Lower standards to allow white men into special forces

I've posted this before. In addition to making skilled snipers, female units in the Russian military were extremely successful and even fanatical in defense. In one battle, the German force was so superior in material and manpower the Russian male units retreated. The female unit refused and fought to the very last woman. But they inflicted such greatly superior casualties and equipment loses to the German force it stopped the advance. Women, in my opinion, are genetically programmed to defend their home, their nest. Moreover, as others in their unit are killed, they see it as their own family members being killed making them fanatical and consumed with blood lust for revenge.

After the war, the USSR disbanned their female units. However, the reason was not they were ineffective. Rather, it was claimed they do not follow orders well - specifically orders to retreat or stop the engagement. Once a women's unit started killing the enemy it was difficult to make them stop. They also would get pissy if military command ordered disengagement or retreat, and would chastise men who exhibited fear. In a patriarch society, that was not acceptable.

When a female Russian sniper toured the USA during WW2, she said she was tired of all the men hiding behind her and refused to answer questions about makeup and female clothing.

Measuring people by basic training isn't a real measure. The real measure is of combat hardened troops. I would guess that non-combat hardened women are probably emotionally, psychologically weaker than men on average in terms of military matters. However, I also suspect that reverses as each becomes battle hardened.

That seems to apply in general. For example, while probably initially women are more submissive and seemingly of less psychological strength, if a dispute gets really angry a woman is far more likely to get more intense and hold onto the anger longer. "Hell hath no fury like a woman..."

That same dynamic seemed to apply historically in combat. But it is true that men can carry more weight that women - and for bone structure men will be somewhat faster. I believe modern weaponry makes those distinctions rarely matter - though for some roles it does. For example, men are more suited to be artillery loaders.

 

The physical standards are based on what the Army believes is the minimum physical fitness that would be required to survive in combat. It does not change for MOS, as even cooks and admin clerks may find themselves caught in an ambush or in a position that is attacked. As far as specialized positions, such as Special Forces, there is a whole selection process that goes far beyond a simple physical fitness test. The first part, Special Forces Assessment and Selection (SFAS), is very physical, involving long land navigation courses with 50-90 lb rucksacks, a 1.5 mile obstacle course, and other events that may include a 40 mile trek, or team excercises. The standards are constantly being altered in small ways to keep candidates from knowing what to expect. SFAS i believe lasts like a month or so. Something like that. Then they have the Q course, and language and cultural training, and other schools. It usually takes like 2 years to finally become a green beret, and they are being constantly tested physically, mentally, and constantly having their character judged. If they think your character will not be beneficial to the team, they won't select you.

So, physical ability is very important, but it is nowhere near the only thing, or even the most important thing. Strength of body, mind, and character are all equally important.

As far as for non combat MOS, I don't care as much if they keep the standards how they are now. But if women will be serving in a combat MOS, I think they should be required to pass the same PT test as the males.

 

That was a long time ago. Today physical standards are lowered in the name of political correctness and social engineering.

Sometimes they are lowered because there's a new generation of soldiers who are just physically Pillsbury Doughboys.

When I served in the Corps the PFT consisted of five events. With in a couple decades it was down to three events and chin-ups (palms in ) were counted as pull-ups (palms out) That's a big dumbing down.

Last year in the Marine Corps when taking the PFT, if you don't want to do the pull-ups, you don't have to. They had to dump down the Marine Corps PFT so women could serve as grunts.

When was the last time an Army or Marine infantry/rifle battalion or regiment has conducted a 150 mile force march, full field marching packs, weapon, helmet, etc, no vehicles and even crewed served weapons like M-2 HMG and mortars were humped and did it in five days ?

 

Anyone who believes the USA military staying the best in the world depends upon our ground forces with light arms being superior to other nations is fooling themselves. More than ever before, military success depends upon technological superiority and versatility.

