yup, the job of the Marines is to kill people and break things, yeast infections not required
Posted on 01/09/2015 3:03:30 PM PST by Chode
The story was indeed news. Up to that point, of the 24 women who had attempted the CET, only one had passed, and she had reportedly later been dropped from the overall course due to an injury. Struggling to get enough female officers into the course to produce a statistically significant result for its study of introducing women into combat roles, the Corps had directed that more seasoned female officers could attempt the course. Now three had made it over the first hurdle.
When all three were cut from the course last week for not meeting physical standards in subsequent training events, the news was not as widely reported. I have only found it here in the Christian Science Monitor, which, to its credit, has closely covered this issue from start:
When they begin the 13-week IOC, officers are told that if they “fall out” of more than one “tactical movement” during their time in training, they will be asked to leave the school.
“That has always been IOC policy,” Major Flynn says.“The key part is not just to conduct a movement. You need to lead that moment, and you can’t do that if you’re falling out.”
The standard pace for “tactical movements” – otherwise known as hikes – at the IOC is about three miles per hour, he says.
During the first march in which the three female – as well as three male – officers were issued a warning, the Marines were given about two hours and 40 minutes to move 7-1/2 miles. At the time, they were assigned to carry roughly 104 pounds each.
If at any point one of the students falls 75 or 100 meters behind the unit, an instructor “will start walking with that Marine,” Flynn says. “We start sticking on them.”
The instructors ask: “Hey, where’s your unit right now? OK, you need to get up with them, because you’re not leading anyone from back here.”
From that point, the officers have about five minutes to start catching up. If they don’t, they are put in a truck.
Officers at the IOC say it’s a safety issue. If the unit gets strung out too far, it’s dangerous not to know where troops are.
The Marines are then told that if they fall behind to a similar degree again, they are out of the course.
“The class adviser pulls them aside and says, ‘That’s your one. You don’t get any more. Understand?’ ” Flynn says. “They’ve been counseled that they have failed a hike, and we don’t tolerate more than one failure of a tactical movement.”
That’s what happened last week, this time during a nine-mile march. The students had three hours to complete it, carrying 124-pound packs.
When three men and three women fell behind for a second time, Flynn had to break the news that they were out.
This story highlights what IOC graduates already knew: that despite the hype surrounding the initial Combat Endurance Test in the press, that event is by no means the most difficult evolution at the three-month course. It may not even crack the top three. Passing it is a meaningful accomplishment, but only insofar as it certifies that the officer has demonstrated sufficient mental and physical toughness to attempt the rest of the course.
Perhaps there is less enthusiasm in covering this most recent turn of events because, unlike the three officers passing the CET, their subsequent departure from the course is part of a repeating and, as yet, unbroken pattern: By my count, 27 female officers have attempted the course, and zero have made it to graduation—with 23 not making it past the CET on the first day. (Roughly a quarter of male lieutenants also do not graduate.)
The law of averages being what it is, if the Marine Corps continues on this course long enough, a female officer will eventually graduate from the course. This Marine will have every right to be extremely proud of herself and of her accomplishment.
But advocates outside the Marine Corps are getting impatient, and pressure is beginning to grow on the Marines to lower their standards.
The change in tone is well summarized in the headline the editors at the Christian Science Monitor chose to give their story: “Three pioneering women in Marine infantry course are asked to leave. Why?” The first half of the story is a by-the-book recounting of the news, after which advocates of getting women into the infantry by any means necessary are given a substantial amount of space to air some good, old-fashioned special pleading:
Retired Army Col. Ellen Haring, an advocate for women in combat, says that although the entire formation was supposed to complete the hike in three hours, it took most of the group closer to four hours.
“Despite the fact that none of them could keep the pace that was set that day, they were considered failures. But the whole unit failed to meet those parameters, not just those six people,” she says. “Who maintains the rate of the march?”
The Marines haven’t always been clear about the parameters for the course, says Greg Jacob, policy director for the Service Women’s Action Network.
At the enlisted training school, Mr. Jacobs, who served as a Marine, recalls that students were told they could walk no faster than three miles an hour, and every hour they had to take a 10-minute break.
In the IOC, “it’s up to the person in front to set the speed of the hike,” he says. “There doesn’t seem to be a standard around these movements.”
As a result, he adds, “it seems like the goal posts just keep moving.”
Colonel Haring argues that this is particularly tough for the women who are endeavoring to become infantry officers. “I’m sure all of these women did this course because they thought they could complete it,” she says.
Considering the objections presented by Haring and Jacob, all that can be said is that the Marines who were cut from the course, especially the women, must be mortified. With friends like these, who repeatedly imply that female officers deserve special treatment in order for them to pass the course, who needs critics?
Much of the pressure for integrating women into combat arms comes from DC-based pressure groups like the radical feminist Service Women’s Action Network and from activists like Haring. Grassroots support for such a move is more limited.
Among female Marine officers, including those who support the introduction of women into combat arms, and those who are personally ambitious to try the infantry for themselves, I have never heard anyone assert that they would like standards lowered for them, so that they can pass the course. Why would they? It would entirely undercut the value of their achievement, and diminish the overall fighting capacity of the Marine Corps. These officers are Marines first and individuals second. They want to succeed on fair terms.
But the objections cited in the Monitor article clearly indicate that outside activists do not share this concern. Under the paper-thin guise of asking for fair treatment, they actually engage in special pleading. Ellen Haring is a retired Army officer who received a fair amount of attention over the summer for arguing that the CET ought to be scrapped as an entry barrier for IOC. Having made an extensive argument for lowering and changing the standards for IOC so that women can more easily pass it, she displayed a remarkable level of rhetorical shamelessness by concluding her article with, “Women Marines don’t want standards to be lowered or changed. They just want a fighting chance to become Marine infantry officers.”
