17 March 2013
Published here with permission from the author.
Written By: G.S. Newbold, Lieutenant General, USMC (Ret.)
Marine photo / Cpl. Jennifer Pirante Marine Corps Lance Cpl. Michelle Berglin trains for an upcoming deployment at Camp Pendleton in January.
Myth #1 – “It’s about women in combat.”
No, it’s not. Women are already in combat, and are serving well and professionally. The issue should be more clearly entitled, “Women in the infantry.” And this is a decidedly different proposition.
Myth #2 – “Combat has changed” (often accompanied by “There are no front lines anymore”).
This convenient misconception requires several counters. First, any serious study of military history will reveal numerous historical examples about how successive generations (over millennia) believed that warfare had changed forever, only to find that technology may change platforms, but not its harsh essence. To hope that conflicts over the last 20 years are models of a new, antiseptic form of warfare is delusional.
The second point is that the enemy gets a vote – time, place, and style. For example, war on the Korean Peninsula would be a brutal, costly, no-holds-barred nightmare of mayhem in close combat with casualties in a week that could surpass the annual total of recent conflict.
The final point on this myth reinforces the Korea example and it bears examination — Fallujah, Iraq in 2004, where warfare was reduced to a horrific, costly, and exhausting scrap in a destroyed city between two foes that fought to the death.
The standard for ground combat unit composition should be whether social experimentation would have amplified our opportunity for success in that crucible, or diminished it. We gamble with our future security when we set standards for warfare based on the best case, instead of the harshest one.
Myth #3 – “If they pass the physical standards, why not?”
Physical standards are important, but not nearly all of the story. Napoleon – “The moral (spirit) is to the physical as three is to one.”
Unit cohesion is the essence of combat power, and while it may be convenient to dismiss human nature for political expediency, the facts are that sexual dynamics will exist and can affect morale. That may be manageable in other environments, but not in close combat.
Any study of sexual harassment statistics in this age cohort – in the military, academia, or the civilian workplace — are evidence enough that despite best efforts to by sincere leaders to control the issue, human instincts remain strong. Perceptions of favoritism or harassment will be corrosive, and cohesion will be the victim.
Myth #4 – “Standards won’t be lowered.”
This is the cruelest myth of all. The statements of the current chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff are telling.
They essentially declare “guilty until proven innocent” on anyone attempting to maintain the standards which produced the finest fighting force in the world. There are already accommodations (note that unit cohesion won’t be a metric), there will be many more, and we will pay a bloody price for it someday.
Pity the truthful leader who attempts to hold to standards based on realistic combat factors, and tells truth to power. Most won’t, and the others won’t survive.
Myth #5 – “Opening the infantry will provide a better pathway to senior rank for the talented women.”
Not so. What will happen is that we will take very talented females with unlimited potential and change their peer norm when we inject them into the infantry.
Those who might meet the infantry physical standard will find that their peers are expected, as leaders, to far exceed it (and most of their subordinates will, as well).
So instead of advancing to a level appropriate to their potential, they may well be left out.
Myth #6 – “It’s a civil rights issue, much like the integration of the armed forces and allowing gays to serve openly.”
Those who parrot this either hope to scare honest and frank discussion, or confuse national security with utopian ideas.
In the process, they demean initiatives that were to provide equally skilled individuals the opportunity to contribute equally. In each of the other issues, lowered standards were not the consequence.
Myth #7 – “It’s just fair.”
Allow me two points.
First, this is ground warfare we’re discussing, so realism is important.
“Fair” is not part of the direct ground combat lexicon.
Direct ground combat, such as experienced in the frozen tundra of Korea, the rubble of Stalingrad, or the endless 30-day jungle patrols against a grim foe in Viet Nam, is the harshest meritocracy — with the greatest consequences — there is.
And psychology in warfare is germane – the force that is respected (and, yes, feared) has a distinct advantage.
Will women in our infantry enhance a psychological advantage, or hinder it?
