Posted on 04/19/2016 11:35:27 PM PDT by pboyington
The United States of America is in mortal jeopardy and most Americans, tucked away in their beds tonight don’t even understand why or who is responsible for their peril.
Those responsible are not from North Korea, China, Iran, Russia or ISIS. They are Department of Defense bureaucrats, members of Congress and senior leaders in the US military.
The US military is committing suicide. We are in the first stages of beginning a process that is going to decimate the speed, lethality and combat power of the Marines and the US Army combat arms and special operations. The US military is doing this because of policies directed by the White House and authorized by willing lackeys in the Pentagon and in Congress.
A Congress short on military veterans and long on wind and incompetence said nothing as the April 1, 2016, deadline passed for them to review Secretary of Defense Ash Carter’s authorization which allows women to serve in direct ground combat units.
Yet, Congress had a plethora of information presented to them which clearly indicated that women cannot function and survive in US Army and US Marine Corps combat arms and special operations units; aka, infantry, armor, armored cavalry, artillery, the Marine Raiders, NAVY SEALs, Delta Force, the Rangers and the Green Berets.
Let’s be clear; women have served gallantly in harm’s way in all American conflicts and particularly in the recent Iraq and Afghanistan Wars.
But, serving in a transportation unit that comes under fire is not the same as being in a direct ground combat unit with the sole mission of finding, fixing and killing the enemy. Returning fire when your convoy is shot at in Iraq is not the same as being in an armored cavalry unit conducting a movement to contact against an enemy force. Being a firefighter or a police officer is not the same as being a combat infantryman.
Included in the vast array of information available to the Pentagon and the Congress was the $36 million dollar, 9 month long Ground Combat Element Integrated Task Force (GCEITF) Study the Marines conducted in 2014 that pitted all male units against coed units in a myriad of combat tasks that simulated what one faces in the combat arms and special ops.
The study was monitored by neutral researchers from the University of Pittsburgh.
Except for Senator John McCain and Congressman Duncan Hunter, who felt the Pentagon was deliberately dodging the results of the study, not one member of Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Navy, the Secretary of the Army, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the former US Army Chief of Staff and the current US Army Chief of Staff, completely and unequivocally wanted nothing to do with the study and ensured that it was ignored.
In fairness to General Joe Dunford, the current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as Commandant of of the Marine Corps, he did request a waiver that would have stopped women from being included in the combat arms and special operations units of the Marines.
Dunford’s waiver wasn’t even considered by Secretary of the Navy, Ray Mabus. Since then, Dunford has hunkered down in his bunker, watching the implosion of the Marine Corps with field glasses.
Leading the charge for women to serve in direct ground combat units in the Pentagon and Congress were Ash Carter, Ray Mabus, former Chairman of the JCS, General Martin Dempsey and retired Air Force officer and A-10 pilot Congresswoman Martha McSally. An Air Force pilot’s knowledge of ground combat operations is zero at best, but she was accepted as an expert on the subject of women in ground combat. Flying a plane at 20,000 feet is not the same as humping a 100 pound ruck for two weeks on a sustained Marine infantry combat operation.
With a small, but powerful group of inexperienced advocates pushing for women in combat, why did the majority of Congress and the Pentagon completely ignore the study, which basically confirmed what everyone already knew and what 2,000 years of recorded military history substantiated?
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.
All-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. 8 In some task force units male
volunteers compensated for the women’s difficulties by taking over strenuous tasks. This
“mitigation strategy” would be incompatible with mission effectiveness under wartime
conditions.
In addition, “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.” 48
Contrary to claims that less-prepared women were involved in the Task Force research over
nine months, “[F]emale volunteers within the GCEITF were universally considered to be an
above-average to well-above-average representation of the PFC-Sergeant female population
throughout the Marine Corps. The male volunteers were considered by their unit leaders and
research observers as being an average representation of their male peers…” (p. 4)
“[A] Marine infantry unit must be fully capable of regularly moving dismounted for
extended distances with heavy loads. This has been the coin of the realm for Marine
infantry throughout history, and the requirement for more distributed operations with
less reliance on external logistics support reflected in Expeditionary Force 21 now places
even greater demands on the individual infantry Marine.” (p. 5)
“The associated risk is directly linked to the physiological differences between males and
females. Simply, size matters when executing a dismounted movement under load.” (p. 5)
a)“Thephysiological differences in body fat between males and females – body fat being
synonymous with ‘dead weight’ to be added to whatever external equipment load is
already being carried . . . places females at a significant disadvantage from the start in
infantry-related tasks.” (p. 5)
b)“Onaverage, females possess significantly less lean body mass, a slighter build that
affects stride length and stride frequency as loads increase, less absolute V02 max
production, and less power and anaerobic/aerobic capacity than males.” (p. 5)
c)“Thecombination of these factors constitutes a potential risk to combat effectiveness
for a force that must be self-sufficient for movement and fully capable of extended
dismounted operations within the highest intensity portion of the combat spectrum.”
