I'm not shocked (and trust me when I say that she saw, maybe, 1/10th of one-percent of what she would have seen later, as her training progressed through the various phases). I went through BUD/S way back in the day and it was the hardest thing I'd ever tried in my life. Most guys "ring out" of the training as well. (Look up what "ringing out" entails and means.)

Word is Naval Special Warfare Command (and the Navy) isn't going to budge even a millimeter when it comes to lowering the physical (and mental) training requirements to become a special warfare operator in today's SEAL Team environment, which is a full order of magnitude more demanding -- physically and mentally -- than a few decades ago, believe me.

Lastly: women do not belong in at least the lead-slinging part of SPECOPS/SPECWAR. They can drive the boats and they can fly the helos and planes, sure. (Some of the smartest and most skilled helo pilots I knew out in the field were Army, Navy and Marine Corps women.) But the Frogman/Ranger/Special Forces/Air Force PJ stuff? NO.

At best, 1 out of 100 women may (MAY) make it through the physical screening test, then Naval Special Warfare Prep School, then BUD/S itself. We know this for a fact. So why are we futzing around with one of the finest special warfare communities in the world to accommodate one percent of a given Navy population group (BUD/S applicants)?

Anyway, here are a couple of articles I've written for the Houston Chronicle about Navy Special Warfare and the BUD/S selection, training and Navy SEAL career fields:

What Are Jobs in the Navy Seals? | Chron.com


Is Becoming a Navy Seal a Realistic Goal? | Chron.com

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

agreed...but do i hear the pc police and sjw's rally cry?

---

ΜΟΛΩΝ-ΛΑΒΕ
we're doomed

Hahahaha! Why yes, you do hear that cry. ;-)

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

Maybe they can start a Charlie's Angels program.

Insert GI Jane suck my dick meme here

gi jane gif

---

"I think I've cracked the code. double letters are cheaters except for perfect squares (a, d, i, p and y). So Leddy isn't a cheater... "

She just dropped out of mini-BUD/S, which is basically a 3 week taste of what BUD/S might be like. It's offered to midshipmen and ROTC students between junior and senior year of Academy/college. Any number of reasons she might have quit. On guy had to quit when I was at USNA because he got bronchitis. It's not an important enough training event to risk serious illness or injury, and as far as I know, it's not a prerequisite for selection to be a BUD/S candidate.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

GI Jane was a movie and a fairy tale about what goes on at BUD/S and then in the Teams.

Many men who spend a career in the SPECOPS or SPECWAR community are physically beaten up by the time they retire. And recent studies are saying that the cumulative effect of such activity on women who are doing "just" straight-leg infantry stuff and not even SPECOPS stuff tends to be even worse. Then there's the divorce rate, the drinking issues...it's not a pretty picture sometimes.

It sucks, but it's a fact: men are, ON AVERAGE, physically stronger than women. And SPECOPS and SPECWAR aren't looking for the average. They want more than that from a candidate. Most guys wash out of those kinds of military training courses. Why women -- who are supposed to be smarter than men -- would even want to try to do that sort of work is beyond my comprehension.

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

Why women -- who are supposed to be smarter than men -- would even want to try to do that sort of work is beyond my comprehension. //

Why do men want to do this sort of work??

cuz were stooped.
my wife is a vball coach. she had a mentor when she first got started who wouldn't coach girls. his standard phrase, when asked to help with the girls, was, "they just don't get it...shit." after she started coaching girls on her own, she then got what he was saying. she loved the guy, he was a great coach and he always came and helped when asked and did what he could.

i told her coaching boys is like dealing with labs. you tell them to do something, no matter how stupid, and they'll go, "ok", and of we go. when we fail we laugh and our buds laugh at, and with, us.

then i told her that coaching girls is like trying to coach cats.

---

ΜΟΛΩΝ-ΛΑΒΕ
we're doomed

I don't know about the officers -- because all of us, O and E, went through the exact same prep phases back then, and almost everyone came either from the Fleet or from an officer accession source (USNA, OCS, etc.). I was an enlisted man at the time (an HM2). We had a LT(jg) and two Ensigns in the class, to start.

What we called "mini-BUD/S" ("Pre-Phase") back then was indeed the first three weeks before you began the 26-week, three-phase training course. You received your orders to report to the school in Coronado and away you went. The last week of that mini-training "pre-phase" was almost exactly the same as what you were going to be drilled (more like, "butt-f**ked" ;-) with during the first phase of your 26 weeks of training ( 8 weeks of physical training, drown-proofing, night events, ocean swims, long-distance rubber boat paddling, long beach runs in the soft or hard-packed sand on the Silver Strand, surf passage exercises etc., culminating in Hell Week).

