The Day the US Military Died

US Defense Watch ^ | March 29, 2016 | Ray Starmann

[Pelham]

The biggest problem will be during the boring down time. That’s when mixing young men and women together will kill unit cohesion.

[maddog55]

The Navy SEAL running for Congress, who happens to be transgender

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/11/politics/transgender-navy-seal-congress-kristin-beck-outside-with-insiders/

[Guenevere]

Bttt

[FreedomPoster]

I am going to repost some comments on the general subject from another thread from last Fall:

Comments from my niece’s boyfriend on the women Rangers and the convenient loss of their training records a week or so ago. Applies here too.

He was a Marine 240 gunner, spent time in Afghanistan, this guy is serious business, we probably wish he’d gone to SEAL school, he’d have had a much better than average shot at it. Here’s his commentary on the Ranger school records debacle:

“Oh trust me, I’m aware. S*** makes my blood boil. I’m not even phased by the fact that they’re deliberately hiding the records of the females’ performance. I can only imagine how heavily that course was catered to the females, not to mention the fact that they probably outranked the entire instructor cadre.

We had a female interpreter in afghan, she was at the Company COP so I never saw her. She ended up having an affair with our Co 1st Sgt (surprise).

We also worked with the Brits for a while, since they had a patrol base not far from my squads pb. They also happened to bring in a female interpreter...pregnant in under 2 months, and sent home. Probably got an award for it.

Even if there were females that could meet the minimum physical requirements for the infantry, that s*** will never work. It’ll be detrimental to the combat effectiveness of whatever unit they end up in. Let’s not forget the American “victim” mentality as of late. I can’t even fathom how many sexual harassment cases that would be filed. Then the rape accusations, pregnancies, relationships affecting roles and promotions, oh and the fact that no woman on the planet could firemans carry my 240lb a** with 100+lbs of gear out of a kill zone.

Rant over.

< next email, a few minutes later>

Ok I lied, rant wasn’t finished.

At the schoolhouse I taught at, we brought in non infantry units (POGs) and put them through several infantry centric courses. We had a strict standard of training and had no issues failing females or Marines that outranked us as instructors. This brought us some attention from higher ups on one occasion. A female warrant officer brought pizza for all 50 of “her” marines in our course. During their final exercise. We stopped her and reminded her of the fact that no outside food was permitted in our course. She returned with, “The four females I have in the class are going to feel sexually harassed by you if you don’t let them eat this pizza”.

[R. Scott]

The article assumes women will be in direct combat. Less than 10% of our military is involved in combat. There are non-combat jobs even in Special Ops. Back in the 80s I taught shipboard firefighting, most of the women had no problem, those who couldn’t make the cut were dropped along with those who couldn’t pass the other courses.

[Jimmy Valentine]

This will end when enough body bags come back.

[GreyFriar]

A woman does not have to life a 155mm artillery shell that weighs 100 pounds!

A 155mm artillery shell, US M107 projectile, weighs 96.73 pounds, not 100 pounds.

;)

I spent several years in 155mm artillery units.

[bassmaner]

As the country focuses on the Trump/Cruz Twitter Wars, the US military burns.

The candidates are silent on this issue, too.

Hey Donnie, Hey Ted, Hey John ... what say you? (not even bothering to ask the Felon and the Communist ...)

[CodeToad]

A mutilated transvestite homosexual.

[Night Hides Not]

+1. We are not getting what we should demand from our next CinC: leadership.

I'm not changing my tagline yet, but Cruz needs to pivot away from his family, and back to the issues. My patience is about gone.

[Retain Mike]

You are welcome.

[Svartalfiar]

The article assumes women will be in direct combat. Less than 10% of our military is involved in combat. There are non-combat jobs even in Special Ops. Back in the 80s I taught shipboard firefighting, most of the women had no problem, those who couldn’t make the cut were dropped along with those who couldn’t pass the other courses.

I think the actual ratio is about seven soldiers to support each combat soldier. But the issues aren't that women are allowed in the military, it's women being allowed IN COMBAT ARMS, which has a much higher percentage of being in combat. Sure, much of today's fight isn't linear like a real war, but combat arms are still the guys tasked with direct engagement of enemy forces. It's one thing to have women in your unit and get attacked, it's another thing entirely when you have women and your primary mission is heavy physical effort for the purpose of engaging the enemy. Not something that's easily done when you don;t have the physical strength or stamina to do nearly as much work. Women also require more hygiene. That means space and weight that could go to more useful things in your ruck, like ammo or water. Women can't deal with poor living conditions as well as men either. And the biggest issue within that is that standards are being dropped in order to facilitate women getting in to these roles. It's not that some women are big and strong enough to do the job, it's that they (mostly) aren't, but are still being pushed up. The two women that 'passed' Ranger school are, I'm sure, pretty badass, but they were definitely not up to the standards of actually being a Ranger. And, conveniently, their records just happen to be the one class, in decades of Ranger school, that is somehow destroyed completely. All this coverup just furthers the idea that they didn't pass like every other guy that did it.