military members have specific functions in their unit, even more so as they rise up in the chain of command. If that member is the Intel officer and gets pregnant they need to find a replacement for her. That means they will pull from somewhere else. Which means another service members life gets drastically altered because they never expected to be deployed rapidly. Or as in the case that I mentioned, it meant 2 AF officers lives were changed.

~~~The guy who was in the green zone had to stay longer
~~~Another guy got hit with a no notice deployment. He had a job somewhere else.

This creates a ripple down effect, because now he is deployed, they needed someone to fill his job.

In this scenario, which was a real life situation, not hypothetical. The female officer was not stationed at the same base as the guy who replaced her, so it wasn't as if she could step into his job. At least for the AF in this example, MPC actually sent out specific parameters. Parameters that the Army dictated...i.e. they wanted a Fighter Officer in the O5 rank that had been jump qualified with the Army for Bullet's position. That is very specific in their needs. He filled all of their requirements and the AF said TAG you are it! Trust me there aren't a lot of AF O5's floating around the world that are Army jump qual and fighters. Had he done what this officer did and gotten pregnant, they would have had to start the search all over again.

That means there is more ripple effect because now back state side they had to find a job to place her in. Remember she was suppose to be deployed so they already filled the job she left.

Thus, now you have an officer with no place to put her, and an opening that needs to be filled because they had to take another officer.

I am not saying women should not be in combat positions, I am saying that they need to address the question of pregnancy when including women in combat and how it will impact personnel if she gets pregnant.

It might come down to a DEPO shot. Forward military members before deploying get all kinds of shots, and this might be one that woman have to agree to, if they want to be "classified" as combat ready.

 

[basilrathbone]

Nobody believes every woman in combat will be SEALs or Rangers. However, they could still deploy forward and that is when pregnancy becomes an issue.

Military members have specific functions in their unit, even more so as they rise up in the chain of command. If that member is the Intel officer and gets pregnant they need to find a replacement for her. That means they will pull from somewhere else. Which means another service members life gets drastically altered because they never expected to be deployed rapidly. Or as in the case that I mentioned, it meant 2 AF officers lives were changed.

~~~The guy who was in the green zone had to stay longer
~~~Another guy got hit with a no notice deployment. He had a job somewhere else.

This creates a ripple down effect, because now he is deployed, they needed someone to fill his job.

In this scenario, which was a real life situation, not hypothetical. The female officer was not stationed at the same base as the guy who replaced her, so it wasn't as if she could step into his job. At least for the AF in this example, MPC actually sent out specific parameters. Parameters that the Army dictated...i.e. they wanted a Fighter Officer in the O5 rank that had been jump qualified with the Army for Bullet's position. That is very specific in their needs. He filled all of their requirements and the AF said TAG you are it! Trust me there aren't a lot of AF O5's floating around the world that are Army jump qual and fighters. Had he done what this officer did and gotten pregnant, they would have had to start the search all over again.

That means there is more ripple effect because now back state side they had to find a job to place her in. Remember she was suppose to be deployed so they already filled the job she left.

Thus, now you have an officer with no place to put her, and an opening that needs to be filled because they had to take another officer.

I am not saying women should not be in combat positions, I am saying that they need to address the question of pregnancy when including women in combat and how it will impact personnel if she gets pregnant.

It might come down to a DEPO shot. Forward military members before deploying get all kinds of shots, and this might be one that woman have to agree to, if they want to be "classified" as combat ready.

I understand the domino effect. It is the same process that occurrs when a servicemember has to be replaced for any reason including injury, illness, death, or being fired. This domino effect is felt acutely in small communities. My husband missed the birth and first few months of one of our children (while I was also tending to our 1 yr old) due to this issue. I am not at all meaning to downplay the significance of this and how it turns people's lives upside down and causes major scrambling. I just don't understand why it is taking over this thread. This isn't a new issue. Women have been serving on combat ships for 15+ years and the pregnancy problem is ongoing. This thread is about a blue ribbon panel opening up ground combat billets not currently open. As you pointed out, the problem with deployments and pregnancies is already there with billets that are currently open.Women are already forward deployed. Maybe it merits it's own thread but I think it clouds this issue of opening certain ground combat billets.

I do understand that not every ground combat billet is SEALs but for the Navy, NSW is the only gender exclusive community and that simplifies the discussion.

 

[Pima]

For the AF and the Navy it is different than the Army when it comes to forward deployments.