Seriously, today's special warfare candidates and operators are a lot better-trained, and more rigorously screened and eventually more highly skilled than just a generation or so ago. My cover's off to them, and I'm glad the Navy's got 'em.

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

Ummmm...because we're idiots? ;-)

Some of it is primal, is my guess.

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

My impression from reading the articles available, is that this is not pre-phase. This is the specific 3 week mini-BUD/S that is set up for midshipmen, to give them a taste of what BUD/s would be like, and to give ROTC and USNA an opportunity to see how they might do, before they head off to be SEAL candidates after graduation.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Ah. Got it. Thanks. I didn't know she was an officer candidate of some sort (Middie, Ox, etc.).

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

Well the Navy isn't identifying her, but that's how the articles I've read describe the training.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Back in the 70's, they had a 3-week course for USAF Academy cadets that a few guys went to. (We all had three 3-week sessions every summer, one of which was normally "leave" and the other two you did some sort of military training.) I didn't have any desire to go (a combination of not wanting to get shit on for three weeks, I probably couldn't have passed the prescreening test which involved a lot of swimming, and my own common sense). But most of us thought that the guys who did go were pretty badass. They got to wear a neat "UDT" shoulder patch on their jacket, which (I think) stood for "underwater demolition team". Probably not the same course, but they said you did lots of PT in the sand and in the water (while having grenade simulators thrown in your direction), didn't get much sleep, and you got shit on all of the time by the instructors. Even now, it still doesn't sound like a great way to spend three weeks during the summer.

---

"Human existence is based upon two pillars: Compassion and knowledge. Compassion without knowledge is ineffective; Knowledge without compassion is inhuman." Victor Weisskopf.

Ummmm...because we're idiots? ;-)

Some of it is primal, is my guess. //

I got to know a lot of these guys back in the day since I was the one that sold them their new fangled wetsuits(OR's). I had a shop in the San Diego area and several of the seals were also triathletes. They loved their tri suits and convinced the bosses to convert to those from the old dive suits.


Anyway I figure just about any pro man triathlete from a swimming background could make it through BUDs, a few I know actually went and did it, Kerry Classen coming to mind. And you don't have to be huge, a couple of the guys were about 160lbs and about my size, unless things have changed. That is the physical side, on top of that you have to be one of those people that want to serve their country, and on top of that be highly competitive. These top units do not connect with the average Joe that just wants to serve, they want to be the best of the best and want in the shit.


There is no doubt in my mind that there are women that would make it through the entire physical course for becoming a seal, but they would have to be from a swimming/water polo/surfing background, and at a very high level for women. They would also have to be patriotic and competitive, which I assume is not just for men.


Of course since the entry level for women is a very small % compared to men, and when you add the other attributes, well the odds are not very good that someone like that will come along. My guess is this latest gal did not meet my requirement in the water, but most definitely had the other two. There are women out there that would not be the weakest seal out there, and they would not need a hand up to pass all the tests. Take a look at some of the crossfit women these days, probably a large % of current seals could not match up with them in strength. Just have to find that one that also was a pro surfer and water polo player who loves a good fight, and stands for every pledge of allegiance proudly and has to find that flag in the crowd.


Of course I'm ignoring any gender continuity arguments, that is a different topic than just making it..

IDK but had I been able to post the meme it might have been funny !

---

"I think I've cracked the code. double letters are cheaters except for perfect squares (a, d, i, p and y). So Leddy isn't a cheater... "

I was going to say that the ones who did best at BUD/S during my time came from competitive high school or college swimming backgrounds. Not one of them dropped out. Some of that is the mental toughness that comes from doing endless yards in a pool, often at ungodly early hours or at early hours in sometimes very cold water. And every one of the "Ah-nuld" types in my class eventually dropped out. Every one. I didn't come from a competitive swimming background and so I struggled, sometimes horribly so, at times.

BTW: Coronado is where I first heard the words "triathlon" and "triathlete." The instructors told us to go sign up for one of those newfangled events, even if we had to rent a Huffy beach cruiser for a bike. Which some of us did. And then afterwards, we went to the Gator Gardens back on base (or the Country Bumpkin in I.B. ;-) and drank beer. LOL! (What's funny, though, is I didn't do Superfrog over at North Island until the early 90s.)