Everyone has to go thru basic training (a few exceptions allowed). There is no shortage of male high school graduates who can meet the physical standards or be trained to do so. What the military is desperately short of is people with brains - and accordingly will alter, lower, and even falsify records on physicals and physical abilities to have SMART enlistees - both as enlisted and as officers. It is a particular challenge when it comes to enlisted.

As people go thru basic training and then in the regular service, they are watching for brainiacs, because that's what they need - BADLY.

The military is being redesigned about our weaponry and technology, not biceps and strong backs. Even for "hand to hand combat" that training now involves usage of their rifle.

I would even go further to argue it would not be possible to train our troops to be as physically tough as many other countries, because of how intensely they may abuse their troops in training, which we can not do. In our military if someone fails a physical standards test, the person might have to redo it or receive a token reprimand. In some other countries, such a failure might result in that soldier being beaten to death as a lesson to the others. It literally is not possible to train our troops to be as physically tough as many other countries because we do not allow extreme physical abuse in training.

Not to be degrading, in an unarmed life-and-death fight between a US Marine or Army Ranger and a solder in North Korea's Special Forces, if I had to bet on the outcome I'd bet on the North Korean - because the training of the North Korean is thru physical hell for which any failure resulted in extreme punishment. However, our troops now are trained to make their rifle the core of even face-to-face combat.

We can not win because our troops are physically tougher - and that does not count that often they will be outnumbered as well. We can only win if our troops are smarter and have better equipment with smarter tactics and technologically superior support.

If you look at CURRENT young adults by sex, females overwhelming are more pursuing higher education than are males. WOMEN are increasingly the larger brain trust to draw from for enlistments. The constant whine and prejudice that women are inferior is a MAJOR obstacle to recruitment of women - and even if in the willingness of women to go into male dominated areas of any kind, even if technology based, as it always comes back to a huge percentage of men in the military of extreme prejudice against women other than as nurses and secretaries.

If ANYONE can show ANY battle in world history since the invention of the gun where which side's troops could carry more weight decided the outcome - present it. I could present hundreds of instances where superior intelligence and superior technology won the battle.

The "proof" that women have to meet current male standards to be suitable for combat is just asserted as a truism. I have yet to see any actual proof backing that up. While there are some combat roles where great physical strength is required, for the most part it is not. Even the physical standards tests are flawed - as some ex-military have pointed out. Sure, guys with 1% body fat tend to do well in testing, but they lack the strength of a much bigger man who also has 20% body fat - who will run slower but in a pitch could carry a hell of a lot more as his body is used to carrying more weight.

 

You are speculating as to the reason for lower physical standards being for political correctness and social engineering. I do not agree.

Is any branch of the military complaining of lack of enlistees as ground troops? No. The desperate need is for smart people, literally young people with high IQs.

Do you think it is irrelevant that over half of the aircraft in all branches of service can not fly because of lack of personnel intelligent enough to train to service them? Or that modern military worldwide surveillance is not by ground spotter teams with binoculars, but by personnel at computers?

How many computers do you think our military now has - from in aircraft and ships, laptops to communications systems, radar to advanced weaponry do you think the US military now has? A million computers? Two million? Who programs those? Who enters the data? Who in the military knows how to service and used them correctly?

Not only is it impossible now for the military to recruit enough for such systems and other technologically based assignments, even if having them once they are final trained to know the info in thousands of pages of extremely technological materials, then the private sector offers them jobs paying 2 to 3 times as much, plus not being bounced around the world with regular hours and no endangerment.

Think of it logically. In a high school senior class, there are 20 males who are C students but could meet physical standards with some training. None plan to go to college. There are 4 brainiacs with 4.0+ GPAs. All 4 plan to go to college - but the military wants them and tries to recruit them. So those 4 look - and see that to get thru basic training that must meet physical standards seemingly impossible to meet and probably 3 of the 4 of them hate physical stuff anyway. So you exclude the 2 of the 4 brainiacs who are female, leaving only 2, and those 2 have no interest in running miles with a 75 pound bag and doing a bunch of pull-ups - when neither of those 2 can do even 1 pull up. So the military gets ZERO brainiacs - and 20 males trying to enlist as ground forces.

