Women to become Navy SEAL's and Army Rangers

[Benzin388]

Really? Where were you in the early 90's when we were being forced to take all kinds of drugs in preparation or GW1? Pyridostigmine, anthrax vaccinations, smallpox vaccinations, we were forced to take these or suffer non-judicial punishment.

Early nineties? Lets see...90-94? Elementary school.

*scratches smallpox shot scar*....Yep, still happens. :2wave:

 

[APACHERAT]

The face of warfare has changed. The USA won't be putting 200,000 troops on the ground again nor occupying countries and sending out seek-out-and-destroy missions.

That's because America's military will be the military that President Obama left America. America that will not be able to deploy and put well trained and equipped 200,000 boots on the ground.

But China, Russia, North Korea, India, etc. will be able to do it.

 

[Benzin388]

There was a similar thread made probably around 2 years ago that had to do with this. I made a post back then...and I stand by it just as much today as I do when I posted back then, but as lazy as I am after work I'm going to use the glorious copy and paste. So here goes.



There is no doubt that women have performed courageously and admirably in combat in Afghanistan and Iraq. The disappearance of the "front line" has made the battlefield equally dangerous for any type of unit, and thus, females in those "non-combat" units.

First, I don't like the analogy that some have made of pilots (in comparison to Infantry), because I don't think you can really compare the two. I believe a woman should be allowed to pilot any aircraft, because at the end of the day, she doesn't lay her head down with 100 grunts.

To me, this debate is not about ability. Many women have the capability of doing anything a man can do if not out-do. The real issue is about women living with an infantry company in combat on a day to day basis. I will use my own experiences to make this judgment.

In 2007, I was in an infantry company in Iraq, living on a remote outpost (not a FOB). For the first 5 months of combat, we had no females at our outpost. I would regard the company as one of the more disciplined I've served in. After five months, we required additional support to move our troops out to missions. 3 five-ton trucks with female drivers were attached to us. Even though we afforded them their own living space (which wasnt mandatory), problems began almost immediately. All three females started to linger around the platoon bays nightly. They began relationships with NCOs, subverting the chain of command, and were engaged in sexual activity with other lower enlisted Soldiers/Airmen, as well. This caused more than one fist fight. Sex was happening in the outhouses, in the platoon bays and in the vehicles. Adultery was committed on a number of occasions. The staunch discipline we enjoyed prior to their arrival was starting to erode. My commander chose to have them sent back to their support units and "swapped" for male truck drivers. All detrimental effects reversed immediately. We found out later that one of the females became pregnant, and was sent home.

-Later, living on another remote outpost in Iraq during 08-09, the unit i was under had a combat support company attached to it. There were about ten females in this company. We weren't there for a month and the drama began. One female became pregnant. Another committed adultery. Fights between male soldiers erupted over girlfriends. Females were hopping on convoys to other FOBs to have "conjugal visits" with their boyfriends in other units. Then another female became pregnant. Then a female NCO began a relationship with a soldier that worked for her. Eventually, there were sexual assault accusations, he said, she said. And on, and on, and on. It was a mess.

Now this may sound like I am blaming females, I am not. I am blaming the fact that they were living with a predominantly male unit many times on FOB's. There would have been no issues if they weren't there. Of course, there are many answers to this. Some could blame male soldiers for lack of discipline. I know I do. Others would say that both males and females are to blame. Others would blame the chain of command for turning a blind eye and not wanting to do anything about the issues. But one must understand how difficult it is for a male commander to do the finger pointing.

The best environment for female soldiers is to be around other female soldiers. For one, they will have female leadership that can address the issues specifically. If combat MOSs and AFSC's were opened up to females, their numbers in the infantry battalions and combat units would be low, causing situations similar to the ones that I have outlined.

I have served in units that were all male, and others that were mixed. Just based off what I've seen, a female presence in an all-male infantry unit will cause a disruption in discipline, and thus, cause a disruption to combat operations. This is not a matter of females being qualified or unfit to serve; this is a matter of human nature.

