Skip to comments.Report: 84% of Women Fail New Army Combat Fitness Test
Posted on 11/08/2019 11:41:41 AM PST by jazusamo
(CNSNews.com) In a new report, the Center for Military Readiness says that 84% of women fail the New Army Combat Fitness Test and that all military officials should drop the gender diversity agenda and put mission readiness and combat lethality first.
It makes no sense for recruiters to devote more time and money recruiting gender diverse trainees who are more likely to be injured, less likely to want infantry assignments, and less likely to remain through basic training or physically-demanding combat arms assignments for twenty years or more, states the CMR report .
On the other side of the issue, the Department of Defense Women in Service Review says it conducted an extensive review of all laws and policies concerning women in the armed forces in 2011 and 2012, taking into consideration the outstanding performance of more than 280,000 women who deployed and served alongside men in Iraq and Afghanistan.
As a result, in 2016, after what the DOD describes as five years of extensive research, analysis, and scrutiny, the Department decided to eliminate restrictions on what positons women could hold in the military, opening 213,600 positons that had been closed to women and 52 closed military occupational specialties.
According to the Department of Defense , 16% of the overall active duty force is comprised of females, with 170,000 women enlisted and over 40,000 women officers.
[T]hese occupations, positions, and platforms will be available for the assignment of all men or women who meet the validated occupational standards, said the DOD report. Anyone, regardless of gender, who can meet operationally relevant standards, will have the opportunity to serve in any position.
The Center for Military Readiness argues against policy changes to allow women to serve in the infantry or in direct ground combat.
Pentagon leaders pushed for gender quotas of 25-30 percent of women and 10 percent in the Marine Corps, which the CMR says led to lowering the requirements with the implementation of the gender- neutral Army Combat Fitness Test (ACFT).
In this ACFT, women have a high failure rate, states the CMR report. The final results will not be released until October 2020 but the report contends that the results will not change the inevitable: more female injuries, less-demanding training for men, and overall standards that are equal but lower than before.
Women are serving with courage as they always have, said the CMR. But in two major categories unequal physical capabilities and sexual misconduct signs of a failing social experiment are increasingly obvious.
I know there are women who are capable. I know there are men who are not. The standards should be the standards. If I am in a place where I need to be dragged from the field...I would appreciate having a team mate capable of doing that without getting both of us killed.
Equality means being of equal value.
If true, how can a unit meet readiness requirements for deployment? To a war zone perhaps?
The brutal truth here is that when you turn your military into nothing more than an armed Peace Corps, and assign them to do generation-long nation-building campaigns in Third World dumps, it doesnt really matter all that much WHO you enlist.
And this is after the fitness tests have been watered down to accommodate Dem:-)
I’m going to be blunt: I’m over 50 years old and could easily beat most females in a physical confrontation. Easily. Not that I ever would engage in a physical confrontation with a female except in self defense purposes. (Actually had to do so once — she was nuts and I just restrained her until she calmed down. Didn’t even call the cops.)
20 years of martial arts and dance (it’s not that dissimilar. It’s all about control of your body and movement. Walk about 2 miles per day to stay fit, etc. Comes in handy, for example the last time I intervened in a mugging near my apartment about 3 months ago.
However I have met women who could take me apart. One was an ex-girlfriend and retired US Marine. I outweighed her by almost 50 pounds and at the time had 10 years of martial arts under my belt. She was a very pretty blue eyed blonde. She could have shredded me. Just plain strong, wiry, and Marine trained — as a campus area rapist found out one day. All the blood in her apartment was his, not hers. He died in prison after serving part of a very long sentence.
I’d rather have her with me in a combat situation than any male snowflake.
Take away: Maintain the standards. If a woman meets them and wants to fight, let her. Yeah, I know about issues regarding sexual tension, but the Israelis appear to handle them OK so lets take a page out of their book.
That said, if the women do not meet the standards, don’t let them in.
...wasn’t it a couple or three years or so ago that two female Army officers supposedly successfully completed the Army’s Ranger School or training or whatever that ostensibly tough course is called...? they got their Ranger tabs but the Army never released their training records... got lost or subject to privacy laws or something...did they earn those Ranger tabs or were they “helped” through that course by their (male) superiors.... jus’ askin’ ......curious....
“Why Trump has not reversed this horrible women in combat policy of Obama is beyond me. “
Obama? Don’t you remember Private Jessica Lynch being captured during the Iraq invasion of 2003?
That was during the reign of Bush Jr The Magnificent, who never once reversed a single bad Democrat progressive policy, and managed to add his own.
I’m pretty sure that putting women in combat zones started with Slick Willy. Clinton and Bush Jr got around any prohibitions against it by playing word games.
“...the only PLA troops I have ever seen on the evening teevee news appear to be young, very fit, grim-faced males...”