The AF currently has females that could be designated as combat, but they are not on the front line in Afghanistan. They may fly over Afghanistan and risk their lives, but at the end of their duty day they are not in Afghanistan. And if they get pregnant it is easier to get them back stateside.

Same is true for the Navy. In the end of the day they are not on the front line.

This reduces the medical risk for a female compared to that 82nd AB jumper who jumps into Afghanistan and lives there until they can pull her arse back out.

My position is for the Army not every position is Ranger or Delta when we talk combat, but at the same time there are positions that they could be dropped in the middle of nowhere and pregnancy will impact the mission.

As much as people say a women should be able to carry a ruck, because it impacts the mission. The same is true about how a pregnancy can impact a mission.

 

[basilrathbone]

That pregnancy issue is a little more complicated than jumping in and out of combat for a year or so. I get your argument, but you are kind of speculating to the point that you lose some validity. Assuming a female will hurt team dynamic is pushing it. Also you are preaching to the choir on most of what you said, about its more than just physicality, and she will be driven to surpass the minimum standards to be a SEAL. I want to go CRO (as probably everybody on this forum by now knows because I feel like I say it on every post) and I think everybody here agrees with cadets need to be more just a dumb athlete. Not trying to target you in an aggressive way, just pointing out that we already covered a lot of this, and I don’t expect you to read over 100 posts so just filling you in a little.

I appreciate the points you bring up. I was responding to Christcorp, who appears to me to be a respected member of the forum with a reasoned argument backed up by cogent examples. I was offering a response to his question as to why anything else is relevant aside from meeting standards. I was not intending to preach; rather the intent was to provide an additional viewpoint backed up with examples from a SEAL perspective as that is the unit used in the prior example.

I’m confused as to which part you believe I’m speculating to the point of losing validity? On pregnancy, standards in BUD/S, women in combat?

You suggested that I said that adding a female will hurt team dynamic. I don’t recall offering an opinion, merely stating that I think the effect it may have is an important question to ask. Are you suggesting that integrating a woman into a direct action unit at the SEAL platoon level (a handful of people) during a time of war is unworthy of even discussing the possibility of any effects at all whether they be positive, negative or neutral? I would disagree on that point. I think it’s an important discussion to have. I am basing this opinion on having had the privilege of closely observing SEAL platoons for the past 25 years.

Finally, I never suggested that pregnancy was uncomplicated. Rather that there is currently a means for addressing the loss of a forward deployed member for any number of reasons to include pregnancy.

 

[basilrathbone]

For the AF and the Navy it is different than the Army when it comes to forward deployments.

The AF currently has females that could be designated as combat, but they are not on the front line in Afghanistan. They may fly over Afghanistan and risk their lives, but at the end of their duty day they are not in Afghanistan. And if they get pregnant it is easier to get them back stateside.

Same is true for the Navy. In the end of the day they are not on the front line.

This reduces the medical risk for a female compared to that 82nd AB jumper who jumps into Afghanistan and lives there until they can pull her arse back out.

My position is for the Army not every position is Ranger or Delta when we talk combat, but at the same time there are positions that they could be dropped in the middle of nowhere and pregnancy will impact the mission.

As much as people say a women should be able to carry a ruck, because it impacts the mission. The same is true about how a pregnancy can impact a mission.

I guess I'm not understanding. Are you saying that it's not about the domino effect of replacing military members that are currently deployed? I thought that's what we were referring to. Every unit whether it's Army, Marine, SEALs, etc have some system already set up to extract and replace a military member, male or female, for injury, illness, being fired etc. Why wouldn't pregnancy be dealt with in the same manner? It's not that I think it's a non-issue, I just don't see it as one that is unique to ground combat units which is what the thread is about.

 

[fly boy]

...Just like with men, all women in the army will not automatically be able to branch in certain combat roles without meeting standards, but those meeting the standards should not be denied because of the average capabilities of their gender.

I agree. But they should all have to meet a certain standard. I could see different standards in "normal" combat roles, but when it comes down to special forces, I think that equality must be sacrificed for the good of the mission. The mission is the goal, not equality. Even though it may sound wrong or discriminatory, that's what I think. Not to say that women should be excluded from these roles, but they ought to be able to put up with the same things and meet the same standards.

