Thursday, June 16, 2016

The End Of The Marines

The Few.  The Proud.  The Marines.

An elite fighting force that only wants the toughest and best fighting men.  Their recruitment advertising basically said that they didn’t want you because you probably weren’t tough enough for them.  Their reputation was legendary and well earned.

And then they accepted women. 

And now they’re placing women in combat units. 

So much for the Marine Corps’ reputation.  You can’t claim to be the best, now, can you?  Even the Marines admit they’re just going to be average.

“The [gender equity] trainers often ask him [Lt. Col. Larry Coleman, integration branch head with Manpower Plans and Policies] why the service is opening all combat jobs to women if mixed-gender teams did not perform as well as their all-male counterparts during the service's Ground Combat Element Integrated Task Force experiment.

“We tell them that, yes, the majority of the tasks they performed at a lower level; however, their performance was not unsatisfactory,” Coleman said. “Their performance and the attacks that they executed were not failures. They just were potentially slower, maybe it was less accurate – whatever the metric that was being used for that particular task.” (1)

Well, there you have it in a nutshell.  The Marines are now content to be “not failures” and “not unsatisfactory”.  Wow.  That’s a high bar to meet, huh?.  Not unsatisfactory.  Few people can rise to the level of not unsatisfactory.  Will medal citations now include the phrase “not unsatisfactory”?  Will our next generation of heroes be not unsatisfactory?

A proud fighting force brought down.  Not by the Chinese or Russians but by social engineering.  Someday I’ll tell my kids about things they’ve never seen and probably don’t believe ever existed like rotary dial phones, record players, floppy discs, and Devil Dogs. 

It’s getting harder and harder to see what the Marines bring to the table that the Army and Air Force don’t already have.  This is really sad.


The Commonplace.  The Not Unsatisfactory.  The Marines.


__________________________

(1)Marine Corps Times website, “All Marines to undergo 2-day training as women join combat units”, Jeff Schogol, June 16, 2016,


34 comments:

  1. Here is the best analogy I've read:

    Sep 19, 2015 - Football and Infantry

    There has been lots of news about the Obama administration's effort to open all military jobs to women. Everyone familiar with infantry operations knows this is a bad idea, and not just because women are smaller and weaker. Half of American men can't do infantry jobs either.

    The best example is a similar question: Can women play pro football? The answer is yes. What if an NFL owner demanded that women consist of at least 25% of his team, with at least three women on the field at all times. That is feasible, but the team would lose all its games, and all its male players would be furious. It is worse in combat because limbs and lives are lost. Luckily, our military has only played Pop Warner level opponents since this "women in combat" effort began.

    Not only infantry are affected, but many other military jobs. When the USS Cole was hit with a bomb in 2000, the women crew cried and did nothing while several men abandoned their post to check on their loved one. Sailors will tell you that women cannot lug heavy things up ladders and cannot perform many other needed tasks. Moreover, even crew with "desk" jobs have other jobs aboard ship: battle stations, firefighting teams, or "all hands on deck" for whatever task is needed.

    To make matters worse, the Obama folks doubled the extra time off for pregnancy to 18 weeks! Keep in mind that women are also allowed at least three months of "light duty" when they are pregnant, so are not expected to do anything difficult. Who does their work during this time? If the Obama folks meet their goal of at least 25% of ship crews with women, at least 10% of the crew will not be available to deploy due to pregnancy issues.

    Women who want a large family should join the Navy and get assigned to a ship. Once they get pregnant, they can't deploy, so are left behind with some odd make work job ashore, like handing out towels at the gym. When the ship returns they have a medical excuse for "light duty" so they only have to show up for work but are expected to do nothing. The baby arrives so they get 18 weeks off for maternity leave and another four weeks for annual leave. When that ends, many military women show up for just four hours of loitering around on "light duty" since they just had a child and then "must" go home for the day because its time to breastfeed. After a year of their not available status, its time to resume full-time duties, but they get pregnant again and start the cycle again.

    Officers cannot openly discuss these problems because they will be attacked as anti-women and anti-family. They must give these absent sailors good performance reviews because they've done nothing wrong, because they've done nothing. Meanwhile, hard-working crewmen tire of the 12-hour days needed to cover for the absence of others, and many great ones leave when their enlistment ends, or have their reenlistment denied because of the women quota that includes members of a ship crew who rarely did any work and missed the last two deployments. Women are suitable for about half of military jobs, but certainly not infantry or even ship crews.

    http://www.g2mil.com/enemies2.htm

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We should demand that our military service academies stop discriminating against women. At least 25% of their NCAA football team must be women, with at least three on the field at all times. Why not, women are just as good. This discrimination must end!

