Originally posted 20 January:
Here's why this won't work... and I've been white-boarding this for a couple of days, now.
Women in combat?
Let's start with something a little simpler: how about requiring women to pass the PT test using the male standard?
It's bad enough that a double standard exists with women in the military at all, for any reason.
But to have a double standard for physical fitness in combat?
And then, let's extend that a little further:
The requirement for the male PT test is much higher. Many women will not be able to achieve that goal, even minimally. The least physically fit infantryman in combat is going to be much more physically capable of performing an infantry role then the vast majority of physically fit females.
Applying a same-standard PT test across the force, without giving women their built-in double-standard, will result in women being forced out of the military by the thousands.
So, in the end, what have we gained?
We get a few... a very few women, who qualify for combat arms. And we lose thousands who will never, on their best day, be able to meet the standards required for combat arms; who otherwise, under the current system, wouldn't be REQUIRED to meet a combat arm standard, as all men are, who will be forced to leave.
I'm reminded of that line from the old Star Trek from Mr. Spock:
"There is much more to the wanting then there is to the having," or words to that effect.
Women in combat would require a cross-force increase in female physical fitness standards and the elimination of the double standard we have in place right now.... roughly half the requirements of men in strength and 20% or so less in endurance (running)
As an example, here's the current standard for 17 thru 21, men and women:
These are the minimums by gender:
Push ups:
Men: 42
Women: 19
Sit ups:
Men: 52
Women: 53
2 mile run:
Men: 15:54
Women: 18:54
As an aside, for the 2 mile run, the women's MAXIMUM score time of 15:36 for 100 points, is a few seconds faster than the male MINIMUM score time of 15:54.
All men, regardless of their job (MOS) must pass the same minimal PT Test. Women have been allowed to skate on this since they were allowed to join. With the inclusion of women in the combat force, that would end. They want to do the same things?
They need to pass the same tests.
So, how ironic is it that women would be excluded from being nurses, doctors, mail clerks, cooks and the like so the very few can go out and get killed as they try to hump 120 pound ruck, their weapons, 240 rounds, grenades, and all the rest for days at 11000 ft in the Hindu Kush?
And, of course, putting women in combat would mean an end to the female exclusion from the draft. Oddly, I have yet to see any effort mentioned to do away with that.
True equality has a great deal of warts on it. It has it's good side... and it's bad. And if women WANT true equality in the military, that means the whole ball of wax:
Same PT test. Same inability to get pregnant and avoid deployment. Same ability to carry heavy weight for days on end in desert temperatures or numbing cold. Same ability to deal with field hygiene. Same ability to deal with capture. None of that double standard stuff would be allowed because in combat, there is only ONE standard.
Allowing the current double standard to continue... requiring prospective Combat Arms women to pass a special PT test their support sistren don't have to pass would lead to a catastrophic 2nd class female soldier.
The physical issue should kill this deal alone, without even getting into issues of deployability, societal impacts and the previously mentioned outcomes of a capture situation (Jessica Lynch and her getting a Bronze Star for being in what amounted to a car wreck notwithstanding) as well as the hygiene related issues that will have to be addressed.
If those who want in at any level are not capable of these things, then tough. They can't do it and shouldn't be allowed to try, unless they can "un-kill" those who will die as a result of this, yet another failed social experiment while our military is at war.
Equality in combat must be earned. And I have yet to see even the down payment.
Hinton, out.
8 comments:
Good argument. (Much better than the "gays in the military" bit.) However, seemingly legitimate universal requirements, such as a literacy test before voting, did not survive 1st Amendment scrutiny.
Can't the requirements for combat be specifically tailored to exactly define the role? If not then you're good.
All of my positions are based on two specific facts:
1. There is no right to enlist in the military.
2. The least capable soldier is supposed to be capable of fighting in a combat environment.
(We have a history of clerks and cooks being pressed into battle when circumstances demand it)
By setting up tailored PT tests, we would, by definition, and for the same reasoning that literacy tests were outlawed, IMHO, be setting up second class soldiers.