(pp. 5-6)
Combat Performance & Effectiveness
“All-male task force teams outperformed their mixed-gender counterparts in 69 percent (93 of
134) ground combat tasks.” (Briefing Slide #1)
a)“Physicaldifferences were more pronounced in “specialties that carried the assault load
plus the additional weight of crew-served weapons and ammunition.” (Slide #2)
b)“All-malesquads were faster than integrated squads on hikes, gorge crossings, and cliff
ascents during the assessment in different environmental settings at MWTC.” (Slide #2)
c)“Maleprovisional infantry (those with no formal 03xx school training) had higher hit
percentages than the 0311 (school trained) females.” (Slide #3 & Sept. 10 Summary, p. 3)
d)“All-maleinfantry crew-served weapons teams engaged targets quicker and registered
more hits on target as compared to gender-integrated infantry crew-served weapons
teams, with the exception of M2 accuracy.” (Slide #3 & Sept. 10 Summary, p. 3)
e)“All-malesquads, 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.” (Sept. 10 Summary, p. 3)
f)“Depending onthe unit, male GCEITF volunteers perceived that combat effectiveness
declined with female Marines’ presence . . . Numerous cases of compensation were
observed during physically demanding tasks, in which males shifted positions to take
over certain aspects of tasks from females.” (Slide #4)
Cumulative Impact of Injuries
“The well-documented comparative disadvantage in upper and lower-body strength resulted in
higher fatigue levels of most women, which contributed to greater incidents of overuse injuries
such as stress fractures.” (Sept. 10 Summary, p. 4)
a)“Theserealities are clearly not insurmountable nor are they always manifested during a
one-time march under load that reflects an entry-level performance standard. Rather,
the risk lies in the cumulative impact of this physiological disadvantage over the course
of regular, recurring and increasingly more challenging dismounted movements under
load in the operating forces” (p. 6 – Note: Some media reports changed the context by
putting in quotes only the first part of this sentence, “These realities are clearly not
insurmountable.”)
b)“Thisis exacerbated by other physiological factors that, in concert, make females much
more susceptible to injuries, either caused by a specific event or though the cumulative
impact of repetitive dismounted movements under load.” The disparity in injury rates
between males and females at the Infantry Training Battalion (ITB) and during the
conduct of the GCEITF assessment, due principally to multiple marches under load,
provides an early indicator to that effect.” (p. 6)
c)“Duringthe GCEITF assessment, musculoskeletal injury rates were 5% for females,
compared to 18.8% for men”. (Slide #7 & Sept. 10 Summary, p. 4)
d)“Withinthe research at the Infantry Training Battalion, enlisted females undergoing that
entry-level training were injured at more than six-times the rate of their male
counterparts.” (13% vs. 2%) (Slide #5 & Sept. 10 Summary, p. 4) 15
In the 120 mm Tank Loading Simulation, a gunnery skills test, participants were asked to
lift a simulated round weighing 55 lb., 5 times, in 35 seconds or less. Quoting the report,
“Less than 1% of men . . . [compared to] 18.68% of the women . . . could not complete
the tank loading drill in the allotted time.” The report added, “It would be very likely
that failure rates would increase in a more confined space [such as 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.
On the Obstacle Course Wall-with-Assist-Box test, a 20” high box, (used to simulate a
helping-hand) essentially reduced the height of the 7 ft. wall to approximately 5’4.”
Quoting the report, “Less than 1.2 % of the men could not get over the obstacle course
wall using an assist box, while wearing [protective equipment] . . . [compared to] 21.32%
of women who could not get over the obstacle course wall . . .”
In GCEITF units, female injury rates were twice as high; six times higher in the Infantry
Training Battalion (ITB) for enlisted infantry training.