      It would be hilarious to watch the outcome on the field. I'd like the SecNav to be there for the first mix gender game.

      Delete
    2. I'm with you! As a teenager, I played a season in a mixed gender softball league. Each team had to have at least 4 women on the field at all times. It was strictly a "for fun" league but it was eye-opening how large the physical difference was between the men and women. The worst guy in the league was twice as good as the best girl! The guys had to be very careful not to hurt the girls by hitting a ball too hard at them or throwing a ball too fast.

      The league was a lot of fun but as far as comparisons between men and women? That's laughable.

      Delete
  2. Currently, there really isnt much purpose for a marine corp. Guess its time to dust off president Truman's plan to merge them into the army and just activate an Army amphibious brigade or two. That would free up money and save money, by having a single ground force, logistics will be one standard. Also, cancel the F35c, and take control of the A10 fleet from the airforce. I only see wins here, from making the complexity of the F35 go down, thus the price to freeing the Air force from that burden that the A10 appears to be.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The social scientists don't believe they are lowering the standards. In fact they argue that the Corps is being improved with women on the front lines. Where such delusion comes from is baffling.

    But when rounds are actually being sent downrange, there will be few women that actually show up. Most of the damage this will wrought will be during none combat operations when performance and promotions are gender biased against men.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Time for the Guys to huddle in a Group-Hug.
    Hankies anyone for dem bitter tears... ??

    This much handwringing has not been seen since the first 'integration'-wave post-WW-2.
    My husband was there.
    And he never understood that prejudice either...
    Same language - different target.

    Since 'gays' have always been well-integrated into fighting forces, now openly so, what will we dark-monger about next?
    Anyone left to 'be concerned' about ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are ignoring the one, central, key issue ... performance.

      Integration of blacks or gays might have caused morale issues but there was no question of performance. For women, both the physiology and the empirical data prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that women are significantly inferior in PERFORMANCE. What rational person wants to systematically send less capable performers into combat? That's a recipe for losing. Frankly, at this point, I don't care if a woman wants to go out and get herself killed because she wasn't as capable as the men she's fighting but I do care about her fellow soldiers who are going to get killed because of her.

      Ignoring reality is a form of insanity. Ignoring the female performance deficit is ...

      Delete
    2. To play devil's advocate, I've had the honor to serve with some of the most capable leaders and soldiers, who happened to be female. I've also seen the flipside as well, to which I'll not go into detail about. There is standards, that in my opinion, are double standards in regards to physical fitness. If there was to be one true way of seeing if someone was capable of doing that particular job, and they can routinely meet that standard, let them do that job, regardless of gender. I have seen more men not be able to do their job then I have women. I have seen more men abuse the system for selfish reasons then I have females. The horror stories exsit, I dont deny that. Ironically, I constantly see females get harassed and belittled, and continue to perform above their male peers. That is my concern, the harassment that will arise when we incorporate females into combat MOS's and the effect it will have on unit cohesion. That and if & when we go to war, how they'll be treated when they become POW's. Im a combat MOS, in a combat unit, in a leadership position. Not bragging, just letting you know what my qualifications are to be devil's advocate.

      Delete
    3. If your contention is that women should be allowed in combat units because there are some men in them that are not qualified, that's absurd.

      I certainly agree that we need to get men out of combat units who can't or won't perform.

      Dumbing down our overall capability in the name of social engineering is a good way to lose a war.

      Delete
    4. Trudy,

      Either the standard of performance mean something or it doesn't. No standards were altered with the integration of blacks. That is the difference. If there are women who can achieve that standard, then by all means welcome aboard.

      Delete
    5. Very simple.
      Open the door.
      See what happens...

      Many women may not make it while some will.
      Then step back for a generation.
      The numbers of 'adequate' women will rise.

      As before, only prejudice and anecdotal 'dark visions' keep that door closed.

      The endless self-flattery that only 'superior' men-folks ever made it into infantry frontlines is obviously at best a note of levity... but only worth a cynical smirk.

      This hair-on-fire-the-end-of-the-armed-forces-is-upon-us dramatics is exactly like the previous integration efforts of unjustifiably-excluded segments of this society. The point of these armed forces is the protection of this society. Any arbitrary categorical pre-judgment of soldier-candidates is counter-democratic and one of the excesses of an all-volunteer force where the full demographic spectrum is not always represented to uniformly keep respective basic political and thus leadership reflexes sharp.