As for females in SOF, I would vehemently disagree. The physical requirements are so difficult than in all likelihood, most women would not be able to make it through SOF selection. If and when they did, it would be likely that there would only be a few females in the SOF force and the same problems I've outlined above would occur. Not to mention, the primary mission of SOF is to work with foreign armies and militias. In most cultures that we fight wars in, a female wouldn't be considered a legitimate counterpart by HNF or militia leadership. This is why the army doesn't allow females to be advisors for MiTT teams in Iraq or Afghanistan. A good call, in my opinion.

I re-iterate, this isn't about the ability of females or the fact that they just cant cut it in combat-i know they can. This is about the potential disruption that they will cause in infantry and other all-male units. They (females) may not intend for these disruptions, but it will happen. I've seen it to many times to be naive.




*In addition, the standards should NEVER be lowered for ANYONE...PERIOD. The brave folks in SOF can do what they do BECAUSE the standards are so difficult. You lower those standards and people WILL die.

 

[APACHERAT]

There was a similar thread made probably around 2 years ago that had to do with this. I made a post back then...and I stand by it just as much today as I do when I posted back then, but as lazy as I am after work I'm going to use the glorious copy and paste. So here goes.



There is no doubt that women have performed courageously and admirably in combat in Afghanistan and Iraq. The disappearance of the "front line" has made the battlefield equally dangerous for any type of unit, and thus, females in those "non-combat" units.

First, I don't like the analogy that some have made of pilots (in comparison to Infantry), because I don't think you can really compare the two. I believe a woman should be allowed to pilot any aircraft, because at the end of the day, she doesn't lay her head down with 100 grunts.

To me, this debate is not about ability. Many women have the capability of doing anything a man can do if not out-do. The real issue is about women living with an infantry company in combat on a day to day basis. I will use my own experiences to make this judgment.

In 2007, I was in an infantry company in Iraq, living on a remote outpost (not a FOB). For the first 5 months of combat, we had no females at our outpost. I would regard the company as one of the more disciplined I've served in. After five months, we required additional support to move our troops out to missions. 3 five-ton trucks with female drivers were attached to us. Even though we afforded them their own living space (which wasnt mandatory), problems began almost immediately. All three females started to linger around the platoon bays nightly. They began relationships with NCOs, subverting the chain of command, and were engaged in sexual activity with other lower enlisted Soldiers/Airmen, as well. This caused more than one fist fight. Sex was happening in the outhouses, in the platoon bays and in the vehicles. Adultery was committed on a number of occasions. The staunch discipline we enjoyed prior to their arrival was starting to erode. My commander chose to have them sent back to their support units and "swapped" for male truck drivers. All detrimental effects reversed immediately. We found out later that one of the females became pregnant, and was sent home.

-Later, living on another remote outpost in Iraq during 08-09, the unit i was under had a combat support company attached to it. There were about ten females in this company. We weren't there for a month and the drama began. One female became pregnant. Another committed adultery. Fights between male soldiers erupted over girlfriends. Females were hopping on convoys to other FOBs to have "conjugal visits" with their boyfriends in other units. Then another female became pregnant. Then a female NCO began a relationship with a soldier that worked for her. Eventually, there were sexual assault accusations, he said, she said. And on, and on, and on. It was a mess.

Now this may sound like I am blaming females, I am not. I am blaming the fact that they were living with a predominantly male unit many times on FOB's. There would have been no issues if they weren't there. Of course, there are many answers to this. Some could blame male soldiers for lack of discipline. I know I do. Others would say that both males and females are to blame. Others would blame the chain of command for turning a blind eye and not wanting to do anything about the issues. But one must understand how difficult it is for a male commander to do the finger pointing.

The best environment for female soldiers is to be around other female soldiers. For one, they will have female leadership that can address the issues specifically. If combat MOSs and AFSC's were opened up to females, their numbers in the infantry battalions and combat units would be low, causing situations similar to the ones that I have outlined.

