Posted on 07/11/2017 9:02:11 PM PDT by pboyington
The March of Folly rolls on at full speed in the US military under the Trump administration and the leadership of General Mattis in the Pentagon.
In 2016, with a stroke of a pen, former Secretary of Defense Ash Carter, under the auspices of the Marxist Obama administration, authorized women to serve in the combat arms and special operations forces of the US military.
For the uninitiated, the combat arms are the grunts, the tankers, the gun bunnies, the cavalry and the engineers. Special operations forces consist of the Rangers, the Green Berets, Delta Force, the Navy SEALs, Marine Recon and the Marine Raiders.
These are the most physically demanding jobs in the military and the men who fill their ranks have one mission and one mission only, to kill bad guys as violently and as swiftly as possible.
Marine Corps Brigadier General George Smith wrote in Warfighting that combat power is generated through speed and focus. Speed over time is tempo, the consistent ability to operate quickly. Speed is a weapon.
Obviously, speed is no longer in the US military’s toolkit of operational skills. The nation’s PC military is high drag and low speed.
As of now, nothing has been done to stem the slow, but steady integration of women into the military’s combat arms units, which is the greatest disaster in US military history.
This is not saying that women shouldn’t serve. Most jobs in the military can be done by women and when surveyed over 90% of the women in the military want nothing to do with the combat arms and for good reason. It’s physically exhausting, hard on the body over time and you can get killed. It is only the feminist lobby in the Pentagon and in Congress that is pushing this agenda and in fact, endangering our national security in the process.
The concept of women serving in the combat arms is largely based on fantasies propagated by the alt left media and by Hollywood. These feminist pipe dreams have mistakenly influenced a whole young generation of women into believing that they are physically equal with men.
General Mattis knows better than anyone that women in the combat arms are not only endangering themselves, but putting the nation in peril. What kind of country deliberately weakens itself in order to placate idiots in Congress like Congresswoman Kristen Gillibrand and Senator Claire McCaskill who are vehement supporters of women serving in the combat arms, but, who themselves, wouldn’t know a T-90 tank from a Toro lawn mower.
The nation must also ask itself why we are allowing women into the deadly, grueling world of the combat arms when women can’t compete with men in the Masters?
Yet, we are going to allow women to become Navy SEALs, but they don’t play in NFL?
Women aren’t competing with men in professional sports for the main fact that they aren’t as physically strong.
The Marine Corps conducted a multi-million dollar, year-long study which concluded everything anyone with half a brain already knew – all male units perform better than coed and female units.
What a shock!
The following are excerpts from the Marine Corps study, which was included in a 37 page statement presented by Elaine Donnelly, President of the Center for Military Readiness to the Senate Armed Services Committee, chaired by Senator John McCain, on February 2, 2016:
If you click on the link above, you can read the whole 37 page report submitted to Congress. But, here are some important excerpts from it.
Male task force teams outperformed mixed gender units in 69 percent (92 of 134) of ground combat tasks, particularly in specialties that carried the assault load plus the additional weight of crew served weapons and ammunition. Significant disparities in physical size, strength, endurance, injury rates, an early onset of fatigue that affected marksmanship were scrupulously recorded with scientific monitoring techniques. This research was definitive as possible, short of an actual war.
It is beyond dispute that in gender mixed units, physical deficiencies had negative effects on the unit’s speed and effectiveness in simulated battle tasks, including marching under heavy loads, casualty evacuation and marksmanship while fatigued. In some units, male volunteers compensated for the women’s difficulties by taking over strenuous tasks.
All male squads, teams and crews and gender integrated squads, teams and crews had a noticeable difference in their performance of the basic combat tasks of negotiating obstacles and evacuating casualties.
Female volunteers in the study were considered to be in above average physical condition. The male volunteers were only an average representation of their peers.
Females possess less lean body mass, slighter build that affects stride length and stride frequency as loads increase, less absolute VO2 max production and less power and anaerobic/aerobic capacity than males.
Physical differences were more pronounced in specialties that carried the assault load,, plus the weight of crew served weapons and ammunition.
All male units were faster on hikes, gorge crossings and cliff ascents.
All male units engaged targets faster and scored more hits with crew served weapons than gender integrated units.
Women had greater incidents of stress fractures.
Women suffered a higher rate of injuries during marches with heavy loads.
Women were injured at six times the rate of their male counterparts.
Less than 1% of men could not negotiate a 7 foot wall, whereas 21% of the women could not.
In the 120mm tank loading simulation, a gunnery skills test, participants were asked to lift a simulated round weighing 55 lbs, 5 times in 35 seconds or less. Less than 1% of the men compared to 19% of the women could not complete the tank loading drill in the allotted time. The failure rates would increase inside a tank.
