Because the entire premise is that men and women are equal, and women should have equivalent promotion and job numbers. The whole point is not to separate men and women’s jobs.

That said, this phenomenon isn’t specific to women in special forces. 10 to 15 years ago, I was an instructor at the school that trains new officers heading to ships. The Navy wanted to increase our numbers some, and our school took on some new training philosophies to make that happen. Exams and tests became measuring markers, but failure wasn’t a disqualifier. We would be required to give tests over and over until a student eventually passed. I once had to give a student the same test 9 times before he could pass it, and he went on to graduate from the course. The premise was that the students had been granted a commission by whatever accession source they came from, and it wasn’t our place to say that they shouldn’t go serve on a ship, even if it was blatantly obvious to us that they would fail in that job. We described the course as being a pump, not a filter.

This is what happens when large organizations want to increase the throughput for some reason unrelated to the quality of the graduate. It happens in military training if we need more numbers in the Fleet, or if there’s a political agenda like gender equality. It also happens in our school systems when schools or districts feel like they have to have higher graduation rates for funding, for example.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

I've had non-military people tell me it's a hackneyed phrase, but that description of Ranger School you provided illustrates perfectly what we mean when we endlessly repeat the mantra "Adapt, Improvise, Overcome." Because that's what you have to do, endlessly.

Shoot, move, communicate.

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

USMC here, no Recon or buds, but find it interesting that a forum participant has been involved in both. I will say that the older we get the faster we were. I remember checking into the LAR (at the time LAI) and all of the guys that had been Lance coolies for a week thought they were Chesty, and you were just another newb. We were the Pepsi generation. Times change, we have to accept that, physical attributes are becoming less important these days, we need smarter fighting forces, not necessarily tougher by old guy standards. Also, I imagine there are other reasons to reduce the entry level and even graduate level of upper infantry courses. Getting the numbers up and having a larger pool of lesser qualified people may give a better end result. This can allow for a ripening of skills in a controlled environment. Sometimes a 19 year old these days needs a bit of a push to reach his potential- kids grow up different these days in a different world, much much different than mine in my day. My kids are crazy smart and athletic but much different than when I enlisted. We can’t move into the future with the same mindset as 30 years ago. My hat comes off and my heart goes out to all of the men and women willing to sign up and give the ultimate-

Simper Fi

My sister is a CW-4 retiring next month. I'm pretty sure she never wanted to see standards dropped.

As for the post about people not getting the glory by pursuing Special Forces, when I was in ROTC in the '80s, spec ops was a bragging right to your peers and being known as tough was an additional reward. No one sought out recognition from anyone outside of the military. Granted, I never went active duty, but that was my perspective from a military college.

You make some good points, and a lot of food for thought to chew on from an Infantry Marine (03XX Oh-Three Walk-a-Lot? :-). As former commandant of the Marine Corps Al Gray used to say, "All Marines are riflemen," but the true riflemen are, indeed, infantry Marines.

I am grateful every day that I was allowed the privilege of serving the Marine Corps as a Navy Hospital Corpsman as well as, later in my career, a Navy medical department officer. What discipline and focus I still have today, in my late 50s, I owe to the Marine Corps Staff NCOs and officers that I served with and served under and learned from (this included MGENl James Livingston, Medal of Honor recipient for extremely heroic actions in Vietnam, and as hard a Marine officer as I have ever met(). So your observations do indeed carry a great deal of weight in this discussion.

As to me, there was a time, back in the day, when Navy special warfare was severely short of trained Hospital Corpsmen, so a number of us were sent on extended temporary additional duty to fill the holes until the training pipeline could produce a sufficient number of HMs to pick up the slack. This is where my experience with BUD/S comes from. But let me be clear that I was NOT an actual SEAL, nor was I awarded a Trident or authorized to wear one. My home was with the Marine Corps, not the "Blue Side" of special operations.

So, in your estimation, coming from the Infantry side of the house in the Marine Corps, should WMs have to meet the same current standards in order to make it through SOI or should the Marine Corps do as others here have suggested and reconfigure the standards to reflect the ability of the typical WM in regards to upper body strength, lower body strength, overall strength and endurance? I ask this sincerely and out of a sense of curiosity and appreciation for the opinion of a Marine.

Thanks!