Second, if it’s about fairness, why do women get a choice of whether to serve in the infantry (when men do not), and why aren’t they required to register for the draft (as men are)?
It may be that we live in a society in which honest discussion of this issue, relying on facts instead of volume, is not possible. If so, our national security will fall victim to hope instead of reality. And myths be damned.
Gregory S. Newbold served 32 years as a Marine infantryman, commanding units from platoon to the 1st Marine Division. His final assignment before retiring in 2002 was as director of operations for the Pentagon’s Joint Staff.
Comments
This is, without a doubt, the best common sense statement I’ve heard since this topic has come up. The minimums standards are set up as a discriminator, but no one just does the minimum and succeeds in the Army. Can you imagine a PL of PS “just” getting a 180 on their APFT? Unless they have some other outstanding quality as a leader, they’d be a laughing stock of just not the platoon, but the company and probably the battalion as well. That’s not setting our leaders up for success at all.
This comment along with the potetial of being captured prisoners and the special unspeakable tortures women will incur, is the best and most succinct argument AGAINST women as combat infantry team members I have seen yet
Yeah and that asinine comment and attitude is why you and the people you work with are never going to lead the First Marine Division or any division for that matter, and certainly never rise to the Pentagon level of operations authority, because they are just regular grunts, like yourself!
I guess the authors HIGH positions of authority and command and control over those 32 years are lost on regular folks like you!
I'd first like to say I am a 13 year old female who plans on joining the IDF, and who is NOT claiming to be a expert on anything. However, there were female Israeli soldiers on the front lines, mainly in the war for Independence. Once again I am not claiming to be a expert, but I had relatives in the Haulocaust. Consequently I have researched the Haulocaust and the founding of Israel extensively. I also do Lincoln Douglas debate, which requires a lot of research as well.
God Bless America.
Am Yisra'el Chai.
Asinine is kind word for this kind of stupidity. Unless they are some kind of Amazons, WOMEN cannot hack it because of their physical limitations. PERIOD! And lets not forget those PERIODS, mmkay? Something else nobody wants to talk about, but I will!!
Are they going to get days off, a pass, from combat duty every 28 days? WTF! The female body is NOT designed for heavy load carrying and rigorous combat operations and any moron who tries to claim otherwise is a fool and an IDIOT! Many of them can't even make it through a day at work in normal jobs during their PERIODS, now we are going throw them into the extremely high stress combat operation arena, WHAT?
How our enemies must laughing at our ridiculous attempts to put weak females in combat infantry roles!
Lower standards? NEVER EVER! Should never happen and to do so, as the author so rightly pointed out, is irresponsible and tantamount to committing murder and suicide all at once!!!
God help US we have to get these corrupt Communist jackanapes out of our government and our military structure, TODAY!
De we really care about women. or are we going to exploit them for political purposes in the hopes of appearing fair and equal?
There is nothing fair or equal about inflicting combat injuries and death on women in order to appear fair or equal!
You can quote me on that last sentence!
Wow, you can't make up what a moronic caveman you are. Your fellow marines must be so proud to count you amongst them. Like I said, I know some female soldiers that could slit your throat without breaking a sweat. Painting all women with that broad brush of yours is just stupid.
Talk about morons and they seem to come out of the wood work like cockroaches heralding imperious troll leftist agitprop attacks that expose their brainwashed ignorance and real intent.
I doubt you know any females that could do anything more than service your genitals and probably not very well at that!
Judging by your inane attempt at attack with no real facts and idiot assumptions, you are a loser leftist Move-On troll hiding in your parents basement listening to Madonna records
Anybody who uses the term "Moving On" around here is suspect of incompetence and low metal abilities, YO!
BTW it is idiots like you who are trying to paint women with a broad brush trying to miserably convey an inane position by saying without exception that women can hack combat infantry roles, when we have a female Army Captain saying exactly the opposite here on Michael's site, TROLL!