In the 155 mm Artillery Lift-and-Carry, a test simulating ordnance stowing, volunteers had to pick up a 95 lb. artillery round and carry it 50 meters in under 2 minutes. Noted the report, less than 1% of men, compared to 28.2% of women, could not complete the 155mm artillery round lift and carry in the allotted time.
The artillery study is a perfect example of reality versus feminist fantasies. Almost 30% of the women in the Marine Corps study, women who were the best fit females in the Marine Corps could not successfully carry a 95 pound, 155mm round 150 feet in under 2 minutes.
Yet…
An Army Times article describes the army’s opening of 19,700 artillery jobs to women in 2015!
The Army has officially opened more than 19,700 field artillery jobs to women.
Under policies now in effect, jobs in the 13B (cannon crewmember) and 13D (field artillery automated tactical data system specialist) military occupational specialties are now available for fill by qualified female soldiers.
Also open is the U6 Additional Skill Identifier, which is field artillery weapons maintenance.
These changes are the latest in an ongoing campaign to eliminate the Direct Ground Combat Assignment Rule by dismantling, in phases, policies that have barred women from serving in combat units below the brigade level.
Of course in 2017, all the artillery MOS’ are now open to women. Just one question – who is going to pick up and carry the ammo in an all-female unit, or a heavily female unit, or a unit where the men have been killed in a conflict?
In a nutshell, the Pentagon is shoving thousands of women into artillery jobs when they can’t even carry or lift the ammo!
How are female soldiers and Marines going to survive hand to hand combat fights against a Russian soldier or an ISIS jihadi? The gender neutral nuts will tell you that hand to hand combat is a thing of the past. WRONG. Tell that to the Marines who fought in Fallujah. Tell that to the Delta Force troopers who took down an ISIS prison several months ago. Tell that to the soldiers of the Big Red One who engaged in hand to hand fighting with the Tawakalna Division of the Republican Guard during the Battle of Norfolk in 1991.
Obviously, the perfumed princes in the Pentagon have given no thought on how women are going to carry heavy combat loads on sustained operations. In an extensive study done by the 82nd Airborne, they outlined the various combat loads for soldiers in the famed “Devils in baggy pants” division fighting in Afghanistan.
A Rifleman in the 82nd had a fighting load of 63 pounds, an approach march load of 96 pounds and an emergency approach march load of 127 pounds.
A M240 Bravo Assistant Gunner had a fighting load of 70 pounds, an approach march load of 121 pounds and an emergency approach march load of 148 pounds.
A Mortar Section Leader had a fighting load of 58 pounds, an approach march load of 110 pounds and an emergency approach march load of 149 pounds.
Most women in the world cannot carry those weights for any sustained amount of time or at all, without enduring stress injuries.
Of course these are individual loads and troopers rucking their own loads will not be able to carry more weight to help females. And, what happens when combat units are 25% to 35% percent female? You’re going to have large numbers of female grunts and Marines who can’t carry a basic load into combat. Combat units are going to be combat ineffective before they even see a green Russian tracer go down range at them.
When you low crawl out of the Disney like, fantasy world of Gender Neutral Land, you realize that US military policy is now based on an allusion and that the Pentagon is lying and betraying an American public with limited, if no understanding of the military.
The next war is just around the corner and it’s not going to involve guys named Ali and Mohammed. The next conflict will be fought with North Korea, China or Russia. The next war will be on a scale the US military hasn’t seen since World War II.
Newsflash – the US military, if it continues on its castrated, politically course, is not going to fare well in battle. In a nutshell, we’re going to get our asses handed to us, courtesy of the feminist lobby and every liberal in the military and government who allowed the feminist destruction of our armed forces to take place.
You don’t have to be Clausewitz to figure out that women in the combat arms are setting themselves up to be slaughtered.
You don’t have to be MacArthur to figure out that coed infantry units cannot perform at the violent, high tempo that an all-male infantry unit can.
You don’t have to be Wellington to figure out that the movement to place women in the combat arms and special operations is completely based on fantasy and falsehoods.
When young American women come home in flag draped caskets, then and only then will the American public demand answers and justice for those who implemented policies that are going to be responsible for the deaths of thousands of America’s daughters, sisters, wives and mothers.
How many women in the US military are going to die for a lie?
The last time we had women in combat, and some were captured or killed, the brass provided them medals and kicked them upstairs or mustered them out. Nice ceremony for the babes, a letter from the Pentagon to the guys who risked their lives to protect their squadmates.