Other parts of your thesis above? I'm not so sure, at least from my personal experience. I've done ultras (going sub-10, which ain't a world-class skill set at that distance, but I was good enough to gain Tri-Fed and USAT AG All-American (top 10%) several times over a few different age groups, plus a few overall race wins at the shorter distances. I've put the training hours into the sport (Troy Jacobson used to make up my training plans back when he was first starting out in that side of the sport/business, and he's not one of those "short-but-intense-training-sessions" guys hahahahaha!). It's tough, no doubt. But BUD/S and what Team guys (and RECON Marines) go through -- and do? Ummmmmm...maybe when the water polo and swim studs are getting shot at at the same time, it'd be an accurate comparison? (Just kidding. :-)

Really, both worlds (triathlon and SPECOPS/SPECWAR) are unique and treasures unto themselves. I'm just not all that sure that we should be throwing over what is a lethally skilled and deadly serious community of warriors for the sake of an exceedingly small population group who isn't suffering anything, career-wise (for one), for not having had the chance to enter that community. To me, it's pretty much all downside and no real upside.

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

Oh, I know that meme. And thank you for trying to post it. It is, indeed, funny! :-)

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

Really, both worlds (triathlon and SPECOPS/SPECWAR) are unique and treasures unto themselves. I'm just not all that sure that we should be throwing over what is a lethally skilled and deadly serious community of warriors for the sake of an exceedingly small population group who isn't suffering anything, career-wise (for one), for not having had the chance to enter that community. To me, it's pretty much all downside and no real upside. //

I wasn't comparing the two different groups with each other, just pointing out that the physical skillsets each need are very similar. The triathlete women I had in mind were sub 9 hour gals, and a few water polo/pro triathlete girls came to mind too. And you are right in that the real swimmers have a much easier time with the physical side, I knew a lot of the muscle head types that barley got through (or didn't with advanced swimming skills. It really just comes down to comfort in the water, that translates to the hell in the water they put your through. Pro big wave surfers get hold downs that would make most seals cry in their beds, but as you say there is more to it than that.


I'm not throwing them over at all, in fact I bow down to what they sign up for and are capable of doing. I'm just pointing out that there are a group of people just as capable physically if they wanted and were given the chance. I understand the feeling to keep the status quo for a group like this though, I'll stipulate to that being a valid reason to keep it a mens club...

As always, you make great points and have given us (including me) something to think about. Thanks for adding so much to the colloquy. :-)

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

Moderately so. I'd say the key similarities are (generally) comfort in the water, and ability to suffer. The key for a SEAL (or most other Special Forces guys) is the ability to suffer for extended periods and simply not quit. Comfort in the water is also important for SEALs, as you said, because you're in the water so much. You have to be able to function in bad water conditions, underwater under duress without panicking. Lots of SEALs were swimmers or water polo players. However, there's a lot of upper body strength required as well. I'm not talking about body builder muscles, but real functional strength. Lots of triathletes are a bit weak in the upper body. Push-ups, pull-ups, dips, over-head press (like carrying around a soaking log over your head) etc all wear you down fast, and lots of triathletes aren't nearly as strong in the upper body as they are in the core and legs.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

However, there's a lot of upper body strength required as well. I'm not talking about body builder muscles, but real functional strength. Lots of triathletes are a bit weak in the upper body. Push-ups, pull-ups, dips, over-head press (like carrying around a soaking log over your head) etc all wear you down fast, and lots of triathletes aren't nearly as strong in the upper body as they are in the core and legs. //


I agree with the strength issue, but it is easily solved by just gaining a ton of muscle on top of your swimming core. I remember Kerry as a waifish endurance pro triathlete and adventure racer, then saw him later after his stint in the seals with 20 to 30 extra pounds. Hell, even the actor that played in that navy seal movie gained like 40 lbs in under a year for the role, it is not that hard if you are motivated. You are plugging in the 4 to 6% body fat athletes into those seal roles, they can change all that if they have a mind to. And I remember one guy who was one of the original seals I knew back in the early to mid 80's, and he couldn't have been over 155 and about 5'9" maybe? He would routinely place in his AG in Kona too, and back then they also had an armed services division he would podium in. So not entirely a requirement to be big and strong, but certainly a bonus if you are.

Uhhh dude, she finished 20 years ago..

An eye-rollingly bad flick. But it's a movie and it was made for entertainment purposes and that comes first in any movie. Realism always has to take a back seat to exposition, after all. ;-)

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

So basically this could be nothing more than an illness and we get national media coverage to whip up controversy and more media coverage.