For example, I know of one aircraft maintainer who was the only one left on a forward base in the ME qualified to sign off on the aircraft being fully ready to go. That sole necessary personnel just quit - tired of endless double shifts, constant pressure, and blocked from advancement because the position too critical and unable to be filled by anyone else. This leaves no one until that base CO can somehow steal someone from another base. Of course, if absolutely necessary aircraft will be flown anyway. Have you not noticed how increasingly our military aircraft are falling out of the sky? That is just ONE area of CRITICAL need of SMART people.

The shortage of such geeks and techno-brainiacs has the military working those it does have to death - meaning they aren't re-enlisting - so the problem is RAPIDLY worsening to a true crisis point.

So, if ground forces do need air support? Or air medivac of wounded?The response is rapidly soon going to be "sorry, all aircraft are out of service. We should have 1 or 2 working in a couple of weeks."

It is so critical that forward operations bases are listing most their remaining serviceable aircraft as "parts only" non-flying to stop other COs stealing them.

There also are increasing incidents of major conflicts between COs and the servicing personnel - COs demanding signing off on aircraft being ready when it is not - putting the service personnel's ass on the line whichever why they go. Refusing an order of a CO - bad - OR falsifying service records for which the personnel who did it could end up in federal prison plus the dishonorable discharge. Still another reason the dwindling number remaining are not re-enlisting. The shortage is putting such pressure on those we have that it is now having a snowball effect - the shortage is rapidly increasing the shortage by non- re-enlisting or otherwise bailing out.

On one base, the pressure put on the dwindling supply of technical personnel was so intense that the growing number of suicides by them lead to an order than NONE are EVER allowed to be alone even for sleep or going to the bathroom - with that also increasing a desire to get out and certainly not re-enlist. It's a crisis - a true crisis - and worsening fast. Nor limited to aircraft, but all areas of technology in the military.

What is YOUR solution to that? Do you have one? The solution is to make the physical standards higher because that's what fixes aircraft and other equipment? I truly don't think you realize the extreme degree of technological knowledge and skills sets now needed to keep equipment functional. It's not like cleaning a rifle.

Without the necessary brainiacs, all the new technology for the military is worthless. Our military is not ready for any major conflict because most our equipment is figuratively in the repair shop - with no one available to work on it.

^ THAT - in absolute stark reality - is the problem the military has. I believe THAT is why standards are increasingly being lowered, including specifically to also allow women in. It is not about PCism or social engineering. It is about trying to recruit young brainiacs and geeks who have no interest in pushups and running with a heavy rucksack - and have plenty of alternatives to military service.

I would guess your response might be that strict physical requirements only need be for actual ground combat roles, not all of the military. But that is not how job recruitment works. It is not persuasive to tell someone - who has other options anyway as young brainaics do - "here is the list of all the things you will ever qualify for" - as the military glorifies those combat positions. The military does not glorify non-combat personnel. It's just a bad sales pitch for recruitment.

 

I realize this is a troll thread but since the vast majority of special forces are white males already then how exactly would lowering the standards change that? Is the OP actually arguing that the standards need to be lowered to increase minority levels?

 

That's what the Obama White House was demanding when it came to the U.S. Navy SEAL's.

The Obama White House social engineering department of the military under Valerie Jarrett claimed that seals were too white.

I've seen thousands of seals during my life time since I always lived near the ocean and all of the seals I ever saw were black.

It ended up the Obama White House was referring to Navy SEAL's.

The PC liberals sided with Obama and yelled racist.

The left wanted to Navy to lower their standards for the SEAL's when it came being able to swim in the name of diversity.

Wannabe SEAL sailors going through BUD's spend a lot of time in the water, deep water and blacks are not strong swimmers and if they aren't treading water they sink like a rock.