Among males, the Army has no such testing now; the newest clerk has to pass the same test an Infantry Squad Leader has to pass.
With units in the field and Spetznaz special operator types out there, any troop at any time could be called upon to fight... on the line or behind it.
ALL men have to pass the same test.
As of right now, all women have to pass the same test, the vastly easier female PT standards test.
The basis for the male test is the minimum standard determined to enable a combat soldier to fight in a combat environment.
While the envelope is certainly being pushed, women are not supposed to be involved in active combat environments.
If all men have to pass the same test, and men are the ones fighting; then women, by definition, should have to pass the same test to be involved in fighting.
They have to be able to keep up. They have to be able to carry them load. They cannot become a drag on their unit.
I damned sure don't want my son fighting in a unit or with others who are there as a result of what amounts to affirmative action.
A bullet don't give a damn.
We cannot have fellow soldiers or commanders who cannot keep up. They would negatively impact the mission and unit capabilities... just like, come to think of it, the horrific decision to repeal DADT will.
This is not particularly well thought out political correctness run amuck... much like the idiocy of Title IX... a program that has killed dozens of school sports programs.
Setting up a dual-tiered PT test requirement would automatically make those women who could not pass such a test into 2nd class soldiers, viewed as less then their counterparts.
The result? All standards would be dropped to enable all women to pass the test, real life demands and requirements be damned.
In the end, this is all about combat capabilities. Does this prospective policy increase, or decrease those capabilities?
I was in the Army in Germany back in 75. That was when the start of the big push to get women in the military started as part of the all-volunteer military.
My recon platoon was tasked with getting their barracks set up... for them... because, well, they certainly couldn't be expected to carry their own wall lockers and bunks up 3 flights of stairs... could they?
We have miles to go before the movie version of Starship Troopers (which bore little resemblance to the outstanding political tome that was Heinlein's work) ever comes to be our reality.
Martin, combat is probably the single most unpredictable aspect of serving in the Military. It often happens in the blink of an eye and at times, finishes just as rapidly.
What might be only a minute or two feels like hours.
That is also why so few actually make it through SEAL or Ranger training even though many apply.
Even in what is considered non-combat roles, you can suddenly without warning be thrust into a situation where you are fighting for your life and to save others.
Think Jessica Lynch.
A weak link such as that costs many lives as she wasn't properly trained in combat nor in weapon maintenance. Training was "tailored" to accept her and it damn near cost her her life. And, others did die that day.
When in Viet Nam, we were sappered one night where 17 helicopters were destroyed or heavily damaged, sitting in their revetments. Guards were doubled on the choppers and a few weeks later, the sappers returned. They could not access the flight line and instead targeted a hooch (barracks) long after they had fallen asleep.
Six men with the Finance Company, guys sent there just maintain payroll, were killed.
They didn't have a guard on duty outside the hooch, thinking they were safe well within the perimeter.
No amount of training actually compares to combat, but the rougher (within reason) the better.
As a sign I frequently saw in Basic said, "The more sweat in training, the less blood in combat."
This is also why we keep saying the Military isn't a game or a social club. It is deadly serious.
I'm certainly not the one to be determining what kind of muscles are needed to kill someone, but there are people with impeccable military credentials who think that being female does not exclude a person from intimate violence. And surely there are women who CAN kick ass along with the men?!
But I'm signing off this discussion now because my opinion is uninformed.
How about we call this Merit based policy. You only pass if you can can do the same things your friend next to you can do.
There are no can-do-overs. Its one pass, your done. That is how military life is. If you can't accept that, don't enlist. Life is too short for those who can't hack it. Your life can be taken from you in an instant?
Now that a lot of fighting is done at the insurgent strike level meaning done by only a few but to inflict the most pain - death they can in one felt stroke and you have to have the ability to move!
Honestly, if its a man or a woman can meet that challenge, they should be able to enlist. But how many can do the one issued standard that is set forth so that not just one person but a platoon can survive if they can outsmart, out-manuever their query?
I see a good points to your post, Kelly. This is not a game, you either shape up to an acceptable standard or ship out.