Start citing actual proof instead of "I know some Israeli chicks who can..." It doesnt mean shit
The standard for ground combat unit composition should be whether social experimentation would have amplified our opportunity for success in that crucible, or diminished it. We gamble with our future security when we set standards for warfare based on the best case, instead of the harshest one."
This, more than any other argument, MUST be considered long and hard before making our armed forces sacrifice their martial capability---th e very role and reason for existence---to cater to the identity politics of lobby groups.
So Timmy, are you really, really going to try to convince us these miracle worker Amazon women soldiers you wax poetic over, are the rule and NOT the exceptions. Excuse Me?
Have you ever, ever, in your feeble attempts to back a fallacious argument thought about what would happen to these amazing female soldiers if they were captured by the more radical elements of the Taliban, HAVE YOU?
You are going to try tell me and everyone else reading this, ANY average woman so inclined is going to fit the combat infantry mold without exception, when there are so many strong young guys who cannot?
Either you are delusional or you're making up your story to fit a politikal korrectness mold which many trolls for the left come in here and try out on a regular basis!
We raise them to man size, we'll see what happens.
Not a particularly impressive statement considering there are over 15,000 women in the US Army today.
Having been a grunt for many years, the life of an infantry soldier is NOT an easy lifestyle by any means. It is hard, rough, arduous, physically demanding, chronically fatiguing, stressful, sometimes injurious, long hours for weeks at a time in all weather conditions from hot, to freezing and rain and snow and lots and lots of mud,with few or no opportunties to ever get rested or even clean. You have to carry your own gear, weapons, LBE, sometimes a 30 lbs radio and spare batteries, MREs, bandoliers - all on your physical frame (body) for long periods (25 mile or more "road marches" with few breaks). The infantry is difficult for the men. Women will likely never be able to stand up to the required rigors for more than a day at the most, and then they will be worn out, exhausted, pooped and wasted and ultimately, combat "ineffective" -- in other words, casualties waiting to happen.
Women in the infantry, Special forces, airborne, etc are liabilities to the unit. They are NOT assets. Anyone who thinks otherwise has never been in the infantry.....
I served right alongside women in the 2nd Combat Communications Group who had to field deploy with us and live in tent city conditions and some of them even pitched in to do some of the more heavy lifting tasks but not many, because they just could not do it, period! But none us, thought ill of them for not being able to carry a medium GP tent ridge pole, which weighs about 120 lbs assembled! (There was one girl who could, but SHE was the EXCEPTION and not the RULE!)
I could not even conceive of our modern military NOT having women in prominent operational, command, and support roles, but having them exposed to direct combat infantry roles based inane rules of thumb in order to maintain some asinine insane politikally korrect equality standard, NO, BUT HELL NO!
But if you really want to go through with this abject surrender to poltical korrectnes nonsense, then at least make sure the ladies can really hack it! If they can hump the ruck, take the beating and risks that daily fully loaded patrols offer and are willing to put themselves at risk of being captured and raped by filthy Jihadist scum, then by all means let them go, but no special considerations because they are female, no time off for premenstrual cramps or pregnancy, NO PTIY, NO SYMPATHY, NO MORE CONSIDERATION THAN WHAT THE GUYS HAVE TO SUFFER!
Then lets see where the chips fall
"Combat" and "Communications " can never be used in the same phrase/sentence . That explains everything. Thank you.
Later when I was in SF some loud mouthed butch type soldier was making all kinds of noise that she could do what we do, so we let her go out on a patrol with us. We didn't even get out of the main gate (on our way out to the ranges) before she started crying. Her ruck didn't even weigh 70lbs.
I understand that this was only one girl, but she was very butch and looked to be pretty bad ass for a girl, and she failed miserably.
I've also gone up against female black belts in Karate at the Dojo. They look really good doing their Kata's, but when it's time to spar, they simply can't match the power of a man -- even though they know proper leverage. I get so sick of hearing these fictitious stories of how women can match the strength and stamina of men.
