US Marines get first female infantry officer

[Gerald]

A female US Marine has made history by becoming the first woman to complete the Corps' famously gruelling infantry officer training.
The lieutenant, who wants to keep her identity private, graduated in Quantico, Virginia, on Monday.
She will soon be assigned to lead a 40-strong platoon.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41394646

It's good, good luck.

[Skybird]

No, its not good.

https://fabiusmaximus.com/2017/02/16...aeli-military/

In a whole book on this and othe rproblems ith the modenr military he points ats tatistics showing that women in the US military serving in no longer just desktop jobs are six times as often injured due to physical overload, as their male collegaues. He also showed that many women find it easy to dissapears from duty in times of war because they suddenly become prgnant when a call to arms is around the corner for their units.

He formulates it a bit rude in the linked article, but statistics are with him.

It already has been reported that the physical demands for female soldiers have been lowered in several western militaries.

No, Vendor, just because it is in line with political correctness this does not mean at all that it is good to have women in combat units. I used to think in past years it is nothing wrong, but I have u-turned on this issue. Too many solid arguments and statistics forced me to change my mind.

I recommend to read chapter III "The feminization of the armed forces" in van Creveld: "Pussycats. Why the Rest keeps beating the West, and what can be done about it".

LINK (for reader'S feedback)

Originally Posted by one reviewer

What worries the reviewer is that Creveld’s analysis matches and may reinforce that of the current Russian leadership that has deliberately taken steps to reverse any similar, liberal development in the Russian society and armed forces and the view that NATO’s forces are Potemkin Villages populated by undertrained Pussycats without claws creates a fundamentally unstable situation in Europe.

[Gerald]

^OK! Thanks for the info Sky.

[Red_88]

Makes me wonder about female soldiers of the Red Army in WWII and female soldiers who served with the vietcong. At least in the Red Army some where quite decorated and served well in the infantary, tanks and airplanes. Also doesn't have north korea a rather great amount of female soldiers too?

[Platapus]

Why don't we give her a chance and she how she performs.

The corps has survived incompetent male officers over the years and no one talks about the risks of men being in charge.

[Skybird]

Its not about the single individual, and never was.

For several decades now, Western armed forces—which keep preening themselves as the best-trained, best organized, best equipped best led, in history—have been turned into pussycats. Being pussycats, they went from one defeat to the next. True, in 1999 they did succeed in imposing their will on Serbia. But only because the opponent was a small, weak state (at the time, the Serb armed forces, exhausted by a prolonged civil war, were rated 35th in the world); and even then only because that state was practically defenseless in the air. The same applies to Libya in 2011. Over there, indigenous bands on the ground did most of the fighting and took all the casualties. In both cases, when it came to engaging in ground combat, man against man, the West, with the U.S at its head, simply did not have what it takes.


On other occasions things were worse still. Western armies tried to create order in Somalia and were kicked out by the “Skinnies,” as they called their lean but mean opponents. They tried to beat the Taliban in Afghanistan, and were kicked out. They tried to impose democracy (and get their hands on oil) in Iraq, and ended up leaving with their tails between their legs. The cost of these foolish adventures to the U.S alone is said to have been around 1 trillion—1,000,000,000,000—dollars. With one defeat following another, is it any wonder that, when those forces were called upon to put an end to the civil war in Syria, they and the societies they serve preferred to let the atrocities go on?


By far the most important single reason behind the repeated failures is the fact that, one and all, these were luxury wars. With nuclear weapons deterring large-scale attack, for seven decades now no Western country has waged anything like a serious, let alone existential, struggle against a more or less equal opponent. As the troops took on opponents much weaker than themselves—often in places they had never heard about, often for reasons nobody but a few politicians understood—they saw no reason why they should get themselves killed. Given the circumstances, indeed, doing so would have been the height of stupidity on their part. Yet from the time the Persians at Marathon in 490 B.C were defeated by the outnumbered Greeks right down to the present, troops whose primary concern is not to get themselves killed have never be able to fight, let alone win.

One would think that, aware of the problem, the politicians and societies that so light-heartedly sent the troops to fight under these circumstances would do everything in their power to compensate them in other ways. For example, by allowing them some license to enjoy life before a bomb went off, blowing them to pieces; making sure that those put in harm’s way would be given a free hand to do what they had to do; allowing them to take pride in their handiwork; celebrating them on their return; and giving them all kinds of privileges. Was it not Plato who suggested that those who excelled in war on behalf of the republic be given first right to kiss and be kissed? After all, in every field of human activity from football to accounting it has always been those who enjoy what they do who do it best. Conversely, in every field those who excel are those who enjoy what they are doing. Is there any reason why, in waging war and fighting, things should be any different?


