Responses: 10
We're looking at an opinion piece which is just as vitriolic as the one that it is lambasting.
When it really boils down to it, the facts are clear.
1) "To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces" (Art 1, Section 3, Clause 14 "Military Regulations Clause") - This is a Legislative (Congressional) Power. It's as simple as that. They can decide everyone is going to wear purple, and we can bitch about it but we'll wear purple. It doesn't matter whether it is a Progressive or Conservative Congress. We play by their rules, not ours. They set policy.
2) They've delegated some of this to the SecDef and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Unfortunately, we've got a "conflict" going on here. Outgoing Army, incoming Marine. Army is opening all fields, Marines wants exclusion on Infantry (not others). Marines have given a well reasoned justification as to why they are different than Army, without "throwing Army under the bus." Basically boiling down to "ALL light Infantry" vs "31 flavors of Infantry (with logistical support)."
3) Hard data. Peer reviewed Hard Data. Yes, there are nay-sayers. But it's really hard to argue with a year long study which was built around the concept of "How do we make this work?" Ignoring all the emotional responses from both sides. All the preconceived bias from both sides, the data is solid. And there is nothing comparable to refute it. Any historical data from other forces actually support it, and are included.
4) The study supports the Marine Corps Philosophy of Leadership. Opening 03xx would result in a DECREASE in Troop Welfare (higher injuries), and a DECREASE in Mission Accomplishment (loss of Efficiency).
5) It won't do anything anyways. USMC has 7% women. The "estimate" of women that would choose Infantry, pass the school, and not be injured during training, and make it to career progression would be insignificant. Canada has been integrated for 25 years. They have a .5% Women in Infantry rate. We'd be talking 3-4 (03xx) women per BN. The study estimated 2 in a Platoon would be a "high" level, whereas most would have 0, and some would have 1.
In reality, we're getting worked up about nothing.
When it really boils down to it, the facts are clear.
1) "To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces" (Art 1, Section 3, Clause 14 "Military Regulations Clause") - This is a Legislative (Congressional) Power. It's as simple as that. They can decide everyone is going to wear purple, and we can bitch about it but we'll wear purple. It doesn't matter whether it is a Progressive or Conservative Congress. We play by their rules, not ours. They set policy.
2) They've delegated some of this to the SecDef and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Unfortunately, we've got a "conflict" going on here. Outgoing Army, incoming Marine. Army is opening all fields, Marines wants exclusion on Infantry (not others). Marines have given a well reasoned justification as to why they are different than Army, without "throwing Army under the bus." Basically boiling down to "ALL light Infantry" vs "31 flavors of Infantry (with logistical support)."
3) Hard data. Peer reviewed Hard Data. Yes, there are nay-sayers. But it's really hard to argue with a year long study which was built around the concept of "How do we make this work?" Ignoring all the emotional responses from both sides. All the preconceived bias from both sides, the data is solid. And there is nothing comparable to refute it. Any historical data from other forces actually support it, and are included.
4) The study supports the Marine Corps Philosophy of Leadership. Opening 03xx would result in a DECREASE in Troop Welfare (higher injuries), and a DECREASE in Mission Accomplishment (loss of Efficiency).
5) It won't do anything anyways. USMC has 7% women. The "estimate" of women that would choose Infantry, pass the school, and not be injured during training, and make it to career progression would be insignificant. Canada has been integrated for 25 years. They have a .5% Women in Infantry rate. We'd be talking 3-4 (03xx) women per BN. The study estimated 2 in a Platoon would be a "high" level, whereas most would have 0, and some would have 1.
In reality, we're getting worked up about nothing.
(5)
(0)
Easy answer. Take Pvt. J(ames) Smith, 6'3" 210 lbs. and Pvt. J(ennifer) Smith 5'3" 110 lbs.
Make them both 0331 Machine gunners.
Walt
Make them both 0331 Machine gunners.
Walt
(5)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
I don't disagree. Throwing the average WM into the assignment mix for combat arms will have most of them, through no fault of their own, not able to hack it. Maybe that is the only way to stop this folly.
Walt
Walt
(0)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
SSG Warren Swan - What if young women think they might be assigned the 0300 MOS? Wouldn't they tend to gravitate to the other services? Of course the recruiters could just lie to them.
Walt
Walt
(0)
(0)
SSG Warren Swan
Capt Walter Miller - Good question, but no easy answer. Some might be intimidated, and go another route, but there's always going to be that one who thinks she can hack it. If she's able to prove someone wrong through her determination, more power to her. Can't get mad at someone for trying. Recruiters lie? They do no such thing..show a really over the top video, blow sweet nothings in your ear, and boom one more going to reception somewhere.
(1)
(0)
LCpl Anthony Sperle
Take this example: Pvt John Smith 5'5" 140 lbs. and Pvt. Sally Anderson, 5'5" and 140 lbs. Who do you want packing that same M60 and ammo for you?
I think the answer is obvious.
I think the answer is obvious.
(0)
(0)
"This is what happens when policy is being dictated by radicals whose idea of combat is elbowing for a place in line at the Bloomingdale’s’ lunch counter. This is what happens when the military’s leaders are gutless moral cowards."
Exactly.
Exactly.
(4)
(0)
Read This Next