Roger on the different Airborne standards for women.
In 1965, most women didn't even weigh enough to open the standard-issue Army parachute. It took 110 lbs of weight to open the chute....so, we put full sand bags in their rucks to make them heavier.....to gurantee the chutes would open. This was in later years. Not sure how they do it these days now.
Before any more females post saying that women can do this, I suggest you do a quick test. Load 100 pounds into a pack and see if you can lift it onto your back, then walk around for 5 minutes. then sit down and type your response. This goes for you guys who support women in infantry units -- I bet you can't do it either.
I don't dispute your claims that women can endure pain and emotional suffering -- it's just the physical component that I'm harping on here.
Mother of four women, grandmother of eight young ladies, seven young men.
Strange.... My Honda is just fine.
It is in this vein that all of the issues gain their greatest clarity and their most extreme examples, especially unit cohesion. A supply unit stumbling into the enemy is called a security mistake. A combat arms team stumbling into the enemy is called a patrol or a reconnaissance- in-force.
You are a female. You are in the infantry now.
We are in a shooting war. You are assigned to an infantry platoon which is on patrol in a hostile area known to be populated by enemy soldiers. They spot you; then, they engage you. There are twice as many of them as there are of your guys. Fighting comes to hand to hand and bayonet to bayonet. Your guys are having to react immediately with their bayonets, and are still wearing their rucks, LBE and are fully equipped with helmets, rifles. Quick reaction and engagement is crucial and critical NOW. There is no time to delay or unload your personal equipment. The fight ensues for more than 35 minutes. Bodies are flying everywhere, guts are being ripped open, heads are being smashed, there is a lot of yelling. The enemy force is ALL men and those guys are BIG, mean, scary, and fierce looking. The US females in the infantry engagement are the first to go down as casualties. They are too small and light for these guys who are overpowering and outfighting them. The enemy soldiers are extremely aggressive, unmerciful, and apparently not intimidated or afraid of our guys at all. The battle ends, they win, kill a few more of our guys and take the rest as POWs. Had we had more tough men, we might have won. Too many females, most unable to inflict any real damage to the close combat enemy. They did a lot of head smashing and thus our guys were defeated. Why? Wrong people in the wrong jobs at the wrong time. Women in the infantry, LOL...a real scenario yet to play out in some future war.
I hear this BS all the time, and usually from people who claim to be in front line units themselves but parrot that they know women who can beat every man or slit peoples throats etc etc... Nobody said women cant kill, what IS being said clearly, is that women won't be able to meet and exceed the standards for infantry and that the standards will therefore be lowered. If that wasnt true, then they would already be competing equally with men in fitness competitions, and we know thats not going to happen.
And what about the demands of the average woman's body? What about the normal 3 days of every month with a period? Will the enemy allow each woman soldier a three day rest period? What about women whose periods are irregular? Will a commander have to add this to all the other burdens of operating a unit in hostile territory?
Finally, how will an enemy react to American women in the very frontline? Do we expect them to treat women POW soldiers better than they treat men, or worse? Will women find their heads being sawed off? What about using women captives to weaken the will of the American public in a war?
I am sorry, but this does not sound like progress, even for women in the military. Isn't it amazing that with all the different armies we have had for thousands of years, no one has come up with this proposal ?
That should change with the times as well, because that's BS,. Equal rights means equal everything. How many would change their minds about this (men and women) if that was the case and standards were the same no matter what your gender? It is the way it should be, always.
You are missing the point in the discussion.
It is not about HAS BEENs. It is about DIRECT infantry engagement, not the defensive stuff some women are performing now in Afghanistan. There IS a difference -- YOU just haven't had your female ass kicked yet by REAL soldiers wearing REAL uniforms and fighting in a REAL Army. A few ragheads isn't quite the same thing girl......so, you got lots to learn yet before you start knocking us "has beens". At least, we COUNTED --- you don't, yet. We have traveled the road, and we KNOW the score. We also know what awaits YOU and other potential infantry women in the next war -- history tends to repeat, remember?? Rather than knock it, try and learn from it.............