Instead, far from honoring their troops or even showing them respect, Western societies have done the opposite. During training and in garrison, they are surrounded by a thousand regulations that prevent them from doing things every civilian can do as a matter of course. That includes, if they are American and not yet 21 years old, buying a can of beer and drinking its contents. On campaign they are bound by rules of engagement that often make their enemies laugh at them, prevent them from defending themselves, lead to unnecessary casualties, and result in punishment if they are violated. Anybody who openly says that he took pride in his deadly work—as, for example, the legendary, now retired, four-star U.S Marine Corps General Jim Mattis at one point did—will be counseled to shut up if he is lucky and disciplined if he is not.


American troops returning from a tour undergo obligatory testing for post-traumatic stress disorder or PTSD. PTSD, of course, is a real problem for some. However, as all history shows, it is simply not true that fighting, killing and watching others being killed is necessarily traumatic. Suppose the Roman Army had dealt with PTSD as we do now; would it have conquered the world? Nor, contrary to what one often hears, is it true that historical combat was less terrible than its modern equivalents. Perhaps to the contrary, given that the combatants could literally look into each other’s eyes, hear the screams, see the spurting blood, and touch the scattering brains.


As I wrote decades ago in Fighting Power, the real origin of PTSD is found in a personnel system which, for reasons of administrative efficiency, treats the troops like interchangeable cogs, isolates them, and prevents them from bonding. Adding offense to injury, the abovementioned tests, introduced with the possibility of liability in mind, are humiliating. Wasn’t it Frederick the Great who said that the one thing that can drive men into the muzzles of the cannon trained on them is pride? Nor do things end at this point. Far from celebrating the troops’ courage and sacrifice, society very often treats them as damaged goods. Indeed things have come to the point where it expects them to be damaged.


An important role in all this is played by military women and feminism generally. In every known human society (even, as far as we are able to judge, in some animal societies) since the world began, whatever treatment was considered suitable for males has been seen as too harsh for females. Conversely, to be treated like women was perceived as the most humiliating thing men could undergo. By insisting on gender equality the way they have—even putting in place “equal employment opportunity officers” charged with hounding any man who dares “offend” a woman—Western armed forces have dragged their men’s pride through the mire. The more so because, as the distribution of casualties shows, it is the men who do practically all the fighting. At the same time they have often confronted women with demands that were too much for them. The proof of this particular pudding is in the eating. Proportionally speaking, far more female than male soldiers are said to suffer from PTSD.

Had the system been deliberately designed to sap the fighting power of Western armies, it could hardly have been improved on. This might well make us ask: cui bono? Who profits? There are several answers. First come thousands of “mental health professionals” hired to treat the people in question. Like the female psychologist in Philipp Roth’s book, The Human Stain, who asks a Vietnam veteran whether he has ever killed anybody (firing a machine gun from a helicopter, he has killed hundreds, perhaps thousands), most would not recognize a bullet if they saw one. Next come the corporations that produce all sorts of psychopharma (the standard method for treating PTSD is to drug the patients). Third are the media. Always eager to throw the first stone, very often they have a field day selling those suffering from the symptoms to a slavering public. Between them, these three make billions out of the enterprise.


Last not least are feminist organizations which always insist on “equality” (in reality, privilege) even if it means going over the bodies of many “sisters” and wrecking their countries’ military. Two points remain to be made. First, as their repeated victories prove, the Taliban, their brothers in arms in other countries, and non-Western societies generally know better than to follow the West on is self-destructive path. Second, societies that lose their fighting power by treating their troops in this way are doomed. Sooner or later, somebody will come along, big sword in hand, and cut off their head.

Let those with ears to listen, listen.

H. v. C.

Before anybody thinks he must form an opinion on something he has not thought through any further, again, read this: chapter three, "Pussycats". I do not want to translate 50 pages of German text just for this thread.

Lets never forget what the army is there for: to wage war, to fight, to kill, if needed: to kill in combat man versus man. Females are at significant disadvantage here, and this has been shown by studies and statistical analysis on body strength and durability. The strongest 20% of women are only as strong the weakest 20% of males. The averga woman has only 80% of power in her upper body than an average male, and has only 55% of the power in the lower body than a male has. She has disadvantages in her capability of dealing with cold, with thin air at higher altitudes (mountains), climate extremes of other kinds, oxygene resorbtion. Other statistics show that female army members, may they be working in maintenance on heavy equipment, tanks or airplanes, or in combat troops, on average get injured six times as often, as males. Not becasue they are dumb, but because their body are how they are - different, not male. The army is no playground for ideological crusades on gender equality.