I have served in units that were all male, and others that were mixed. Just based off what I've seen, a female presence in an all-male infantry unit will cause a disruption in discipline, and thus, cause a disruption to combat operations. This is not a matter of females being qualified or unfit to serve; this is a matter of human nature.

As for females in SOF, I would vehemently disagree. The physical requirements are so difficult than in all likelihood, most women would not be able to make it through SOF selection. If and when they did, it would be likely that there would only be a few females in the SOF force and the same problems I've outlined above would occur. Not to mention, the primary mission of SOF is to work with foreign armies and militias. In most cultures that we fight wars in, a female wouldn't be considered a legitimate counterpart by HNF or militia leadership. This is why the army doesn't allow females to be advisors for MiTT teams in Iraq or Afghanistan. A good call, in my opinion.

I re-iterate, this isn't about the ability of females or the fact that they just cant cut it in combat-i know they can. This is about the potential disruption that they will cause in infantry and other all-male units. They (females) may not intend for these disruptions, but it will happen. I've seen it to many times to be naive.




*In addition, the standards should NEVER be lowered for ANYONE...PERIOD. The brave folks in SOF can do what they do BECAUSE the standards are so difficult. You lower those standards and people WILL die.

I seem to have read this before and not on the DP.

 

[US Conservative]

That's because America's military will be the military that President Obama left America. America that will not be able to deploy and put well trained and equipped 200,000 boots on the ground.

But China, Russia, North Korea, India, etc. will be able to do it.

And they wont be PC little wimps about it.

 

[winston53660]

That's because America's military will be the military that President Obama left America. America that will not be able to deploy and put well trained and equipped 200,000 boots on the ground.

But China, Russia, North Korea, India, etc. will be able to do it.

N Korea, LMAO. AnyHows, So what good does it do in this day and age to put 200K BOOTS ON THE GROUND?

 

[APACHERAT]

N Korea, LMAO. AnyHows, So what good does it do in this day and age to put 200K BOOTS ON THE GROUND?

Well it didn't do any good in Iraq in 2003. That's why a three month war turned into a eight year war, because we didn't have the 400,000 boots on the ground that our generals said we needed to occupy Iraq after the mission of regime change was accomplished.

Remember ?

And what was Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld response for going to war with the Clinton's military ? "You go to war with the army you have."

 

[joko104]

Well it didn't do any good in Iraq in 2003. That's why a three month war turned into a eight year war, because we didn't have the 400,000 boots on the ground that our generals said we needed to occupy Iraq after the mission of regime change was accomplished.

Remember ?

And what was Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld response for going to war with the Clinton's military ? "You go to war with the army you have."

Has there even been a time when generals didn't say they needed more troops in any war or major battle.

That's why Lincoln fired McCclelellan. Wouldn't fight, saying he never had enough troops.

 

[cpwill]

N Korea, LMAO. AnyHows, So what good does it do in this day and age to put 200K BOOTS ON THE GROUND?

Well it sure helped with the Surge in Iraq. Probably would have (as Apacherat suggests) we would have been better off going with Shinseki's estimate in 2003.

Wars can be fought in the sky, on the sea, in the media, and across the electromagnetic spectrum. But they are won by the infantry.

 

[joko104]

Well it sure helped with the Surge in Iraq. Probably would have (as Apacherat suggests) we would have been better off going with Shinseki's estimate in 2003.

Wars can be fought in the sky, on the sea, in the media, and across the electromagnetic spectrum. But they are won by the infantry.

Yeah, the American infantry sure took out the Libyan government. :lamo

ALL that wasted money on nuclear deterrence. Hell, the USSR never feared that. But they were terrified of the M16. :roll:

That's why to meet the perceived future danger of the Chinese, we need to increase the number of ready troops by 400%. We should sell one state in the USA each 5 years to the highest bidder to pay for it.