I'll tell you this: every day, every one of us (our class started with 75 candidates) ate Motrin like it was going out of style. We called that stuff "BUD/S Candy," in fact. Back then, we had no idea that it could also be potentially harmful over the long term, in some cases. All we knew was that we needed some way to deaden pain that would keep you from getting in any kind of normal sleep (sleep deprivation was a constant companion) and make you curl up and want to suck your thumb. ;-)

We got the Navy corpsmen on staff at the amphibious base to give us large bottles of Motrin and we passed them around. I was probably taking several thousand milligrams daily for stretches at a time, at one point. So was everyone else. And all of us doubled our normal daily intake during Hell Week if we could get away with it ("if you ain't cheating, you ain't trying, so we had it hidden all over the place and the instructors were turning a blind eye, as well). During a timed 'O' course event, I'd ripped big patches of skin off the palms of my hands (the instructors had wrapped friction tape on various rungs on some obstacles). Add sand, sweat and seawater to that raw skin and teeth clenching pain was the order of the day. The only relief I and others got was from blessed, blessed Motrin, hahahaha!. So, yes: you had to learn to suffer well and suffer long at BUD/S.

(The ability to "out-suffer" the enemy is a hallmark of the U.S. military, after all, going back to the Revolutionary War, when Washington and his men conducted a winter amphibious night assault and killed a bunch of German mercenaries in their sleep. ;-)

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

But then are they going to be able to run? The SAS I suppose have different requirements, but there probably are a lot of similarities in the selection process. My mates brother just went through selection. One of the first things they do when they arrive is run a 5km TT, if you're not sub 20, you're on the next plane outta there. 20% candidates don't make it past the first day. But as well as running at speed you're going to have to be able to haul 30kg packs. Any women I know that run sub 20mins 5km are small and lean, weighing little over 50kg, no chance they are going to be able to carry a pack weighing 60% of their body weight for a long distance. And likewise any women capable of carrying heavy packs aren't going to be able run sub 20.

I apologize for the length of this reply, but it's necessary to give a full picture of what's going on here in the SPECOPS/SPECWAR world:


The injury rate among the women who have made it into just the straight-leg infantry units in the Army -- and what the Marine Corps has found from studying the issue closely among the women Marines going through the School of Infantry -- is higher than average (sometimes much higher). A recent Marine Corps study found several worrying physical (and physiological) issues when it came to women in trigger puller infantry units. Plus, it found that infantry units having WMs in them were less combat-effective than all-male infantry units. And it wasn't really about the mental aspects of the career, because the WMs were as hardcore Marine Corps and as motivated as the male Marines.

Rather, it came down to those same issues we discussed earlier in the thread: on average, men are physically stronger than women. Infantry type activities -- and especially special operations and special warfare tasks -- require physical strength and endurance, over a long haul, that most women don't as yet, on an evolutionary basis, possess.

Now take that basic minimum physical strength and endurance requirement for straight-leg ("non-Airborne") infantry units and multiply it by five or 10 when it comes to U.S. SPECOPS/SPECWAR training courses (BUD/S shares similarities with the SAS course at Hereford (and what color is the boathouse at Hereford? ;-) ;-). One can see, then, that there may be an issue, or several of them, that will negatively effect combat effectiveness among those units.

Something else to consider in support of the above thesis:

The Israelis, who pioneered roles for women in infantry related combat units, have apparently only had mixed success when it comes to the effort. According to a December 2016 article in TheTower(dot)org website:

"This summer, the IDF revealed in its weekly magazine that some 40 percent of women in the Caracal battalion sustained some kind of injury, as did 70 percent of women serving in the Artillery Corps. That is about twice as many injuries as those sustained by male soldiers in the same units." (Israeli Military Looks to Open More Combat Roles to Women | The Tower)

Israel is also considering allowing women in its elite special operations unit, Sayeret Matkal. This is for reasons of both "fairness" (though combat and war isn't "fair") as well as the fact that many in Israeli society's upper echelons come from that world, including the current prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. The thinking is that not being a part of an Israeli infantry unit (such as Caracal) or not coming from an elite SPECOPS force such as Sayeret Matkal could hold women back from advancing as highly as their desire can take them in general Israeli society.

The above similar physical injury outcomes, by the way, have also been found in U.S. Army and Marine Corps combat arms units (artillery, armor, infantry...not so much in air) where women have been offered the opportunity to serve in an infantry military occupational specialty.

I've also seen it out in the field myself, and that was just in Marine Corps "in the rear with the gear" type units such as medical battalions, motor transport battalions and other combat support units. On forced marches of anywhere from 10km to 40km, with full packs and in full field gear (the Army calls it "Battle Rattle"), many women I observed on such events "fell out," meaning they had to ditch their packs and hop in the Humvees (to be fair, a number of males also did, but it was still a far lower number than the females). This is one of the little secrets many an Army or Marine Corps infantry troop can relate to others upon seeing such units training to do their part when it comes to rear area security, patrolling and so forth.