The only question that all this should be decided by, is this: does it weaken or strengthen the task the army is being maintained for? Is it an advantage or a disadvantage for the army, for the male troops, to have females amongst their rows.

There are two facts that cannot be denied. There is motherhood making females suddenly unavailable for service or combat or hard labour, and there is a substantial physical inferiority of females in physical strength and endurance, which effects both physical stress in combat, marching with heavy loads, the typical doing of infantry fighting a war against an equal enemy, and mainteance work on heavy stuff like tanks, aircraft. Women, according to Us Amry statistics and satudies, get six times as often injured, as males. Not becasue they are stuopdiu are do n ot try. But becasue their body simply is not made for physicla stress that a male body finds easier to adapt to. If yoju let a male and a female train, again yoiu see the male is at an adavatge,k for the male body repsonds to phsical training far molre repsonsively, than tghe femal ebody. The result of training for both people thus does not close the physical performance gap between male and female, but even widens it.

For heavens sake, leave feminism and gender nonsense out of the task of doing war. War needs warriors, not ideologists. The enemy is unforgiving, he does not care for your precious humanistic concerns and equality considerations. He just does not care, but does as brutal to you as he can.

Dont rely on begging him to stop. Make him. And that is not a question of sensibility for civil rights and gender equality, but a question of brute, raw power.

Its a stupid idea to compromise that power.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Why don't we give her a chance and she how she performs.

The corps has survived incompetent male officers over the years and no one talks about the risks of men being in charge.

But...but...mah military!

[August]

Excuse me but where exactly did the Taliban ever "kick out" the American military? Certainly not in Afghanistan seeing as how the US military won every major battle against them. Your source confuses the lack of national will to achieve victory with a lack of combat ability.

As for fighting "man to man" let me answer that foolishness with a quote by someone who knew how to take it to the enemy:

"The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his." - George S. Patton

[Red October1984]

To the best of my knowledge, the standards were not in any way lowered for her. She passed the course fair and square while many women did not.

I disagree, however, that this will necessarily impact readiness or combat effectiveness. Women have been serving in combat roles for years now in the US military. While I agree that the infantry culture is definitely more male-centered and there, unfortunately, will likely be more controversy due to political correctness and such, it's not like they haven't been fighting outside the wire as part of police, civil affairs, intelligence, etc.

Having observed some of USAF Security Forces training firsthand, I have seen 5'2'' women beat up on much bigger men in combatives training. Some of the SF trainees that come out of that pipeline are tougher than you give them credit for.

I say let them try. Like I said, to the best of my knowledge, the standards were not lowered in this situation. With that being said, the Marines are no slackers in physical fitness. If she passed the exact same standards as her male classmates who are we to say they are unfit for duty? I think it's an old-fashioned way of thinking. If we do things the way we've always done it, we'll end up with what we always had. I'm not saying that we should put a rifle in the hand of every woman, but I don't see why they shouldn't be able to try.

When it comes down to man-to-man fighting, (and i'm no expert here), but that seems to be pretty rare these days. I don't remember the last time American troops fixed bayonets in battle. I don't remember the last time it came down to infantry platoons constantly running out of ammunition and support and having to fight the enemy with rifle buttstocks and their knives. Yes, you could pick out little incidents here and there, but on a larger scale (again, not claiming to be a know-all), it doesn't seem to be happening.

If other issues pop up down the line, they can be addressed then. For now, let her try. The naysayers may be right. It might be too rough of a job for women. But if they are unfit for infantry service does that make them unfit for military police? Or Civil Affairs? Or other fields involving combat arms?

EDIT: Going off of what i've already said, I do see one issue and that's the psychological impact of female soldiers/marines/etc being injured in combat. I've spoken to some friends about this and one brought up that there was a study done (still working on verifying the source) that men react differently when there's a female hurt and screaming bloody murder vs when there's another man doing the same. It could have psychological impacts on our effectiveness.

