Posted on 09/18/2015 10:08:05 AM PDT by jazusamo
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Marine Corps is expected to ask that women not be allowed to compete for several front-line combat jobs, inflaming tensions between Navy and Marine leaders, U.S. officials say.
The tentative decision has ignited a debate over whether Navy Secretary Ray Mabus can veto any Marine Corps proposal to prohibit women from serving in certain infantry and reconnaissance positions. And it puts Gen. Joseph Dunford, the Marine Corps commandant who takes over soon as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at odds with the other three military services, who are expected to open all of their combat jobs to women.
No final decisions have been made or forwarded to Pentagon leaders, but officials say Defense Secretary Ash Carter is aware of the dispute and intends to review the Marine plan. The Marine Corps is part of the Navy, so Mabus is secretary of both services.
The ongoing divide has put Dunford in the spotlight as he prepares to start his new job next week. And it puts him in a somewhat awkward position of eventually having to review and pass judgment - as chairman - on a waiver request that he submitted himself while serving as Marine commandant.
The debate includes jabs at Mabus for his public criticism of the Marine plan that triggered a call for his resignation from a member of Congress.
Officials say the Army, Navy and Air Force are expected to allow women to serve in all combat jobs and will not ask Carter for any exceptions. They say that Special Operations Command is also likely to allow women to compete for the most demanding military commando jobs - including the Navy SEALs - though with the knowledge that it may be years before women even try to enter those fields.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
OohRah!
GOOD.
Every branch of the military, whether homosexuals, cross dressers, or women should have been left up to the branch’s.
Instead the divider in chief has been replacing Generals who are yes men and women for his agenda.
Good. I agree with the Marine Corp.
sharing part of a post from an earlier thread regarding a career soldier leaving because his men could not carry their weapons on Federal property...
“On another note; a former Army officer told me over 20 yrs. ago that when they got a “bug out” signal, the women in his outfit did not have the upper body to load the heavy equipment onto the trucks. So, their outfit just didn’t bug out - which in real combat would be a tragedy if attacked.
16 posted on 9/17/2015, 11:49:04 AM by Twinkie (John 3:16)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3337908/posts
Marine Corps
Not 'Corp'.
“Good. I agree with the Marine Corp.
Marine Corps
Not ‘Corp’.”
Unless you are a knuckleheaded president, then it is corpse.
Nope. Hire the ladies. Draft ‘em if you have to. Demand a quota that they must meet or be drafted.
Since taking office 0bama has been on a mission to weaken our military every way he possibly can, he’s a pathetic CinC.
Obama is probably planning to sell them off to Wackenhut - then "Corp." will be correct. :)
As far as it’s already gone, which is way past the point of the military being the first line of defense of the US rather than a social engineering “experiment” (because no thinking person can possibly believe that these changes strengthen the military as a fighting force), I agree. Give the social engineers so much “equality” that they choke on it. The nation is already choking.
Or for Muslim lands form some all women units to scare the hell out of those wishing to die with their 72 virgins but then fear a bad death.
Yes, the communists are hard at work. My heart breaks for them, but it won’t take much to recover. Executive orders can work both ways.
My worry is the suicide rate and pray for them throughout the day.
The tragedy of women in combat provides another reason I now always council men to never enter the armed forces. Social engineering that amalgamates GLBT acolytes and feminist aspirants everywhere has now become the over arching imperative to which all operational capabilities must submit.
Combat operations entail applying and enduring unimaginable brutality until victory. Therefore, only the highest physical abilities and most severe restrictions on human emotions and behaviors can foster the required high morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion required. Human sexuality simply cannot intrude into this one dimensional world where only those displaying the greatest savagely can hope to win. Resorting to war for national defense entails the ultimate Olympics, so there is much less excuse for merging men and women into this environment than exists for the athletic competitions every four years.
Combat forms personnel into small, rigid, task oriented units. These people continuously face extraordinary stress punctuated by killing other humans. At the point of collision, men face environments requiring extraordinary physical capabilities and unbelievably demanding sacrificial, primitive and intimate relations. Such environments are inherently chaotic and brittle. They can be overcome only by a totalitarian leadership and narrow focus unimaginable for those who see any opportunity for social engineering.
The regimental combat teams for infantry, mechanized and armored units are now the playthings of bureaucrats committed to equal opportunity, and dismissive of the warriors enduring the brutal carnage imperative for victory. Institutional memories no longer exist for fighting ferocious, shrewd enemies such as the Germans, Japanese, Chinese, and North Vietnamese, who utilized a full array of modern weapons. If one notes the ribbons on any senior officer’s uniform, they show they fought the Arabs the Israelis beat three times at 20 to 1 odds, and never fought the enemies mentioned. Such people now question the necessity of high standards which already allow inferior female performance.
Women not only do not belong at the pointy end of the spear, but should not be holding it to the extent the infantry must depend on their savagery. There is no reason to depart from the writings of Rudyard Kipling and George Orwell that can be synthesized into the quote, “Men sleep peacefully in their beds at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”
so true.
Amen to that.
Exactly.
Navy brass treating Marines like crap,mwho would have thought?
Yep, and that pathetic Mabus calling the Marines involved in the study liars.
He’s a man without honor and I use the word “man” loosely.
When I see the words “close combat” and “women” in the same sentence, the first thing that comes to my mind is ... marriage.
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.