...To me, the bottom line isn’t about standards although standards are important. (Averages are nearly meaningless.) The question I think we need to ask is how integrating a woman into a SEAL (I’m not shouting, it’s an acronym) platoon will change the dynamic of that platoon. Does changing that dynamic affect the mission in a positive, negative, or neutral way?

I agree. The point isn't equality, but the mission. If it does not help the mission, it should not be done for equality's sake. If it hurts the mission (as it undoubtedly will if there are members who can't pull their own weight), it shouldn't be done. Not to be rude, but if a person that was overweight wanted to join the SEALs, should we, for equality's sake let him, even though it would undoubtedly hurt the platoon's potential?

 

[Christcorp]

Basil; we do not disagree all that much. But there are 2 parts of our scenario.

1st part: Required standards for the task, job, career field, etc... This simply needs to be standard for all personnel. Whether they are required a certain aptitude, physical "Capabilities", height/weight, etc...; that needs to be standard. Then; no matter if it's a male, female, black, white, gay, straight, etc... If they meet those required standards, they should be allowed to perform in that occupation/location/etc...

2nd part: logistics, moral, team, etc... This area gets very subjective. Just like the discussions with the DADT, there are "opinions" on how "X" affects "Y", and how do we accommodate so that mission effectiveness and teamwork are not negatively affected. Things such as pregnancy needs to be considered. How the "Team" interacts with each other. (Sorry, but just telling the existing members to "Suck it up and deal with it" is not how you handle this. Especially if you're in the middle of conflicts and expecting them to "Work out the bugs" in REAL LIFE.

This could be women in the seals or gays openly serving. Or a number of other scenarios. You can tell those who get too emotional about these topics and go into "Fight for a Cause" mode. They want the "Rodney King" effect of everyone getting along; but they don't realize that it's not always that simple. You can "ORDER" a group of soldiers/airmen/sailors/etc... that they WILL follow a new policy; but that doesn't mean that they automatically "Buy In". And "Buy In" is very important. If the team doesn't believe in it, it won't succeed. And you can definitely get the team/group to "Buy In" to almost anything if educated and presented properly. An unrealistic movie; but very good example; is "G.I. Jane". For political reasons, over night, they allowed a woman to go through SEAL training. Many of the difficulties were realistic, but it was also Hollywood. That isn't the way you get "Buy In" or how to implement a new program and policy. Unfortunately; many of the "Emotional/Fight for a Cause" crowd don't understand that. They want women an men to be 100% equal in the military, and they want it over night. They want gays to be open in the military, and totally accepted by all, and they want it over night.

So your response is well taken and well understood. But for any equality, you must start with standard requirements. Every job/career field/deployment/etc... has their own unique set of requirements. Those need to be clearly defined and made standard. They need to be gender/race/etc... neutral. Once that phase is complete, then the military can determine if they can accommodate various logistical anomalies. Yes, pregnancy is one of them. One issue I have 1st hand experience with, is in the middle east. Prior to the involvement we currently are in, I and many military members spent time in that part of the world. Prior to the gulf war and everything until now. Basically, the 1980's. There were 2 women working with myself and quite a few other. One woman actually worked for me, the other was a 1st LT that I reported to. The problem was: "Socially", they could not do their job. The "Nationals" that we were working with, would not recognize a female as having any authority whatsoever. I can honestly say that it was hard enough ensuring that these 2 women weren't physically or verbally abused. Fortunately for us, the nationals "Out of respect for our military/country/mission", simply IGNORED both women. However, word got out that the nationals we were working with had no respect for the 2 women, and they weren't going to be able to accomplish anything. Both women wound up leaving and going back to garrison. Things have changed in the last 20 years, but that was real life.

So, while many people think the military can change over night, and allow equality among women serving in combat roles, it isn't always that simple. There are so many people and issues that are affected. The individual, the team, society, etc... There's a lot of accommodations and considerations that need to be thought through. But it starts with establishing standard requirements. Implementing a time-line. STAGING the process. Getting "Buy-In", and finally implementing the process in it's stages. That's how women in combat will be accomplished. That's how gays openly serving in the military "SHOULD" be accomplished. Unfortunately, topics like gays, have had 17 years to be worked out. BOTH President Clinton (Who initiated this policy) and President Bush (who spent more time on homeland security and war issues), never got around to resolving this problem. Now, we are at a point where people have gotten impatient. Gays, women in combat, race, whatever the topic, can not be accomplished in haste and by emotions. If it is, it will either fail or cause many problems.