Posted on 09/20/2015 1:06:09 PM PDT by jazusamo
A battle is brewing in Washington over the military's push to open all combat units to women.
The Marine Corps is reportedly poised to ask that some positions remain available only to men, following a nine-month study that found units with all genders did not perform as well in combat.
The issue is stirring a passionate debate in the military community, pitting the Marine Corps against its own service secretary and creating a bitter divide on the House Armed Services Committee.
Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, who is the service secretary for the Marine Corps, blasted the study of the Marine units as biased and said he plans to open all jobs to women.
Backed by members of Congress, Marines quickly fired back, with some who participated in the study telling the Washington Post that Mabus threw them "under the bus."
Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), a former Marine and member of the House Armed Services Committee, sent a letter to Defense Secretary Ashton Carter calling for Mabus’ resignation.
Hunter's chief of staff, Joe Kasper, said the congressman thinks the decision of women in combat roles should be up to the Marines, not Mabus.
“You don’t go and take a giant crap on the men and women in the Marine Corps and then expect them to continue giving you respect and admiration,” Kasper said.
A spokesman for Mabus said he was aware of the letter from Duncan and declined to comment.
Rep. John Kline (R-Minn.), another member of the House Armed Services Committee, backed up Hunter in a letter sent Friday that asked the Pentagon to release the full study on the Marine units.
"I am concerned the Department of Defense is withholding information regarding the findings of this report," Kline wrote in the letter, which obtained by The Hill.
"As a 25-year Marine Corps Veteran, I am offended by the comments made by a senior leader in the Department of Defense," he said. "They were inappropriate given the hard work and dedication of the men and women that volunteered for this important study."
Meanwhile, female lawmakers on the House Armed Services Committee are calling for greater scrutiny of the Marine Corps's study, questioning whether it was designed to “undermine” then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s 2012 directive integrating women into all combat positions.
"Secretary Mabus’s concern that the Marine Corps study was designed with a predisposed notion that women undermine combat effectiveness is of grave concern to all of us," Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) said in a written statement Friday.
"We must know whether this is the case, because so many questions have been raised about the study’s scope and methodology. This isn’t information that would justify barring women from serving in any combat position — indeed we know from our allies’ experiences that all positions should be open to anyone who qualifies," she added.
Lawmakers are pressing the Marine Corps for more information about the study.
Rep. Susan Davis (D-Calif.), the ranking member of the panel's military personnel subcommittee, said she has requested and will soon receive a briefing from the Marine Corps on the findings.
Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.) said she has had "a number of briefings" with the Marine Corps, and has expressed to the service the same concerns as Mabus.
"I am disappointed that this report is essentially being used as a way to exclude women," she said in a statement to The Hill.
"We are not asking for standards to be lowered, all we are asking is for women to have the opportunity to pursue whichever roles in the military that they wish to pursue."
"Opening up all roles to women will ultimately strengthen the military and our nation, and this is something the U.S. Marine Corps needs to understand."
A summary of the report released last week stated that all-male Marine squads were faster in each tactical movement than integrated squads. The all-male rifle groups also scored better on accuracy.
In addition, the summary said the female Marines had more injuries, such as stress fractures, than the men.
The Marine Corps has been exploring whether to open the infantry and all other combat jobs and units to women, as the Pentagon moves to implement Panetta’s order by 2016 — a presidential election year where defense and national security issues will be at the forefront.
The Marine Corps has allowed women to volunteer for its Infantry Officer Course, but none passed. Enlisted female Marines had better results.
The Marine Corps also relieved a female commander of duty for what she said was pushing female recruits to perform better. Marine officials say the commander’s reassignment was due to a clash between her and her supervisors, as well as complaints from females in her unit.
Meanwhile, the Army has opened up the Ranger School, its elite leadership course for soldiers, to women after two completed it.
The four services are due to submit any requests for exceptions by the end of September to Carter, who will review those requests and make final decisions by January.
In a briefing Tuesday, Pentagon press secretary Peter Cook told reporters that while the recommendations may go through the service secretaries, Carter “will hear input from as many people as possible.”
Rep. Loretta Sanchez is a ditz for saying women in frontline combat will stengthen our military and nation.
“Opening up all roles to women will ultimately strengthen the military and our nation”
How, Ms. Sanchez?
Mabus has three daughters..I wonder if he is promoting them to be in combat units?
The ought to ask Mabus, since he wants everything all perfectly equal and all, is he also going to implement mandatory draft registration for females over 18, just like males have to do.
Exactly...I’d bet he doesn’t it that equal.
want it that equal.
The ill-conceived 17th Amendment needs to disappear, and corrupt senators and the likewise corrupt presidents that they refuse to remove from office along with it.
In every single case where positions were opened to women, the standards were subsequently lowered. Insufficient women could meet the established standards, so in order to meet the political numerical numbers, the standards were lowered.
Put Sanchez in a set of fatigues and send her ass to a line unit full of other women and lets see what happens.
2018
Will women allow themselves to be drafted?
No
The moment the Marines are required to do something that is likely to involve heavy casualties the women will be withdrawn first.
Not because of performance concerns, but because the nation won’t tolerate large numbers of young women killed or maimed.
She’s thinking outside of the traditional win/lose box when it comes to warfighting. Our nation and military will be stronger because these policies will advance her social agenda.
Of course, once we get into a real fight with muslim fanatics that won’t surrender to units with women, or any power that can match or neutralize our advantages in C3 and support, the nation will become stronger as it unites to grieve the male and female lives lost in our latest military defeats.
Crazy idea.
This country will never see a draft again; it has no moral authority to do so, and the last time we had one those who dodged the draft were pardoned. In fact, at this point I’d be the first one to challenge it on discriminatory grounds; they can take women before they presume to send one of my sons on their misguided adventures.
They can’t let these terrorists flood this country then expect people to willingly be drafted to fight them halfway around the world.
And then those Marines will be in even more danger, unless, as some us believe, those women were merely placeholders anyway. Of course, what will make the difference is whether the male Marines were able to prepare under that assumption (whether overtly or covertly).
And where is all of this going?
The way our military is regressing under the Obama Administration, we will soon see Army and Marine Infantry squads made up of a mixture of heterosexual and homosexual males along with heterosexual and lesbian females. Now, if that isn’t a nightmare scenario, nothing could be.
Active Duty ping.
The battle over homosexuals in the military was lost, and the battle over females in combat is being lost, because we are compelled to argue the issues through the lens of liberalism.
What I mean by that is, the liberals view these military matters as issues of “civil rights” or “equal rights” as would be applied in civilian life. The liberals do not make allowance for the fact that the military has specific missions to carry out, and that the military is very different from civilian life. The liberals say it is “discrimination” to not allow females in combat, or to be Navy Seals, or to disallow homosexuals in the military, but they are not considering the mission of the military as they argue these points.
And with a liberal media filter, the issues are presented to the American people as issues of fairness, civil rights, equality, etc. as if the military were civilian life. Such discrimination would no be allowed in civilian life, so the liberals state, so how can the military justify such discrimination????
That’s where we are, in my opinion. We are left to discuss the issues from a liberal point of view which states that any regulations of who may do what military tasks are discrimination, and that the military are put on the defensive to justify themselves. It’s a crazy way to make military policy, in my opinion.
She’s probably PMSing...
You nailed it, a nightmare scenario is exactly right.
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.