      If active-duty leaders were to celebrate these 'dramatics', we may need to be concerned about how their apparently-weaker-than-expected constitution might affect other responsibilities in their professional portfolio.

      In this democracy's armed forces there is little room for 'Seperate-But-Equal' jibberish borne out of want-to-be-advanced 'Ivory-Tower' attitudes. Get on with the unevadable !!

      Delete
    6. Your contention totally ignores physiology, anatomy, and empirical evidence. This head in the sand, rose colored glasses approach reduces the credibility of your argument to zero and simply reinforces the stereotype that women are not only physically inferior but are emotionally driven and incapable of recognizing or dealing with logic.

      If you wish to make a credible case, address the physical disparity and explain how you see it not becoming a liability on the battlefield. Failure to address the issue just solidifies the wisdom of restricting women from combat. Make the case or go away. Emotional tugs and platitudes are worthless.

      Delete
  5. Unrelated news, shock testing of LCS.

    http://www.autoblog.com/2016/06/17/navy-blow-up-lcs-explosives/

    ReplyDelete
  6. CNO,

    When Charlton Heston called America: "A nation of sheep" he was soon target that it is scary in hind sight.

    GAB


    We have gone far down the

    ReplyDelete
  7. Wow. I wasn't saying that at all actually. I guess what I saying was arguing about women be capable, physically and mentally, is a mute point when we have men who are not. I also feel there should be no double standards, such as there is now. You should have to qualify for that particular job, instead of across the board "your-good" standards that really dont judge physically readiness for certain jobs, such as artillery or something that requires repetitive, heavy lifting.

    So to reiterate, one standard for both genders and job specific physical qualifications. If fact, lets speed up the process to remove unqualified soldiers from the ranks and increase the diffculty of basic training & the following MOS trainng that follows.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The real issue is combat effectiveness; esprit de corps, unit cohesion, morale are arguably far and away the most important qualities of any military unit.

      Key to esprit de corps is confidence that the unit *overmatches* any conceivable opponent: meeting the standard is not the point, the point is to exceed the standard!

      In the 5,000 year history of organized violence (war) it seems incredibly definitive that we have not a single example of an effective army that employed any significant numbers of women as front line troops. This alone should give us pause. The sole example is WWII Soviet female fighter pilots, but air combat is not ground combat, and even in their most desperate hour the Russians did not conscript women as infantry.

      GAB

      Delete
    2. While, I get what your saying, women being in combat units isn't the problem. What is, is that we are a demoralized, undertrained, under-maintanced force and we're facing further draw-downs & below recruitment goals. I'm personally facing the possibility of having to force out multiple soldiers for subpar performance and I'm not alone. I don't care whether, when I get soldiers, whether they're male or female, as long as they can do their job.

      Further more, the Russian used females heavily, to free up males for physically demanding jobs, then they used them occasionally in some forms of infantry roles, with "sniper" being most prominent. In fact, during WW1, there was a all female, combat unit that had quite an impressive record.

      Let's not get hung up on gender, but improving the ways we run this military-industrial complex first.

      Delete
    3. Andrew, women are the problem. You're undoubtedly familiar with the Marines extensive mixed unit study. They found that in almost every measure, mixed units performed worse than all male units. This included marksmanship which surprised me because it is not a strength-related task.

      So, yes, women in combat are a problem.

      I watched a short video of soldiers unloading a pallet of boxes (don't know what was in them) during a humanitarian mission. Two guys and a girl were carrying the boxes from the pallet to truck. On every trip, the guys were carrying two boxes and the girl was carrying one. The guys were making almost two trips to the girl's one. What if that had been ammo boxes during combat? They guys carry two boxes to their squad, quickly. The girl carries one box, slowly, and her squad is wiped out due to lack of ammo.

      I don't want to depend on a female who can't perform, physically, to the demands of combat. I also don't want to depend on a man who can't meet those demands. More importantly, I don't want to depend on anyone who barely meets a minimal standard. I want fellow soldiers who meet minimum standards without even trying.

      There's been a lot of talk about women being capable of meeting pull-up minimums (3 seems to be a common number) if only they'd be allowed to train for it for several months. Most guys can rip off 10-20 pull-ups on their first day with no training. I don't want anyone beside me, male or female, who has to make a special training effort to barely meet a minimum standard. I also think our minimum standards are pathetically low and should be significantly increased.

      Being able to train for several months to be able to lift one artillery shell doesn't demonstrate that you can do so in combat for several hours straight.