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

 Unfortunately, I am unable to answer the question “should standards be lowered for women” I’m generally quite conservative, means I’d rather see our tax dollars be spent better, however I really have to think hard and long at social issues. Now, situations change with time, but I also have to think to myself about privileges I may have benefited from in my life, just from my personality and how I operate. I have a heck of a social game and feel I may have been given opportunities that I may not have been the best choice for. I definitely made good on my opportunities, and in some cases surpassed the chosen ones. Therefore I always try to see beyond the obvious, you know, a guy who clawed his way up and took the hard road. Maybe alcohol, maybe upbringing, or did poor in high school but really wants it. And that is where I feel it becomes grey- do women REALLY want this or do they want equality at the expense of the integrity of the the Corps? Being the first is difficult, you don’t have a great deal of support like others. My dad and his dad were veterans of wars as well, did I have a leg up due to this? Sort of like the lawyers I know- all of them have parents and family in law. They had a support that others might not have had. But after a good go of it, those people can succeed. So, as with some Marines I remember in my platoon and company, they got away with certain things, maybe curfew, maybe PFT scores or overweight. So, I try to remember a guy in boot camp with gang tats and when confronted by Drill Instructors, he said he wanted a new chance-and came to the Corps to get it.

Awesome response. Again, much to think about. I was Inspector-Instructor for the 4th Medical Battalion during one of my green side officer tours. We had a Marine reservist who actually turned out to be an illegal immigrant. He'd honest-to-God sneaked over the border by Chula Vista and somehow managed to enlist. If I remember correctly, he'd made it to LCPL and it was when his SRB was being reviewed by his monitor to see where he was in terms of a future promotion to CPL and that was when he was flagged. He was a diary clerk or some other admin MOS in our H&S company. 300 PFT score, top marks on his pros and cons. A hard charger. No one even thought about his Spanish accent, because that wasn't unusual in San Diego/Miramar/Camp Pendleton.

Anyway, he was busted for "fraudulent" enlistment and we were directed to discharge him, barring any exceptional circumstances that would delay, but not prevent, it. I don't know what Border Patrol or ICE or whatever they were called back then was going to do. But his was a case worth fighting for, though, because he was an excellent Marine by all standards, except that one, and even the reserve and I&I SMAJs were hoping to keep him in. The actual CO of the battalion (a reserve Navy medical department O6) also wanted him to stay.

My battalion's I&I SMAJ (he was an FTS Marine, though they're called something else these days) and I forwarded his case back up to HQMC and MarResFor (back then, it was Marine Reserve Force, in New Orleans, though nowadays it's MARFORRES), with testimonials, statements of support and so forth. There was even some input from his congressman, who was hoping the Marine Corps could do something until he could obtain permanent resident status or whatnot. When they received it, they directed us to retain him in a drill status "below the line" (not in an actual boat space or line on the TO, in other words) while they considered things.

Thirty days later came the final order: discharge him ASAP. We were all disappointed big time. The directive was that standards were standards and they existed for a reason (they even sent a Marine O6 out to Miramar to nicely explain things to me, because I made a minor fuss about it when the directive came back. That was an "enlightening" conversation, believe me ;-). It would also have sent a bad message to other Marines if they'd retained him.

I also remember we carried 3 infantry Marines (03XXs) who'd been in the Battle of Khafji in the First Gulf War, running and gunning all night and moving from building to building, one step ahead of Iraqi forces, calling in supporting fires and generally being instrumental in US forces winning that battle. Unfortunately, the Corps had no active duty boat spaces for them about a year after the war ended and a minor drawdown occurred and they needed a place where they could be "kept" until boat spaces for them in a reserve infantry unit of the 23rd Marines (4th MarDiv... we were 4th FSSG) opened up. So I did the I&Is from 23rd Marines a favor and carried them below the line and they were able to stay Marine Corps. They were lost for a short time, when they drilled for the first time with a Medical Battalion, believe me.

But the Marine Corps is HARD, as you know better than I, and they could have easily ended up out on the street completely until they could join the National Guard or something (my wife's a Guard officer; there are plenty of former Marines in her battalion). I was always amazed by how hard the Corps could be, in fact.

Eh, like you say, there's a fine line and a gray area in all these things, including the role of women in the combat arms (especially infantry, armor and artillery) and special operations/special warfare. I'm just hoping that anything the civilian masters that run our military do doesn't end up costing us good Marines and Soldiers and Sailors and Airmen as they push females out to the lead-slinging units, is all. In the end, standards -- hopefully ones that are well thought-out and intelligently developed -- are all we have when it comes to shaping military policy and the capabilities of our forces.

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

Jesus Mary and Joseph do you talk a lot!