 

[joko104]

It's about cooks. NO WAR, ever, has been won without cooks. :lol:

 

[APACHERAT]

Has there even been a time when generals didn't say they needed more troops in any war or major battle.

That's why Lincoln fired McCclelellan. Wouldn't fight, saying he never had enough troops.

There were a number of battles in the Pacific during WW ll where the reserve troops usually of regimental size remained aboard ship and were never sent ashore. But there were probably more battles where there weren't enough troops.

 

[joko104]

What's happening with my daughter is interesting. She was bounced from her scheduled physical, which possibly means she has been rejected. This has been going on now for 2 months.
A friend of her's pursued enlistment around the same time. She was sworn in 1 week after she began pursuing it. She has never kept the same job for a month, failed out of college, and secretly plans to get pregnant shortly after going in. That would lighten her duties and she also then qualified for government assistance in addition to her military pay and benefits. So I guess her friend is "smart." Figuring out the system for ease and profit. The military? No so much so it seems.

My daughter has been accepted to Americore and already 2 dozen offers within it. She's about to throw in the towel on trying to enlist and within less than 30 days has to accept or decline Americore. While she could bail out if later accepted by the military, she's not that unreliable nor takes commitment that lightly. Since Americore only pays about $500 a month, it's not about money to her. It's about service.

 

[Oozlefinch]

There were a number of battles in the Pacific during WW ll where the reserve troops usually of regimental size remained aboard ship and were never sent ashore. But there were probably more battles where there weren't enough troops.

Actually, I can only think of a single battle in the Pacific where the Reserves were not sent in. I know of many cases where they were held back and sent in the 3rd or subsequent waves as casualties piled up and units that were combat ineffective because of casualties were rotated to the rear, but only 1 where they were not sent in.

And that one was the Battle of Okinawa, where the 2nd Marine Division was held in reserve, mostly because of logistics (the troops on the ground were already short of ammo, food, and other supplies). That battle also had 3 Army Divisions held "in reserve", but they were already assigned for occupation duty after the islands were taken, and not intended for combat in the first place (unless casualties were much higher then expected).

 

[joko104]

N Korea, LMAO. AnyHows, So what good does it do in this day and age to put 200K BOOTS ON THE GROUND?

If you want to try to establish a colony by military rule and military imposed martial law. As long as you do, you can stay. But that isn't profitable anymore, but astronomically expensive.

 

[Bodi]

If they can cut it without the standards being lowered, then what's the huge deal?

I was going to post essentially this... this is what we said in the Fire Brigade. That is why there was only 1 woman and there were 23 men.

 

[joko104]

My daughter, today, was enlisted into the Air Force. Every other women there was disqualified from ANY branch of service, but she estimates at least 90%, maybe more, of the guys were too. I wrote about all that over in the tavern. If they couldn't use any of the many new arbitrary reasons, they just used "bad attitude" to disqualify someone.

It would SEEM the military actually is examining those who want to enlist very carefully, given they probably only need 1 in 100 that want to join up. So they only take THE best - and even will bend those rules for those few - while basically saying "sorry, can use you" - even if the reason they have to give is "bad attitude" - one of those judgment type reasons.

She was offered and told it all but certain she would be accepted for a special "Survivalist Program." Very rigorous supposedly, but also a special path from just going thru basic.

Air Force doesn't do combat (unless trapped) on the ground. And I can't see her as being infantry. She's fairly tough (wrote about to in the tavern), but nearly all combat infantry could beat her in a fight (probably) and certainly outshoot her, but unless it starts face to face I'd put the odds in her favor. She's smart. And tricky. Has some unusually ideas about battles too -as in how to win them - and with virtually no casualties on either side. I'll write about that as it was a curious comment she made one time.

The topic is "standards" and it does appear the military is going to individualizing the selection process, without being entirely formal about it.