Blacks aren't strong swimmers and they sink and drown.


Back in 1956 at MCRDPI a Marine DI marched his platoon of wannabe Marines into a swamp and all of the black recruits (six) drowned.

The march into Ribbon Creek that almost killed the Corps -> http://www.islandpacket.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/david-lauderdale/article39418635.html

 

I'll agree with you about Obama.

 

Oh look. It's you making up crap again. Pretty much all your good for.

 

Another prefect example of you proving you have no idea what you are talking about. Who here has said that physical performance is the only thing that matters. Oh thats right no one. Do you ever get tired of just straight up lying.

 

I highly doubt anyone on this site believes your BS. If they do its because they have no idea about the military other then what they have seen on TV. Just like you.

 

You never have anything to say and instead just post messages like a stalker.

 

To the contrary, the standards are not competitive to allow physically inferior white men to prevail over physically superior black men.

 

That literally makes no sense.

 

Yes it does. If physical abilities were as vitally critical as claimed, then the standard would be those who are most physically capable, ie the standards are competitive.

For such as infantry, the military has vastly more people wanting to enlist than it needs. Acceptance could be based upon those who perform the best in endurance and strength. However, this would not be white guys. Rather, the bulk would be black men. So instead of a competitive standard, a lower bar is set specifically designed to suit men - but not the most physically capable men - and instead to exclude women.

IF physical strength and endurance was the ALL-CRITICAL it is claimed to be, the standards would be competitive, not a minimal threshold.

 

As I said, that literally makes no sense.

1. The military has never, in the post draft era, had more people trying to enlist in combat arms than it needs.

2. Combat Arms has a lower level of Blacks (percentage wise) than other fields. According to your logic, they should dominate in those most physically demanding fields instead of being in a tiny minority.

3. Does any military have competitive standards?

 

The economy isn't strong and education is more expensive, so many turn to the military for a secure foundation. However, the U.S. military has been turning down applicants in droves, and it's not just because of the drawdown. Although the U.S. is not committing as many forces overseas as it was a few years ago, there are a few other reasons for the large numbers of applicants who aren't making the cut.

According to the Washington Times, the military currently only accepts roughly 20% of walk-in applicants. Army Sgt. 1st Class Terrence Hoard reportedly told the Kansas City Star that he used to need to sign on 16-20 soldiers every month, and now he can get away with 10-12. According to the Kansas City Star, four out of five adults are turned down by the military every year. To make matters more difficult for potential future applicants, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel intends to decrease the number of active duty service members from 520,000 to 490,000.

https://www.military.com/join-armed-forces/2014/05/14/80-of-military-recruitments-turned-down.html

 

Yet most Special Forces soldiers are white men.

 

Exactly my point. It really is NOT about physical standards. It is about white men.

 

Once again, that literally makes no sense.

 

It makes perfect sense and your inability to grasp the obvious is another example of why I have often posted the ex-military and old military are the greatest curse on any military and high on the list for the cause of lost wars. Anything but perpetually maintaining the status quo and only planning on fighting past wars with past methods, equipment and tactics is incomprehensible.

Old military running the French and British military is why Germany ran over Europe despite being enormously outnumbered. If Old military and ex-military was in charge, our ships would still have sails, there would be no aircraft or aircraft carriers, no tanks and transport would still be by mules and horses.

 

Explain to me why under competitive standards Black people would dominate combat arms but under the current standards they barely make a ripple?

 

Yes you are correct. Special forces are special forces, rangers are rangers. But they both are Special Operations failing under the same command USASOC. Most civilians would consider them all to be special forces and be wrong in a nitpicky sort of way.

 

I was in for 5 years and was in one unit that had women on my last year in the service. I hated having women in the unit. In my opinion the all male units seemed to have a lot less drama. I personally saw no benefit to having women in the unit.

 

In my opinion, women should be in combat roles but in most instances units should be sex segregated (all male and all female units) with units specialized, though all trained generally as well.