Good night --signing off now
The Point is more about stamina, physical endurance, and physical strength over a long period of time and the ability to continue to function as a combatant for prolonged periods and without regard to all that is good.
When the question was first posed to me if I would have any issues with women in combat I initially told the gentleman (a reporter attached to C.Co 1-17 INF in Afghanistan) that I did not have a problem with it as long as the standards were just that.... standard across the board. However I have been thinking lately that there are a number of situations that give me pause on the issue. Now I know this does not happen often but if a man and a woman were taken prisoner the woman could be strong enough to not talk no matter what they did to her. I as the man would not give any information of any kind no matter what they did to me. But let me see them mistreat, beat, and rape a woman I am serving with and I honestly can not tell you that I could remain strong and silent.
It's not an issue of equality because I believe in equality in all facets of life. It is more an issue of your military trained and calculating mind and your moral and chivalrous heart being at odds with each other. Do I trust a woman to serve honorably and have my back in a firefight?... Of course I do. But if I am honest with myself; given a choice between saving my buddy on my left or a woman on the right. The decision would always be the woman on the right. I know that is not true equality but it is the way many of us were raised. To be noble and honorable towards women. But if i would chose her over my other buddy then I no longer have my buddy's back when the stuff hits the fan. And that process of wondering instead of knowing that I have his back and he has mine is an issue I believe will not be solved for a few more generations when women and men have finally reached a true place of equality.
Canadian Forces have females in combat arms (Artillery, Armour, Aviation and also at least one female SOF operator). They didn't lower the standard for her and she got through.
The Brits had used female operators within the UW side in Northern Ireland for some time; though not in the pure infantry role. More undercover work etc...i.e. less likely to be noticed having a man and a women enter a pub then two blokes. Regular SOF wise it has been opened to them but no female operators have gotten through as of 2011)
Having female engagement teams has been a success for US/Australia in getting intel from the female population in Afghanistan (cultural thing where the women aren't likely to talk to men at all); on the converse side the local male population (esp in the tribal areas) aren't going to have a bar to do with any female soldiers.
Few years back I actually met a female Australian medic who was very physically fit (she was a stunt double for Nicole Kidman in Days of Thunder for e.g) and she was attached to a 1 CDO in Sydney for some time. She put her hand up to do all that the male SOF operators would do...i.e. fast roping, Urban work, humping rucks. She could keep up, however she admitted in the long run her recovery time compared to the blokes was a lot less.
Likewise for female soldiers in Australia prelonged deployments in the field (we are week+ here usually resulted in female hygiene issues).
All the infantry and Tier 2 units I've talked to were opposed to having women in their units. Surprisingly there is a more open attitude to it for Tier 1 units i.e. esp the UW role where having a women operator is going to assist.
I guess the main issue for infantry is going to be the close combat function i.e. getting in there and dominating in CQB..with bare hands, bayonets and fighting implements; this is where the danger area is. An enemy combatant (esp contemporary) isn't go to give a female soldier a fair fight just because of gender. Sure there are the examples of women they can keep up with the guys...but what is going to be effect of having had to patrol for days, be in a sustaine urban fight and then hit a building where you have to take down a haji loaded to the eyeballs with narcotics.
i.e. is a female operator going to be able to replicate that?
http://www.news.com.au/national-news/killer-commando-america-poaches-australias-toughest-man/story-fncynjr2-1226592161560
how do you know they didnt lower the standard? I know plenty of people in the CF including women and the biggest complaint is lowered standards, so I have trouble believing that.