      Women are incapable of meeting combat demands.

      Women in combat units ARE the problem.

      Delete
    4. I feel as if this particular topic has gone off track to one of gender. That being said, I feel I have been unclear in stating my views clearly. Women in combat has problems associated with it, however, they are not the most pressing of issues. I completely agree 100% with you, if someone can't do their job, I don't want them in combat with me, regardless of gender. I understand that a far, far greater number of males out of the USA population can perform above standard then their female counterparts. That being said, there are always exceptions to the rule, and it is those females I feel should be allowed to serve if they so choose.

      I do not agree with quotas, political ambitions, or reducing standards to allow females to be combat. I strongly feel if someone can meet the demanding requirements of combat, both physically and mentally, I personnally care not for gender.

      The way this integration has been handled, is flawed and political, that I'll readily admit. What I will not is that all women are inferior to males, especially with this current "snowflake" generation men, who we now deal with, coming thru basic & advanced individual training showing poor disciple and physical readiness.

      Delete
    5. "I feel as if this particular topic has gone off track to one of gender."

      The topic IS gender! That's what the post was about.

      Delete
    6. "What I will not is that all women are inferior to males, especially with this current "snowflake" generation men, who we now deal with, coming thru basic & advanced individual training showing poor disciple and physical readiness."

      Now you ARE on a different, though related topic. We should be washing out about 25% of men from basic training. Unfortunately, if you applied that level of standard, it would wash out nearly 100% of women.

      Perhaps, what is needed is a divided military with the division being between combat and administrative (clerical, cyber, computer, etc.). Physical standards are meaningless for those jobs. At the same time, increase the standards for combat. That way, anyone, male or female, can serve but only the best can qualify for combat.

      Now, in theory, I'm OK with women in combat who can meet the higher standards. Unfortunately, as you note in your comment, only a very few women could qualify. For sake of further discussion, let's say it's one woman in a brigade because if you apply realistic combat standards, that would be about the level of female qualification. That, then, brings up the impact of one woman in a brigade of men. Now, you have to create separate bunking, latrines, showers, and on and on for one woman. It's not worth the effort.

      Remember, the military is NOT society. You give up some rights and freedoms when you join the military. The military should be under no obligation to conduct social engineering. The military's only obligation should be to produce the best fighting force possible. That is not possible with women in combat. The Marines have proven it and admitted it. The Marines are failing the country by accepting women in combat. Every Marine General should resign in protest.

      Who would a Russian soldier prefer to fight - a man or a woman? If the answer is a man, then women have no place in combat.

      Delete
    7. My bad, I was looking at the trees and not the forest in your opening subject heading. As you probably could tell from my first post, I should have paid more attention to the content, and not the title.

      However, my opinions remains the same.

      Delete
    8. Andrew, have you watched the videos of women training for hand to hand combat in basic training? It's pathetic. It's like watching a pillow fight. They just kind of shove each other a little bit. They don't need protective equipment for training - they're incapable of hurting someone. They have no strength and no aggressiveness. It would be hilarious if these weren't the people supposedly defending our country.

      Delete
    9. In real combat, against a peer or near-peer opponent, I doubt there would be readily available latrines or showers. Skipping the hygiene requirements between genders, if we where to fight a war like we have, those facilities would still be set up for the support units with mixed genders. Past that point, everything you have stated, I've been in agreement with and have mentioned in previous posts.

      Delete
    10. We're posting at the same time, I'll wait awhile before replying. That said, the military as a whole is moving away from hand-to-hand combat as a whole. The Army has stopped bayonet training and currently thinking about scrapping its combatives programs. Did the navy and airforce even have a dedicated program for close combat? That is a symptom of the military as a whole's focus on engaging at range. That said, yes, females would not be good hand-2-hand fighters, but it fits the military's current focus...

      Delete
    11. The basics never change.

      We thought we didn't need guns on aircraft prior to Vietnam because we'd be engaging at a distance with missiles. Turned out we needed guns.

      We can drop hand to hand training but that doesn't mean the need is gone. It just means our leadership will have made yet another bad decision in a long line of bad decisions.

      I can cite example after example of close quarters combat in Irag/Afg but you can look them up for yourself. It doesn't happen every day but when it does, do the women get to sit out while the men fight?

      How about kicking open a door? Ever seen a woman try to kick open a door? Hilarious.

      How about simply carrying a pack and KEEPING UP?

      I can come up with these scenarios all day but you either get the point by now or you refuse to see the reality of women's overwhelming physical limitations.

