Posted on Aug 9, 2018
The Marines Didn’t Think Women Belonged in Combat. She’s Proving Them Wrong.
1.68K
9
5
3
3
0
MOUNT BUNDEY TRAINING AREA, Australia — First Lt. Marina A. Hierl watched a dozen Marines charge toward human silhouettes made of paper atop a nearby hill. Despite the early hour, the troops’ armored vests and camouflage uniforms were soaked with sweat. She stood back as they scrambled up the rocky incline, shouting and firing rifles. “Push left,” she said after the squad completed its mock attack and assembled around her, gulping from canteens as they awaited feedback. “And make sure you’re communicating.”
The Marines Didn’t Think Women Belonged in Combat. She’s Proving Them Wrong.
Posted from nytimes.comPosted in these groups: 
Marines
Women in the Military
Marines Women in the Military
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 4
2
2
0
The article is good. The title is not. First, female Marines have been in combat regularly since at least 2003 and irregularly since well before that. The first part might more accurately read, "The Marines didn't think women belonged in the Infantry."
Second, there is no combat anywhere in this article. Only training. And, fairly or not, the only way one can "prove" they belong in combat is by being effective in combat. While being terrible in training is usually a good indicator that one will also be ineffective in combat, the reverse is not always the case.
Speaking for my own experience, the first time I experienced combat (aerial type) was in 2003 during the invasion of Iraq as a lieutenant. Because of the large gap between wars at that time, none of the captains or majors had been in combat before either (only the CO had been in Desert Storm, and he had been in ground combat at that time). I was very surprised to see that some of the pilots whose performance was only considered average in training ended up being absolutely heroic in combat. In contrast, a few of the instructors, who knew their aircraft and tactics backwards and forwards in training, ended up being meek and ineffective, finding excuses not to engage and/or return to base early.
Point is that you never know until you do. I am glad, however, that this young lieutenant seems to be doing well in training. IOC is a tough course.
Second, there is no combat anywhere in this article. Only training. And, fairly or not, the only way one can "prove" they belong in combat is by being effective in combat. While being terrible in training is usually a good indicator that one will also be ineffective in combat, the reverse is not always the case.
Speaking for my own experience, the first time I experienced combat (aerial type) was in 2003 during the invasion of Iraq as a lieutenant. Because of the large gap between wars at that time, none of the captains or majors had been in combat before either (only the CO had been in Desert Storm, and he had been in ground combat at that time). I was very surprised to see that some of the pilots whose performance was only considered average in training ended up being absolutely heroic in combat. In contrast, a few of the instructors, who knew their aircraft and tactics backwards and forwards in training, ended up being meek and ineffective, finding excuses not to engage and/or return to base early.
Point is that you never know until you do. I am glad, however, that this young lieutenant seems to be doing well in training. IOC is a tough course.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
1
1
0
SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth
I meet some women when I was in, that could do things a lot better then a lot of the guys they served with, they put them to shame.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google