At this point, my biggest concern is the internal mechanics of the thing.
The Israeli's, frequently held up as some sort of model, no longer allow women to serve in combat MOS's save that of sniper in fixed positions.
In the Army, the dichotomy of all of this has been the false equality of women for decades. They are, we're told, our equals. But part of my arrival briefing in 8th Infantry Division Headquarters in Bad Kreuznach, was an hour on the evacuation plan and restrictions for women.
Even now, ALL soldiers are supposed to be capable of fighting in the infantry environment.
But anyone with the least amount of time in combat arms knows that with a double standard PT Test where women have to meet barely half the male standard, combat capability is extremely limited, and in the combat environment, women would be a hindrance.
Require women to meet the combat standard of men in ALL MOS's. True equality is measurable, and the fake equality in the military today is a result of "allowing" women to serve, not because we need them (we don't.) but because of the political elements that have run amok at the risk of the mission.
The morale of the military will not survive a double standard for PT and the physical ability of combat soldiers based on gender.
You cannot tell one infantryman that he has to run 2 miles in 15 minutes while simultaneously telling another that SHE only has to run the same distance in 18... because SHE is a SHE.
Combat don't care. A bullet don't care.
When the services were integrated by race, did we institute a double standard for PT?
On our Nation's tombstone, it will say: When their military was defeated, they had a fully integrated, female-in-combat, homosexual service.
It's just a shame that they forgot what they were really there for.
But their principles died shiningly intact.
Being a product of the 50s-60s, I have seen the women's rights movement do many very good things to equalize what should never have been unequal in this country. However, in saying that, there are things that men and women realistically have to accept and one of those things is, we are different...in many ways.
Personally, I have never been in favor of women in combat situations, I do not like the idea of anyone being in combat...we weren't made to face the kinds of horror that are a part of battlefield combat. But it also stands that there are those who survive it better than others. That is another reality.
Part of being an emotionally healthy woman is to accept yourself for who you are. I don't like being told I can't do something anymore than anyone else, but as I've matured in life, I realize that I have limitations; some I can do something about, some aren't important enough to do something about. I get told every day that as a counselor, I can't help our returning vets because I don't have combat experience, yet I know I'm a good counselor and because of who I am, I have a great desire to use my skills to make these awesome individuals whole again. However, there are those who disagree. Perhaps the people who are telling me no understand something that I don't, I'm learning to accept that, understand the reasoning and yet be vigilant for any opportunity that may come my way to be of support.
It is a fact of life that we get told no sometimes. It is a fact of life that men are different than women...not less than, but different. The way I see it, there are a multitude of jobs that are available in the military. The good thing is that no matter where you serve, you are still serving your country and should be respected for that. Women and men have skill sets that are unique, that can fit in those jobs. My set of skills would not be a good fit for combat, they wouldn't be a good fit to become a para-medic either, however I'm sure that they fit somewhere else. We take the jobs that we are skilled to do, it is as simple as that. If women can't pass the PT test, there is no shame in that...it simply means that the person's skill set isn't a good fit for the job. We have to accept ourselves for who we are, both men and women. There are plenty of men who can't pass the PT tests...they don't get in either. In my opinion, if we could see this less as a man/woman thing and more as Human Resources situation, it might bring the emotional rhetoric down.
All I have to say is, same test for everyone, regardless of gender. If you are going to fight, please be as strong as everyone else. I agree with you Kriss, there's nothing unequal about being different. There's also especially importance in respecting the difference too.
I personally feel, however, that there should be something like the Surgeon General's Warning for enlisting in the military:
"We claim no experience for your delusion that combat is like Hollywood Violence. We claim no responsibility if you, regardless of gender, cannot pass a single physical fitness test, and enemies will not discriminate based on gender, age, nationality, or orientation when they pull the trigger."
IMHO, such should exist, because sometimes it seems plenty of men and women, girls and boys, don't seem to have much of a clue how ugly war really can be, and I would argue plenty of people should reconsider.
Post a Comment