 

[Gathomas88]

*scratches smallpox shot scar*....Yep, still happens. :2wave:

I managed to avoid that one, thankfully, as I had a skin rash at the time. :lol:

 

[US Conservative]

My daughter, today, was enlisted into the Air Force. Every other women there was disqualified from ANY branch of service, but she estimates at least 90%, maybe more, of the guys were too. I wrote about all that over in the tavern. If they couldn't use any of the many new arbitrary reasons, they just used "bad attitude" to disqualify someone.

It would SEEM the military actually is examining those who want to enlist very carefully, given they probably only need 1 in 100 that want to join up. So they only take THE best - and even will bend those rules for those few - while basically saying "sorry, can use you" - even if the reason they have to give is "bad attitude" - one of those judgment type reasons.

She was offered and told it all but certain she would be accepted for a special "Survivalist Program." Very rigorous supposedly, but also a special path from just going thru basic.

Air Force doesn't do combat (unless trapped) on the ground. And I can't see her as being infantry. She's fairly tough (wrote about to in the tavern), but nearly all combat infantry could beat her in a fight (probably) and certainly outshoot her, but unless it starts face to face I'd put the odds in her favor. She's smart. And tricky. Has some unusually ideas about battles too -as in how to win them - and with virtually no casualties on either side. I'll write about that as it was a curious comment she made one time.

The topic is "standards" and it does appear the military is going to individualizing the selection process, without being entirely formal about it.

Joko congrats, one thing Ive heard, is to make sure to get any promises made by recruiters in writing, just an fyi.

 

[joko104]

Thanks.
She's now sworn in so recruiters are out of the picture.

 

[joko104]

Had a long talk with her last night. I misunderstood how many were disqualified. They use what I could call a loop around method to get around disqualifications for people they want. Basically lying.

They stress it is a felony to lie plus being caught lying disqualified. Then use the truth to disqualify who they are not interested in. But for those they are interested in there is an elaborate system of variously lies employed. It's almost funny.

They stress 1.) you must tell the truth and 2.) explain what information the military does and does NOT have access to. They can access criminal records. Obviously anything a blood test would show. Otherwise almost nothing.

For example, they allow a person to have "tried marijuana once." Only once. But, of course, have no way to know. She said they tended to press people HARD on that question: "How many times have you used marijuana? Tell me the truth, was it 1 time or more than 1 time? It can only be 1 time, but if you lie we WILL know."

If the person answers something like "maybe more than once," they will either 1.) disqualify the person or 2.) tell the person to go think about their answer and come back. They will repeat that until a person they want says "Just 1 time." The goal is to get a person they want to say "1 time only" AND TO STICK TO THAT ANSWER.

They CAN "waive" some restrictions, but apparently that is quite a process. Instead, for someone one they want they just ignore it or put down falsely the person passed.

For my daughter, the medical there for her (Air Force female), the doctor signed of on:
1. My daughter had perfect feet certifying she exampled her feet and they passed (she had foot surgery on both and the Air Force person never examined them.)
2. My daughter can't hear certain low tones - but the Air Force medical officer certified that she could.
3. Informed my daughter that she was entering that she is an inch taller than she is to qualify her for more positions.
4. Ignored the rules about ear piercing and ear gauges.

 

[joko104]

She said they were "extreme" on the topic of sexual harassment. There were 76 questions on an overall survey about their recruiter and this medical examination process specifically about whether they feel they were treated fairly as women in this testing process and about their recruiter. And that there were two lecturers specifically on the topic of sexual harassment everyone there had to listen to, stressing they take sexual harassment seriously.

The recruiter said one woman had checked she felt "uncomfortable" with a male recruiter in the past. They called in that recruiter and that applicant (separately) to investigation that response. WHY did she feel "uncomfortable" with him? Turned out he had a accent that she had a difficult for her to understand and that is why she had checked "uncomfortable." That it had nothing to do with gender or harassment.

 

[APACHERAT]

My daughter, today, was enlisted into the Air Force. Every other women there was disqualified from ANY branch of service, but she estimates at least 90%, maybe more, of the guys were too. I wrote about all that over in the tavern. If they couldn't use any of the many new arbitrary reasons, they just used "bad attitude" to disqualify someone.