Israeli Experience with women in direct combat (sure there are female snipers etc; but they have a different role to what most western militaries define as sniping)
http://www.wnd.com/2001/08/10269/
I want to extend the Idea of Myth#3 to address RAPE. I'll call this MYTH#8---"Despi te Best Efforts It's Impossible to stop Rape in the Military." RAPE will continue until Male Authority/Leade rship says RAPE stops NOW. Trent Mays & Ma’Lik Richmond, two teen football players from Stuebenville Ohio, were found guilty of raping a 16-year-old West Virginia girl while at alcohol-fueled parties last summer. We all saw the video & pictures, one holding her by her arms, the other by her legs wide eagle. Was that before or after the Rape---DOES IT MATTER? They took advantage of a very drunk girl. Posted these pictures online. The verdict was just, it didn't "ruin" the "promising" lives of Trent and Malik, their decision to RAPE did. There isn't much difference between the MINDSET of Revered Football players Raping a girl and young Military Officers Raping a girl. They rape them because they are THERE. They rape them because they know they have IMPUNITY. THEY GET IT---what we do HERE is different. This impunity will remain in force UNTIL Male Authority/Leade rship says RAPE stops NOW and that Rape is a first degree crime and will be prosecuted under Military & Civil Law. It won't ruin morale or good men, it will improve morale and good men! Women DON'T belong in Combat--PERIOD! The CULTURE of RAPE in the Military is wrong---PERIOD! THIS impunity and simplistic mindset (I can do to her whatever I want, she's Here) needs to STOP!
Be truthful, do you think that women in combat will make the infantry any better than it is now?...
You women who think you will make the infantry better are fooling yourself and will only lower its effectiveness and will get people killed. Its the epitome of selfishness to think you women can make it better or more effective...
From the report of the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces dated November 15, 1992, it states in part:The average female Army recruit is 4.8 inches shorter, 31.7 pounds lighter, has 37.4 fewer pounds of muscle, and 5.7 more pounds of fat than the average male recruit. She has only 55 percent of the upper-body strength and 72 percent of the lower-body strength. An Army study done in 1988 found that women are more than twice as likely to suffer leg injuries and nearly five times as likely to suffer fractures as men. Further, the Commission heard an abundance of expert testimony including:- women’s aerobic capacity is significantly lower, meaning they cannot carry as much as far as fast as men, and they are more susceptible to fatigue.- in terms of physical capability, the upper five percent of women are at the level of the male median. The average 20-to-30 year-old woman has the same aerobic capacity as a 50 year-old man. After a study was conducted at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, one expert testified that:- using the standard Army Physical Fitness Test, the upper quintile (top 20%) of women at West point achieved scores on the test equivalent to the bottom quintile (bottom 20%) of men.- only 21 women out of the initial 623 (3.4%) achieved a score equal to the male mean score of 260.- on the push-up test, only 7% of women can meet a score of 60, while 78% of men exceed it.- adopting a male standard of fitness at West Point would mean 70% of the women he studied would be separated as failures at the end of their junior year, only 3% would be eligible for the Recondo badge, and not one would receive the Army Physical Fitness badge.
Most of the guys in my USMC M-60A1 tank co could hold a 105 round (40ish lbs) under each arm when loading. The tank can be a dangerous animal to feed and care for, with burns, cuts and bruises lurking. I haven't seen may females who would relish and thrive on that challenge. Secondly, can u imagine the jr high vaudeville antics if a chick was injected in to my tank or a squad or a gun crew? "Oh, she likes the cake dessert, big can entrees? She can have mine", "Do you like me? Check box YES NO", "No, i dont mind jumping down in the shit water rice paddy or freezing cold snow and check the track tension and roadwheels." All the physical and moral objections are golden, but add the sexual dynamic? no effin way. Love the article.
Way I see it, its like giving a guy with Bipolar a gun, training on how to kill, sticking him in a situation where he does kill, and expecting him to handle it well.