The truth certainly never appeared in print.
When you see half assed crap written like this which doesn’t even try to be honest or academically rigorous about how we got to this point it is hard to put forth much effort in addressing the problem since people with this same mentality created the problem to start with.
Well, I don’t know about “full speed ahead”...
Excellent essay, again. Thank you. “You don’t have to be Clausewitz to figure out that women in the combat arms are setting themselves up to be slaughtered.” Mattis knows Clausewitz and thankfully, Mattis is present Sec. Defense. Let’s home Mattis follows through with common sense.
The same feminists who demand to be in military combat with/against men are the same women who say competing against men in sports (regular guys or trans-women) is unfair to women because men are stronger and faster and have advantages over women.
You’re targeting the wrong enemy. This demonstrates some sort of severe deficit.
And your final point is false.
I was informed that women did not serve well in GW1, by a soldier who was there.
Women were nowhere near battalion or brigade level combat arms units in GW I, nor were they in many support units close to any combat. Jessica Lynch in GW II would not have been in that transportation unit in GW I.
You’ve been sucking down too much Pentagon Kool Aid.
This is not saying that women shouldn’t serve. Most jobs in the military can be done by women and when surveyed over 90% of the women in the military want nothing to do with the combat arms and for good reason.
No I am not.
If women are in a Military Occupational Specialty that is combat deployable, and they are not properly pulling a share of the combat tours then the troops who are pullling those tours aren't getting the relief from combat which they should be getting. Those women are not ( contrary to this piece of excrement article) doing the job.
This crap started with slotting women in fields that are combat deployable and then holding the men actually doing the work under combat conditions longar than advisable. That is dangerous to the men in question and deleterious to moral overall. Do not vomit out your verbal diarrhea insisting that this is not a problem again. It very much is a problem and that is why I am dismissing this crap for trying to cover that aspect up.
when surveyed over 90% of the women in the military want nothing to do with the combat arms and for good reason
_________________________________________
What I’ve been saying all along...
When old females claim they are speaking for young women who are just aching to fight on the front lines, and that that includes most of the women serving today, they are lying...
If young women want to serve in combat, let them come forward and say so...
But it was always old females who had the loudest mouths...old females TOO OLD to risk their own lives exposed to enemy gun fire...
No I have not. Does post 10 clarify my position enough for you?
I am not saying this article is too harsh. I am pointing out the fact that it is so damned soft that it’s crap.
No I have not. Does post 10 clarify my position enough for you?
I am not saying this article is too harsh. I am pointing out the fact that it is so damned soft that it’s crap.
Yeah you are. You’re drowning in Kool Aid. You’re swimming in it. You and Wilbur, Mr. Ed. Say hi to Ash Carter and Ray Mabus for me. You’re obviously one of their liberal buddies.
So you love women filling up combat MOS’s so damned much while not deploying so damned much that in your feeble civilianized mind suggesting that they not fill any ranks which are deployable is “liberal?”
We used to have men in this country.
We used to give a crap about the troops we sent in harms way.
But not you, and not people like you.
You don’t want to fix the problem, and you insist that everyone who wants to roll things back to how things were any time before the Carfer administration is “liberal.”
People like you and the author of this piece who overrode reforms Reagan wanted to make got us where we are.
You’re not even making any sense and you’re wasting everyone’s time on here. The whole article is against women in the combat MOS’.
Read the damned section I highlighted earlier.
The piece is not against women in all deployable career fields.
Under this idiot proposal we still get women in the motor pools who are never billeted in a deployable unit. That means that a stateside slot is unavailable to give a combat troop a breather between tours.
If a specialty can be deployed, everyone in that specialty who is not deployable is a liability to the overall military force. This includes the progeny of ranking government officials (we had the son of a state department official in 3rd Bn 4th Marines who was pulled from the unit as we prepaired for Lebanon in1983 prior to Reagan pulling out) as well as women.
All that crap needs to stop.
This proposal falls short of what needs to happen.
The article focuses on strength, however consider that in a games show wherein contestants operate a console working a virtual combatant, with a prize of a quater of a million dollars on the line, there is not one single female contestant. Twiddling a game console for heavensakes! Males and females differ in a hell of a lot more ways than physical strength.
This same country that insists women can do men’s jobs also has legal practices that demand women (as well as blacks and Hispanics) are entitled to affirmative action because they are genetically inferior (the government’s policies, not mine).
These new military policies indicate 1) our government isn’t serious about winning any future wars “on the ground”, and 2) American women are as expendable as American men. The latter point is notable because in cultures that don’t have women serving in combat the women are breeding instead.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.