[Skybird]

As I said before, it is not about this one single woman, or an individual. It is about the climate and culture change that the general feminization of the military mean, and the effect it has on somethign that traditonally and for solid biological reason always was consdered as a male domain. The inflation of PTS diagnosis is related to it, the growing poltical correctness policing and hunting down of male offender, the lowering of standards due to a generally pampered or spoiled or helicopter-parented super-surveilled youth; the growing anger amongst male soldiers that only gets expressed when the mike are switched off, the de factor priviliges that fmeales cna enjoy over their male colleagues while calling it feminist equality, which only is half of the truth, and finally the statistics that simply say what they say and therefore get hidden: that females suffer severla times more injuries during their serving in the military, no matter their specific function and post, than males. Male bodies can endure hard labor and physicla stress better than female bodies, the roles of both men and women are planned to be different by mother nature. No ideology and no lawyer will ever change this.And all the work that the ladies cannot do or lack behind with, needs to be comensated for and done addtonally to their own work by their male colleagues. Male colleagues that at the same time gets lectured and told that they should be more gentle, more feminine, more repsonsive, more "soft" in the widest meaning of the word.

Its not about the individual. Its about the culture change for the weaker side of things. The military is less and less attracitve for males that in principle would be attracted by it. And this in time when the neede personnel levels are harder and harder to maintain, especially with those extreme specialists there are. At the same time, especially in Germany, but in Europe in generla I think, soldiers must also bear to be ignored, to be mocked, to be accused as blood-thirsty primitives by a public that has forgotten all understanding for what it is that makes an army strong, and why an army is needed to secure peace and protect freedom. Feminization and infantilization on all levels, everywhere, men today cannot be demanded to be soft and feminine enough.

I have a nice German word for all this: "Verschnullerung". Translated, that maybe would mean "sootherization" (soother=Schnuller).

In the past wars of the past 28 years, we or America had the advanatge of technological superiority over the enemies we have chosen. These enemies were not on same eye level with us, regarding armament, tehcnolgiy, organization, training, and especially we had air superiority. We did not fight anywhere agaunst an equal enemy of comparable strength, we always waged war against an inferior. The weakest opponent has become the standard to which we compare ourselves. Have we lost our marbles? In Afghanistan, we are fighting, or better, we did the fighting do by others, agauinst flocks of shepoards and farmers with medieval wepaons and without much training, logistc, communication. We found ourselves unable to overocme them! The taliban are ruling, stronger than ever. In Iraq, the IS was the result of the big strategy, or lck of, run by the WH. And the IS is anythijg but beaten, I predict we will need to deal with it for much longer time to come, throughout the ME and North Africa. In Vietnam, every field battle was won - still the Americans in the end fled in panick anc chaos.

What have all these our inferior enemies in common? Their tehcncial inferiority. And the greater, their far greater willingness and endurance to bear suffering, sacrifice, and the worst physical misery one can imagine. Living like rats in the dirt, living of handful of rice throughout a week. No refrigerator-cooled coca-cola. No handheld game consoles. No PTS- prophylactic counseling. Just living in the sh!t of it. Voluntarily.

We did not even get clear with farmers and shepard fighting with weapons literally from the stoneage. Now imagine how we would have done against an enemy who is not only physically and psychologically as robust as they are,k but meets our levels of training, technology, weaponry? Since WWII, such a confrontation was avoided both by the Europeans and Washington as well.

I have no good ideas about that.

[Rockin Robbins]

Well, we have our first female Marine officer. Whoopee Do! I don't care a bit about having the first female Marine officer. I want to see the first GREAT female officer.

We got our first black President with Barack Obama. Woopee do. We needed our first SUCCESSFUL black president. An unsuccessful first can be the last for a long time if they don't succeed. (check out that gem of syntax and grammar!)

If they're not exceptionally good, being first can actually disadvantage whatever group they represent for a very long time. Detractors would say "female officer? Tried that. Bought the t-shirt. Didn't work." There is great responsibility in being first.

[speed150mph]

"Red_88 Makes me wonder about female soldiers of the Red Army in WWII and female soldiers who served with the vietcong. At least in the Red Army some where quite decorated and served well in the infantary, tanks and airplanes. Also doesn't have north korea a rather great amount of female soldiers too?"

In the world war 2 era Soviet Union and in Vietnam the Women were used to hard labour and keeping pace with the men. In Russia for example, Women back then were expected to participate in strenuous farming activities including operating the manual heavy equipment, shovelling grain, and loading Bales. This meant that they were very strong and fit and not afraid to work.

A lot of the women soldiers of World War II also were very motivated, they had lost loved ones, their country was burning, and they wanted blood.

In other words, they were a different kind of woman back then.

[Skybird]

"It is not about this one single woman, or an individual. It is about the climate and culture change that the general feminization of the military means."

[Red_88]

@speed150mph
you have a point, but this point is also true towards men.

[Platapus]

I am pretty confident that the Marines have that getting motivated thing down. They are pretty good at that sort of stuff.