It would SEEM the military actually is examining those who want to enlist very carefully, given they probably only need 1 in 100 that want to join up. So they only take THE best - and even will bend those rules for those few - while basically saying "sorry, can use you" - even if the reason they have to give is "bad attitude" - one of those judgment type reasons.

She was offered and told it all but certain she would be accepted for a special "Survivalist Program." Very rigorous supposedly, but also a special path from just going thru basic.

Air Force doesn't do combat (unless trapped) on the ground. And I can't see her as being infantry. She's fairly tough (wrote about to in the tavern), but nearly all combat infantry could beat her in a fight (probably) and certainly outshoot her, but unless it starts face to face I'd put the odds in her favor. She's smart. And tricky. Has some unusually ideas about battles too -as in how to win them - and with virtually no casualties on either side. I'll write about that as it was a curious comment she made one time.

The topic is "standards" and it does appear the military is going to individualizing the selection process, without being entirely formal about it.

Congratulations Joko and to your daughter.

I suppose you can say your now party of the military community.

 

[polgara]

My daughter, today, was enlisted into the Air Force. Every other women there was disqualified from ANY branch of service, but she estimates at least 90%, maybe more, of the guys were too. I wrote about all that over in the tavern. If they couldn't use any of the many new arbitrary reasons, they just used "bad attitude" to disqualify someone.

It would SEEM the military actually is examining those who want to enlist very carefully, given they probably only need 1 in 100 that want to join up. So they only take THE best - and even will bend those rules for those few - while basically saying "sorry, can use you" - even if the reason they have to give is "bad attitude" - one of those judgment type reasons.

She was offered and told it all but certain she would be accepted for a special "Survivalist Program." Very rigorous supposedly, but also a special path from just going thru basic.

Air Force doesn't do combat (unless trapped) on the ground. And I can't see her as being infantry. She's fairly tough (wrote about to in the tavern), but nearly all combat infantry could beat her in a fight (probably) and certainly outshoot her, but unless it starts face to face I'd put the odds in her favor. She's smart. And tricky. Has some unusually ideas about battles too -as in how to win them - and with virtually no casualties on either side. I'll write about that as it was a curious comment she made one time.

The topic is "standards" and it does appear the military is going to individualizing the selection process, without being entirely formal about it.

Congratulations to your daughter, Joko104, and kudos to you, her proud Dad! It sounds like you raised an exceptional young lady! :thumbs: Keep us advised on her future in the Air Force.

Greetings, Joko104. :2wave:

 

[joko104]

Going into the military was her decision - and came as a surprise to us. She was excelling in college as she always did, but was unsure what direction she was going to take it in terms of career - other than had decided to head for a goal of government employment, environmentally focused, at an administrative level. For that, having military service on her resume' would be a big plus.

Since she wasn't certain of a career path, she couldn't clearly pick her educational path to continue on, didn't want to waste effort towards irrelevant effort in the future. So she thinks that in the military she could more mature, more diverse experiences and knowledge, and more figure where she ultimately wants to go career and life-wise as she does.

She explored what the military offers and decided the time to do it is NOW, not waiting until graduation from college. Since the Air Force gives college credit for much of their education and training, plus she could do classes during her off hours, she would be addressing two goals at the same time. She also decided now is the time to do it as the military is rolling back it's size, so she should get in before it becomes even more difficult.

She has been conditioned across the years to do the effort, that nothing comes for free. Her goal - and it is possible - is at the end of her 6 year term to have her master's degree. Then either she could relist OR go on the job market with BOTH military service AND a masters, which when combined otherwise with her resume' would be VERY impressive for someone 26 years old. She recognizes that to obtain her goal of being a high ranker in a government agency - and not having to wait until she's in her 50s to do it - she better have a helluva resume'. OR, if she wants to be career military she doesn't want to just be average.