There are women all over our special ops community serving with great distinction--perhaps the only reason you don't hear more about it is because none of them are SEALS [yet] so they don't get the automatic book deal.

back to football. Go Arizona!

Bear Down!

/r

---

Steve

Heh. I do. More precisely, I WRITE a lot. Partly because I can type quickly, partly because I have no filter between my keyboard and my brain housing group, and partly because I'm too lazy to self-edit here. But you and our Marine participant in this colloquy make great points.

Thanks!

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

We can’t move into the future with the same mindset as 30 years ago. //

Exactly. I'm a bit confused, are not all these special units doing "special" jobs? Or are they all just fighting grunts on the front lines shooting in the enemies face. Are there no special circumstances where a woman might just have a better skill set for a job? I see in the Middle East where soldiers had to connect with the local tribes, elders and children to gain trust. Might not a woman be a better person for the children? Perhaps women can blend in more in situations where being stealth might be a consideration? I guess if all you guys do is slug 120lbs in the jungle or deserts, then dig a hole and fight, it makes sense to have big strong guys. But it seems to me that war is getting a lot more sophisticated and even the 5'5" 300lb kid could be the most important one on the battlefield, you know the one running the drone that is going to save all those big dudes asses..Or does no one use a computer in these special divisions, is that a division unto itself? I really don't know, perhaps it is changing so quickly that no one who is not involved at this minute in a high up position knows either..


I remember when the fire dept let in the very first women. It was going to be wholesale slaughter on the front lines. Of course there was an initial getting used to period, but there are 1000's of women now all over the country, many were cutting lines right here where I'm now enjoying my vacation, and not a burned out campground..


From the sounds of it seems like entry standards were leaned out a bit, but you still have to pass the training, which is of course is 100% of what has to be done to actually pass. Perhaps some higher up has determined that they do need some women in the forces for special jobs, and they will get through the courses that they would have once been immediately thrown from. I don't really know, but that seems a logical conclusion, as much as everyone's here affirmative action stance..

It's easy to say "there must be some jobs that play to women's strengths", and of course there are. But......
SOF orgs are designed to go places and carry heavy things. Sure, there are support orgs that take care of non-tactical needs back on garrison. It's just that those support orgs aren't generally SOF, they're garrison support orgs. To be in an SOF org, by definition, means to be available to go overseas and carry heavy things. If one allowsfolks into the SOF org that are not very capable of carrying heavy things a long ways under difficult conditions under the guise of "primary job description doesn't involve carrying 140lbs of gear", all one does is ensure that you create great big problems when the day comes that everyone sure wishes that those folks could carry 140lbs of gear.

The civilian world focuses on the competitor's "most likely" course of action. But the military orients on not only on "most likely" course, but also prepare for both the "best case" and "worst case". I find that civilians have a hard time making genuine preparations for the worst case. Best case means you grab your shit and move forward often out of range of your support. Worst case means things falling apart and you grab your shit and try to fall back in good order. Both can be helaciously difficult. Every single person has to be entirely capable of rising to the challenges posed by the less likely scenarios, or sons and fathers, die. Not die Hollywood style. Not like a Star Trek Redshirt dies and the bridge crew trade chuckles in the closing minute of the 48min show, but die like our fathers did, or die like <insert acquaintance>'s son did.

But this isn't about matching skills and positions, that was done decades ago. The debate this decade is about putting women in combat arms positions, and now in SOF slots, solely because they are women. There's no good arguments about how the reasoning for this is that SOF will benefit from it. Imagine how entertaining a debate would be about how we need to get more men into <whatever> solely because they are men. Or we need to get more white people into something, solely because they are white people. This is all about a sexist agenda pushing women because they are women. The idea that it will weaken the force is of little consequence to the folks pushing.

This isn't about misogyny tho. As women are as physically capable as the average guy in a unit, imo they ought to be welcome to the unit, no matter what type. But we can't weaken a unit in the pursuit of our happy-ass progressive agenda.

Just like unilateral disarmament. Sounds nice. Bad idea.

Subject change.
Hey BK. I knew 4th Med. Dang, what a blast from the past. I've not heard a reference to them in almost 30yrs. From '82-88 I was in 4th Tanks. We shared buildings with 4th Med. I bounced in/out of weekend warrior duty with 4th Tks as I moved between Reserve and Active duty one college semester to the next.