One too many verbal jabs and bam, Private Jenkins head just got vacated.
classes in wrestling, boxing and other pugilistic sports
Here are the links you might want to visit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leigh_Ann_Hester
http://nooniefortin.com/afghanistan.htm
http://www.nooniefortin.com/iraq.htm
By the way I m a 14 year old FEMALE and its my dream to go MARINE CORPS INFANTRY. And your arguments are horrible.
Sorry you feel the way you do. You're viewing this issue solely with the
mindset of what benefits you as an individual. Any branch of service you
undertake will skew the notion "the individual" by the third week of boot
camp. I'm all for you serving in whatever capacity you are qualified to
serve in, as long as the minimum standards are NOT reduced to allow you to
do so. If the military has to reduce it's standards to allow you your
desires it would endanger the lives of many others, not only yours. I'm
looking at the bigger picture as what is the best allocation of human
resources in what is the most deadly profession known to mankind.
I'll let the "stupid" jab slide because your a 14 year old, not because of
your gender. Simply calling someone with a differing opinion stupid is a
childish and immature response.You've a lot of maturing to go through
before you're eligible for military service. In the time you have before
you enlist, concentrate on education, improving your physical condition,
and getting yourself together mentally, emotionally and spiritually. Don't
let me or my opinion keep you from following your dreams, pursue them with
all that's within you. I'm happy and proud you want to serve our country. I
wish you only the best. I have no intention whatsoever to squelch your zeal
to serve. I'm giving my opinion as to what I believe is best for our
country and ALL those who serve under her flag.
Respectfully
@Sean, I take exception re: your comments on women and guns and periods - many thousands of women now have CHL permits, and carry every day of the month, and there has been no rash of PMS-related shootings! Please don't demean our very valid arguments with stuff like that!!! Thanks!
Seems a lot of posters are not or have never been in the infantry, so have NO clue of what the infantry is all about. This is especially true of a lot of the female posters, but the males just as well.
I spent 25 years in the US Army Infantry. I also trained with US Marine Infantry. Not a great deal of difference. Over the years, I have been in the 1st, 3rd, 8th, 7th, 24th, 25 and 2nd Infantry Divisions. I have been a Squad Leader, Fire Team Leader, Platoon Sergeant, and First Sergeant of Infantry Troops. The work is rough and tough and many times, I have been the provervial "hatchet man" in the unit often forcing soldiers to do things they do not want to do......being an infantryman in all forms of their Military Occupational Skill sets. Train and Maintain.....
For women who aspire to become Infantrymen
or Infantrywomen -- take the time to do the research of what lies ahead. You might be surprised. You might be shocked too. Look at the infantry of any army thru history. The concept is still the SAME today as it was 2000 years ago (the Romans). Only the tactics, weapons and technology have changed with time. Otherwise, it is still what makes up an Army and is the reason for an Army (or Marine Corps).
Nuff said
The Infantry, by its' nature, is an aggressive, kick-ass, take no names, front line fighting force. Its' PRIMARY function is to take the fight to the enemy directly, engage him head-on. It is the tip of the spear; the cutting edge. It is unlike any other part of the US Army. Its' training is rough, very rough. Its' standards are high. The lifestyle of an Infantryman is not a walk in the park, such as with the Quartermasters, Signal Corps, Admin types or Motor Pool mechs. It is dirty work, many times in real war uncivilized, harsh, cruel and unmerciful. Stress levels are horrendous. We are the nastiest, dirtiest part of the Army -- we kill people on purpose, deliberately and methodically. For this, we are called the "Queen of Battle", and are often the Army's elite force. We are both ground infantry (legs) and Airborne Paratroopers. We go anywhere and everywhere. We trust each other absolutely and we depend on each other without fail or hestitation. We are a cohesive force (team) which is an absolute for a combat force.
It remains to be seen how women will fit into this concept of military force structure. Perhaps in small numbers, they may do well. In large numbers, not so well. Only time will tell - or the next real war involving direct ground combat with Army to Army engagements where real people are turned into hamburger meat.
RSS feed for comments to this post