Brigadier General George Smith, added a passage from the Marine Corps Warfighting Doctrinal Publication
Warfighting: “Of all the consistent patterns we can discern in war, there are two concepts of universal
significance in generating combat power: speed and focus. Speed is rapidity of action. It
applies to both time and space. Speed over time is tempo – the consistent ability to
operate quickly. Speed over distance, or space, is the ability to move rapidly. Both forms
are genuine sources of combat power. In other words, “speed is a weapon.” (p. 13)
Women in the combat arms and special ops are now going to make the US military high drag and low speed.
Obviously all the facts in the world mean nothing to social engineers like Carter and Ray Mabus, who have called for gender diversity quotas that will order Marine and Army combat arms and special ops units to include up to 35% females in their rosters.
According to the CMR, this is to achieve what General Dempsey called a critical mass. Standards will be validated levels that are gender neutral but lower than before.
Dempsey added that if “a particular standard is so high that a woman couldn’t make it, the burden is now on the service to come back and explain why is it that high? Does it really have to be that high?
Over time, this would become known as the Dempsey Rule, meaning that a standard too high for women will be deemed too high. These changes would destroy the military.
The facts are obviously being ignored to implement policies based on fantasies and delusions.
Our national defense is now predicated on lies. Sadly, the greatest victims from these monumental and devastating policies will be the people it’s apparently trying to help, women. While women shine in thousands of different jobs in the military, they simply cannot handle the physical hardships that are part of daily life in peacetime and in war in the combat arms and special operations.
This is unabashed insanity, implemented by moral cowards, minions, hard core feminists and leftist lunatics who care more about covering their own derrieres or the fantasy world they inhabit than about the security of the nation they have sworn to defend.
As for the Joint Chiefs and the military’s senior leadership, I wouldn’t follow them into water. I knew 18 year old privates who had more imagination, guts and moral fortitude than the rubber men of Arlington.
This vast social experiment will only end in one way, in disaster on the battlefields of distant lands.
When the flag draped coffins start arriving with American soldiers and Marines who died because they were in a force that was deliberately made weaker, when you are searching for those responsible, look no further than Carter, Mabus, Fanning, Dempsey, Odierno and Milley, names that will be as infamous 100 years from now as Benedict Arnold.
Thanks for posting. Great read. Has there been anything proven more worthless than this Republican majority Congress?
The United States is committing suicide by political correctness.
Quick somebody resurrect General Paton.
But politically this is incorrect so it has been circular-filed.
Normal people know the truth in all these matters, but the world at large seems determined to live inside a cloud of madness. I do grieve in advance for the men and women who will die as a result of this nonsense.
This study is obviously the result of male chauvinist bias and therefore all copies must be burned to assure “safe space” for everyone. :-(
Thanks Pappy that was interesting. Not much wiggle room in the SASC testimony. I think the enemy will be pleased with our mitigation efforts.
If a woman gets wounded in battle a man will run out to save her. The Muzzies will shoot to wound the women and shoot to kill the men, and then mop up later.
The average male can break the average female in half. The average very fit male can break the average very fit female in half.
This makes it sound like Cruz and Rubes supported this and that only McLame opposed. Is that true?
Bookmark.
Tits on a tomcat???
Sorry, it was there and somebody had to post it...
With a small, but powerful group of inexperienced advocates pushing for women in combat, why did the majority of Congress and the Pentagon completely ignore the study, which basically confirmed what everyone already knew and what 2,000 years of recorded military history substantiated?
They ignore it BECAUSE THEY CAN! We let them. EVERY digression from decency, sense and reason that we see these days WE ALLOW. I shudder to think what it will take to get us off of our asses. We aren’t good Christians or good Americans.
and there it is...
Another overlooked aspect of this insanity is that women in combat will be killed in disproportionate numbers, due to these same factors. Then, the feminazis will start sniveling that women combatants are being used as cannon fodder, that we’re leaving “bitches in ditches.”
“All-male task force teams outperformed mixed gender units in 69 percent (92 of 134) of ground combat tasks...”
How did the all-female task force teams do? Ask yourself why they didn’t just do this with qualified women.
Freegards
But ... but ... I saw a movie this weekend where a big, strong guy like that had a woman like her in a choke hold and the petite, beautiful girl did this really cool ninja move and put a major beat-down on the big ole bully! And all the while she was studying for her law degree, curing cancer, and preparing a cutting-edge arugula salad for her children.
Next thing, you’ll be telling me that was fiction, you sexist pig, you.
Reality is going to be very harsh when we have to fight a real war on a competent enemy’s terms.
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.