Haring and the spokesman for SWAN, Jacobs, bounce back and forth in their objections to the Monitor between implying that the female officers deserve special treatment to implying that the Marine Corps, presumably from the instructors at the school all the way up to the Commandant, are engaged in thumbing the scales. Their complaints about the procedures of the school indicate that they are perfectly happy to alter and lower the quality of the training to achieve their goal.
There are those whose objections to introducing women into combat arms units—and especially to mixing very young enlisted men and women in such units—extend beyond physical to disciplinary and moral concerns. But setting aside those arguments for the moment, it should be clear that advocates outside of the Corps are engaged in a pressure campaign to lower infantry standards.
Despite the debate on this issue, the maintenance of high standards should be something every Marine should support, as should their friends in the Department of Defense’s leadership and in Congress, not to mention the public. Those Marines who support integrating women in the infantry should consider just what that accomplishment will mean if advocates like Haring and SWAN have their way.
yup, the job of the Marines is to kill people and break things, yeast infections not required
100%, prolly one of those don't ask don't tell types
their unstated goal
i believe women have a place in the military, just not combat
Agree.
On 20 November 1943, during the horrific fighting on Betio atoll during the battle of Tarawa, two Japanese tanks mounted a counterattack against the fragile Marine toehold on Red Beach 3. The Marines were huddled there at the base of a seawall in the face of withering fire from Admiral Keiji Shibasaki’s fanatical Japanese Naval Landing Force defenders who were slaughtering hundreds of their 2nd Marine Division comrades in Betio Lagoon during 76 hours of some of the most savage fighting in the history not only of the Marines, but the US armed forces.
Marine anti-tank gun crews were trying to figure out how to get their 912 lb 37MM M3 antitank guns over the 7 foot plus seawall. The battery commander ordered his 5 man crews to LIFT them over. Being Marines who always obeyed even seemingly impossible orders, they did EXACTLY that and promptly knocked out the tanks. They then engaged several enemy bunkers whose dual purpose guns were repeatedly knocking out the approaching landing craft and put them out of action. Finally they routed a local counter attack of 200 or so Japanese against the south shore of Red Beach 3 with canister shot, all of this at a critical and precarious point in the landing.
Whats that about upper body strength being not as important
in modern warfare anymore and that women are just as likely to be able to do the job of combat infantry?
I mean no disrespect to the female perssonnel of the US Armed Forces who have served and ARE serving their nation honorably and well. I respect them as fellow vets and comrades in arms. Policy decisions are above their level for the most part.
But as a matter of POLICY, I think that women should be excluded from the armed forces for the most part, with a few exceptions and COMPLETELY from combat and most combat support roles, particularly when the armed forces are a small percentage of the total population, as is the case now. The use of significant numbers of women should be reserved for large scale mobilization as was the case in WWII. The population base is more than twice as large now as then and there would be no problem securing a sufficient number of qualified men with appropriate incentives for such a relatively small armed forces.
The advantages for the armed forces, particularly the Army would be greater flexibility as to how personnel can be deployed in combat emergencies and other contingincies and a lesser logistical strain as involves clothing, barracks and housing, and innumerable other considerations that are exclusive to the maintenence of large numbers of women. I think morale and discipline would also be improved as well.
The courts have repeatedly ruled that the armed forces are exempted from many of the equal opportunity requirements of the civillian world, and for the very good and sufficient requirements that are unique to the armed forces. This contretemps is being propelled largely by the cultural marxist wing of gender equity feminism who wish for the placement of a leftist Chairwoman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The resultant detriment of the ability of the armed forces to fight plays no consideration in their calculus, other than as an peripheral side benefit.
I know that women have played a vital role during guerrilla, partisan warfare and sabatoge/espionage activity. But to deliberately employ them in ground combat units whose primary task is to close with, engage and destroy similar enemy units is the height of lunacy and madness given the effort required to identify the relative few who could qualify even if we ignore the potential detriments to morale and discipline.
This is sheer and utter madness akin to allowing open homosexuals to serve in the armed forces.
Yes it finally happened! A female, a very burly sort, passed all tests and graduated to the applause and wild cheers of the onlooking media.
Unfortunately, some weeks later when she got her deployment orders to a war zone, she was pregnant and had to decline ... she was reassigned to a desk job in the Pentagon, where she will continue to lead from behind.
Who had to survive in his place?
lead from behind, hummm... where have i heard that before???
There are obviously Women who wish to serve their country and I salute them for that desire.
I have two daughters and have always encouraged them in everything they tried to accomplish.
But I would never encourage them to achieve their goals through any "affirmative action" or "wavered requirements" path.
We are all smart enough to know that any such "achievement" would be tainted, not honorable, and thus not worth having.
You know, I don’t fly anymore because of an eyesight issue. Nothing would make me happier than to get back in the left seat. I don’t petition the FAA to lower standards for a first class medical for obvious reasons.
If they can’t handle the best of the armed services, there is always something else to do.
they put self before all else...
...and risk everyone else in the process!
That may well be the best first comment I have ever seen. Especially appropriate for these morons who WILL get that round peg into the square hole; by any means necessary, including wrecking the whole thing.
i can only imagine what your Son thinks...
I don’t believe a woman will ever pass a CET. They’re not designed to do it. They don’t have the muscle mass to do it. This must be the end of the line for feminist fantasies.
The FBI, local fire departments, sanitation departments, etc. have all lowered the standards to let women in. Lower standards just leads to lower standards.
What’s scarier is that reality means the rear echelon is completely political and there because of their gender or SSA. What does that do to combat effectiveness?
Let’s put on wombs on the frontlines = certain extinction.
Spot on. Men are the enemy, except when you’re carrying my load.
i hope it's the end, but i'm afraid it's only the end of round one
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.