In the Marine Corps, it's true that "every Marine is a rifleman," and women Marines must meet the same rifle qualification, drill, proficiency and conduct (Pros and Cons) and other non-infantry-related requirements as male Marines (but not the same physical qualification standards), and they are definitely no less a Marine than any male who's serving, or has served, as a Marine. I'm glad we have women Marines (and Sailors and Airmen and Soldiers), believe me. I just don't think they'll be as effective an addition to 'leg (and airborne) infantry units as is hoped for by the various interest groups pushing for their inclusion in that world.

As far as SPECOPS/SPECWAR? I'm just not seeing how there's going to be any sort of good outcome when it comes to bringing women into those communities. The Army's already "normalized" the physical qualification standards for the black-and-gold Ranger tab training course ("normalized" means "lowered") in order to push female candidates through. And just because you're a Soldier and have the Ranger tab doesn't mean you're a Ranger. You're "Ranger qualified." To be a Ranger, you must be a member of the Army's 75th Ranger Regiment. My Guard officer wife, along with several Rangers I know who have heard back from both Ranger school training battalion and the 75th Ranger Regiment, has said that the women were cut several breaks by Ranger school staff on orders from Army uniformed higher-ups during some training phases to get them through...which is enraging some folks at 75th Ranger Regiment.





"Regiment" is the elite assault force in the U.S. Army (Special Forces is a different world and they're not constituted to serve in an assault capacity. Consider them to be similar to SAS in many ways...with many Delta Force folks coming from SF, as well as Ranger Regiment). It's where the special operations "rubber meets the road." To be a part of the 75th Ranger Regiment you have to be a "stud warrior," basically. To get to Regiment you first have to complete:

-- Basic Combat Training (the Army's "boot camp"), which every Soldier does (except former Marines, who are given a pass on BCT)

-- Infantry School (tough course)

-- Airborne School (tough course)

-- Ranger Assessment and Selection Program, or "RASP," a ball-buster of an 8-week assessment and training course held at Fort Benning, Georgia. If you don't make it through RASP -- and many Soldiers don't, for physical as well as mental reasons -- you don't get to go to 75th Ranger Regiment. You're sized up by training cadre and if they think you're not a good fit, you don't get to go to Regiment. So you have to be in outstanding physical condition, be well-equipped when it comes to infantry skills and be motivated to a very high degree. And even then, assessment and selection staff may decide you're just not going to be a good fit at Regiment.


What's funny is that you don't necessarily have to have the black-and-gold "Ranger" tab in order to do all this. Once you get to Regiment, the staff there will decide when you're ready to attend the Ranger course, which is an 8-12 week combat leadership training school that almost any Soldier (male and female now), from almost every Army career field (including cooks and bakers ;-), can attend. According to a member of the 75th Ranger Regiment's staff, the course is:


"...designed to teach small unit infantry tactics. It is also designed to simulate the stresses of combat, at least as far as sleep and food deprivation, and planning and execution. It cannot simulate being under fire or seeing members of your unit killed. Students are culled from all units in the army as well as a smaller number coming from other units, namely the Marine Corps." (ed. I've served with many RECON Marines who've attended Ranger School.)

The point to all the above hot air and hoohaw from me is that adding women to what's a deadly-lethal special operations/special warfare business doesn't seem to me to make any sense. U.S. military elite units never lack for male applicants, for one, and the physical qualification standards -- which have been refined over decades of experience and study (centuries, in the case of Rangers) -- seem to me to be appropriate, given the missions that these units are assigned.

Again, assuming that 1 out of 100 (maybe) women could successfully pound their way through such training, why are we doing it? There's never going to be a large-enough number of women to justify all the actions that are going to have to be taken to accommodate their needs, including lowering physical qualification standards. So what's the point?

NOT becoming a member of the U.S. SPECOPS/SPECWAR community has also never held back a military service member (officer or enlisted) from career advancement. In my era, in fact, being a SEAL may have actually hurt at least the officers in the Navy's ranks. In some cases many in the rest of the line officer community looked at SPECWAR officers with some suspicion or even disdain, sometimes because those units lacked military decorum and officer and enlisted members were overly informal with each other. ;-)

Given all the above, I again have to ask the question: Why would women want to do this? They're supposed to be smarter than the menfolks, right? I'm just not seeing the strategic or tactical wisdom in this push to put women in SPECOPS/SPECWAR units.

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."