Grim-faced because maybe they are all bachelors. China’s former one-child policy resulted in a horrific number of girl babies being aborted. The imbalance of the sexes that followed meant millions of young men are unable to find wives.
Their unrequited masculine urges were diverted toward military ferocity in the PLA, with a pie-in-the-sky promise of `veteran’s preference’ in someday acquiring a spouse.
Sorry, have a typo:
20 years of martial arts and dance (its not that dissimilar. Its all about control of your body and movement.
should have been
20 years of martial arts and dance (its not that dissimilar. Its all about control of your body and movement.)
When I read it, I found it to be depressing, sad, brilliant, uplifting, and ominous all at the same time.
Depressing because it is true: There are AMERICANS who are pushing this agenda with no regard to national security, battlefield readiness, or the lives of the men and women who will be sacrificed when the bullets begin to fly.
Sad, because this is where we are: most men in the military are bending over backwards not to have their voice heard saying: "This is a bad idea. We cannot integrate women into combat units without severely degrading readiness and the ability to perform the mission.
Brilliant: If I can take the money passage from her article:
"...Meanwhile, the argument to maintain the combat exclusion makes itself easily in every aspect...including women in combat units is bad for combat, bad for women, bad for men, bad for children, and bad for the country. The argument for the combat exclusion is provable all the time, every time. Political correctness has no chance against Nature. Her victories are staring us in the face at all times. The men just keep being able to lift more and to run faster, harder, and longer with more weight on their backs while suffering fewer injuries. They just keep never getting pregnant. The combat units have needs that women cannot meet. Women have needs that life in a combat unit cannot accommodate without accepting significant disadvantage and much greater expense. Where 99 percent of men can do the heavy-lifting tasks typical of gunners, but 85 percent of women cannot, there is no gap women need to fill..."
That pretty much sums it up.
Uplifting, because this Marine who wrote the article is a Marine, and has demonstrated and successfully argued that there is a role for patriotic, dedicated women who want to serve their country as she did, and her service means no less because she wasn't kicking down doors. She is an American Woman, and her heritage and ideals have more in common with the tough as nails frontier women who conquered this country with their men. She makes the feminists look like the petulant, spoiled, anti-American no-loads that they are. This sailor salutes her.
Ominous, because this movement, like the liberal cancers it shares all qualities with, is not going away. The linked article describes this perfectly, and why it is inevitable. Because military readiness and capability is being sacrificed on the altar of an Orwellian concept that men and women can do the same tasks exactly the same. This altar will run red with the blood of both men and women, and we are going to suffer lives needlessly ended, battles lost, and a national humiliation the likes of which we haven't seen.
It won't happen now, and it won't happen during some years of the peacetime military. But when we get to a point we are fighting an enemy who is going to be evenly matched with us, we are going to lose, because they cannot be stupid enough to follow the path we have. And when it happens, the people who will scream the loudest in protest, are going to be the successors to the people who made this all happen, since they will likely be kicking back somewhere, comfortable in their Monday morning armchairs, talking about how it wasn't the emasculation of the military combat units that caused this, it was that we didn't spend enough time, money, and effort to make it work.
No idea. Do a google search. My days of being dragged from the field ended a long time ago.
Actually in each war, the army recruits are woefully unprepared.
Case in point, watched ‘they Shall Not Grow Old” an WW1 documentary.
A certain amount of the recruits couldn’t pass muster because, get this, they were woefully underweight(something that won’t happen today)
Recruits in WW2 faced about the same thing. Even Vietnam recruits were too out of shape for Vietnam(Hence the Kennedy’s Presidential Fitness Test that preceded the war.)
Course the standards are terribly low today. Few today could pass the Vietnam era tests. could
It goes back further then Slick Willy, the first public big proponent of that with congressional clout was a Colorado Rat congresswoman. (I forget her name!) I believe she chaired the House defense committee for a number of years. I just remember she had this smirk whenever some old general\admiral would testify contrary to her wishes and a laugh that made nails on a blackboard musical.
This former soldier agrees with your comment.
It is no secret that sexism is a problem in the military. What this test makes clear is that said sexism knows no bounds, and with the capricious stroke of a pen, those men have found a way to wash an entire gender from the ranks. If 84% of women are failing the test, the problem is not with women soldiers; its the test.
I was flabbergasted when I read that.
Darn. . .those were MEN, doing a man’s job.
When will they begin to give all recruits a silver star participation award?
...to paraphrase Rudyard Kipling, you’re a better man than I, Gungha Din ....I was fortunate that in my nearly 30-year military career, I never had to be dragged from anywhere....well, ahhh; there was that fight I got into over in.... oh, never mind....it was many, many years ago....
It’s almost as if women don’t rely on logic...
There is zero reason to have women in combat roles.
It will F up unit cohesion.
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.