---

Books @ Amazon
"If only he had used his genius for niceness, instead of Evil." M. Smart

Last rotation i was in the Stan a few months ago our system went down for night so i was off. Left the building i work in within a very secure camp and got just outside the gate when we had incoming rocket fire. CRAM engaged it and knocked it down but the warhead skipped into a building and it took a couple hours for EOD to set up to deal with it. We didn't know any of this at the time. I just knew that I was outside one camp and hundreds of meters from the other camp where i bunk down. So i turned around and ran right back into my work base when the sirens went off and the CRAM opened up. They had a big spartan room they put us all in while we waited and waited. And waited. What was interesting to me was i got locked up in this room with about 20 very pretty very fit very young female 1LTs-and one mean female major who eyed me the whole time. These young ladies were volunteers to augment SOF teams that launched from our base each night. They went in with the elite shooters and interacted with Afghan women, search womens quarters and that sort of stuff. When the dark helos took off each night these young ladies were riding along there with the shooters. They were all younger than my daughter but very pleasent to look at and listen too--except that mean harpy of a female major that was their escort. She glared at me the whole time till we got the all clear.

---

Steve

Hahahahahaha! Yup! Across the freeway from what was then NAS Miramar (later, MCAS Miramar). There were the blue side Navy folks and us green side Marines and Navy medical types. 4th Med and 4th Tanks, plus a dental logistics company and SRIG (until they were disestablished by MarResFor). We were the flag site for 4th Med. The 4th Tanks I&I was a HUGE help and he and his folks helped us be ready for those MORDTs and other evals. We shared the admin section and diary clerks and whatnot. I had plenty of Marines like you, doing the college thing and going Reserve and then spending time on ACDU. The FTS Marines were the best. We loaned 4th Tanks our Corpsmen whenever needed, including for their ATs. The green side of that building was definitely far more squared away than the blue side, but I'm sure you know that already. ;-)

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

Delta has women doing certain things as well, from what I heard. And the old Marine Corps SRIG (Surveillance, Reconnaissance, Intelligence Group) teams used to use Women Marines to fill certain roles. .

To be honest, if there's incoming fire I really don't care what the gender is of the person(s) behind me returning fire, that's for sure. Plus, there just aren't enough male support personnel backing up the trigger pullers (it used to be a 6:1 support/infantryman ratio, though I have no idea what it is these days) so women troops in the field are a fact of life and there's no going back in that regard (not that I would want to go back).

There's been a lot of great perspectives shared in this thread. I've learned a lot.

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

I am not naming any names/units and most specifically not saying shit about CAG. That's just not professional. I'm just saying there are women serving with great distinction throughout the breadth and depth of our SOF. I'm also saying that I've never met a woman yet--including the one airborne qualified officer i married--who could have made it thru the Ranger School i went thru.

Another thing. As i sat in that room and listened to these incredibly fit, beautiful young women talk to each other (and of course type shit on their phones) i was thinking how nice it was to see something so nice in such a giant pile of shit. And how sad it was that our Country has to offer up these young ladies into the fuck all that is modern close combat. How infinitely sad that was.


/r

---

Steve

Post of the day. Good luck in Sh*thole Central and God bless and stay safe.

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

Great story. The women are right there at the tip of the spear, and in a role where they are indisputably bringing something unique to the table, their gender. So the fact that they can't carry a 120lb ruck as far is honestly counterbalanced by their contribution.

---

Books @ Amazon
"If only he had used his genius for niceness, instead of Evil." M. Smart

There is a distinction between the women's contributions, as an enabler, and that of them being an actual Special Forces/ Ranger / SEAL operator. There are very few operators that would state that women have no place augmenting tactical SOF element. However,the key piece that ensures elite units operate as they do is their higher standards, morale, and ability to operate in austere environments.

Some units have women working side by side with male counterparts, both conventional and SOF, without issues. Where there lies an issue is if you want to change a necessary standard just to say that they are doing the samething. In admin a male and female can file the paperwork the same, in the motorpool they may both be able to turn the wrench.... Therefore it would make sense to say they are equal. However, if an indivdual cannot meet the standards or qualifications to operate as an SF/Ranger/SEAL operator there should not be a movement to push them to it solely on gender. There are many jobs that augment SOF operators to ensure mission success that are not SOF. The cook at the DFAC does not need to be SOF nor does the admin, ammo, engineers, etc.

Too many individuals want to get bogged down in the "first female Ranger","First female Green Beret" rather than acknowledging the significant contributions that women are already making while attached to those units.

Agreed.

---

Books @ Amazon
"If only he had used his genius for niceness, instead of Evil." M. Smart