      Delete
    12. I'm well aware of the bayonet charge of 2003 in Afghanistan, and furthermore most hand-2-hand (H2H) combat incidents that have happened in our war on terror (most interesting with the Nepalese soldier with the tripod). As with your previous post on ship based combat still requiring guns, (as the airforce relearned during vietnam) H2H will happen. I like how you mentioned kicking in doors, cause just last week, I was assisting in Modern Operations, Urban Terrain (MOUT) and saw the intial, dismal performance of men. It takes a significantly strong person, to defeat a door that isn't plywood. For that reason, we developed, for the army at least, different techniques and tools to make the process easier.

      I feel we're on the same page but don't realize it. I'm stating we allow females into combat if they meet realistic standards, not politically driven ones. We agree ALL soldiers need to be held that standard, regardless of what gender they are. You stated nearly 100% of women couldn't do it and I know thats a general statement, but I would gladly take that percent of a percentage over the troops I've seen come in, cause they're male and their basic was like "your unit will square you away."

      If they can meet standards, let them. If not, redirect them to the supply clerk and other support MOS's.

      Delete
    13. Andrew S.: You are citing, unwittingly, the effects of decades of getting women into more and more positions in the military. Yes, physical standards have been lowered for everyone. Guess why? To make it easier for women. Yes, hand-to-hand combat training is being de-emphasized. Why? Partly because it occurs less often in modern warfare, and partly because fitness standards have been lowered (see point already made), and partly to make it easier for women.

      I am old enough to remember feminist Democratic Senator Pat Schroder of Colorado pushing for lowered physical standards in numerous military job requirements, explicitly stated to be for the reason of making it easier for women to advance in military careers.

      Brian Mitchell has been studying this for decades. His first book about was released in 1989, long before there was a serious push for women in combat. It is called "Weak Link" and you can get a used copy for one penny plus shipping from Amazon. He wrote an updated study of these issues in 1997, called "Women in the Military: Flirting with Disaster." 27 years ago and 19 years ago! Pat Schroeder's push was occurring in the 1980s. The lowered standards you see have a history, and it is largely a feminist history.

      Delete
  8. "That said, the military as a whole is moving away from hand-to-hand combat ..."
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    This has been true since the throwing spear was invented; preferences aside, troops will inevitably always come into close contact, which may or may not involve hand to gland combat. Ask Brad Kasal about coming face to face with the enemy at spitting distance: http://media.patriotpost.us/img/ref/kasal.jpg

    Almost every infantryman carries a bayonet, knife, tomahawk etc. for this possibility although very few will need it. Then, there capturing prisoners is a consistent objective of patrols and that absolutely ends with hand to hand.

    I do not see how you dismiss the very real physical face of war. There is no easy or pleasant way to kill another human being. We can isolate our politicians and the public; but what happens really happens in a cockpit, tank, building or trench is horrific. Beyond starting war, the worst thing we can do is send unprepared troops to war.

    GAB

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't not dismiss the brutal aspects of war, I seen the results, to know not to. But at the end of the day, it comes down to standards (quality) being meet versus numbers. Currently we have neither. When we reach realistic standards, and females can meet them, let them join. I cannot fault their gender for the casualties they'll suffer, for it will be similar for both genders, due the lack of training focus on H2H. As for the policies and requirements stand, they're not to blame for decreasing performance.

      "You go to war with the Army you have,.."

      Delete
  9. Good show by Andrew S.

    To repeat, open the door, see what happens, watch for a generations and you'll find infantry-folks making fun of all the 2016-vintage dark-mongering about women with bayonets/particle-beam-generator next to guys with bayonets/particle-beam-generators.

    This is cringe-worthy already...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is cringe-worthy but not in the way you seem to think!

      I cringe every time I see another picture of a 5'4", 100 lb women being graduated from basic training. The Russians and Chinese have got to be peeing their pants laughing.

      Delete
    2. The Russians and Chinese are just laughing at us in general, particularly our handling of Ukraine and the south china sea. And in all fairness, the Chinese just did or about to, relax their own standards, by increasing the maximum wieght their soldiers can be.

      Delete
    3. Trudy: You should read my comment above, and read a book by Brian Mitchell. "Open the door, see what happens" has already been done. It translated into "We need to lower standards so that women can have a better chance at a good military career." There is a lot of lip service to having single standards and not double standards, but you can have single standards and lower them for everyone, to benefit women, which is our current situation. I doubt that you will actually read the details of what has happened, but I hope I am wrong.

      Delete