Marine Corps study finds few women in combat in other nations’ militaries

Your info comes from Russian sources or it is an interpretation by US popular magazines? Anyhow, bring your proofs, lets see.

Combat Search and Rescue is one of the most dangerous and politically sensitive jobs there is in the army. Probability of been shot down or captured by the enemy is higher, than same probability for a ground attack pilot if calculated for a single sortie.
Worst case scenario I heard of, is loss of five aircrews to save one pilot (Vietnam)
And the person responsible for lives and for the entire circus is the SaR CO.
From my point of view. SaR CO takes the responsibility, SaR CO defines if the person is fit to be member of his suicide team. Not the test results, not the Feminist Idiots from Pentagon, not the girl herself, not the God all mighty, it is SaR CO that makes the decision. And if he feels, that there is no particular need for a feminist hero in his unit, he should try to do everything in his power to decrease the risk, not to multiply it.

To illustrate: Russians received a blow in the face when they lost a pilot that was shot down by Turks. They received a second blow, when Russian CSaR team lost a paratrooper and a helicopter in a rescue operation. Russian hawks demanded to wipe out all Turkish forces in border vicinity (from both sides). Those idiots wear contained.
Imagine another scenario: Russian SaR get caught by local guerrillas, girl burned alive (like the Saudi pilot a year before). What would be the response from Russian Haws? Would it be possible to contain them if the popular opinion would provide them heavy support? We would see a nuclear capable country attacking a Nato member?
I really think that that SaR CO was 100% right.

Innovative thinking has not one, but two requirements. First one is to be open to new ideas. Second is to be able to trash the bad ones from the flow of ideas that will try to overwhelm you (like super canons, super tanks, uber waffe, e.t.c.).
To my mind, the men on the ground, are not in fear of competition. The woman that can match a marine are 1 in a 100000. I think they dislike the Pentagon brass, that is trying to get political points out of now-popular-gender-defense idea. These generals, they are not the ones that will have to carry the extra load that your partner have not managed to lift, because he was a she.

I was carried for a ride by a vice European champion in air acrobatics . Acrobatic planes are a bit boring to fly, but she showed me the difference between normal pilot and a champion , I understood that I will never, ever, be able to match her precision . She was 1-2 inches shorter than needed, and she used an additional comfy cushion to sit on . That cushion was very touchy

My best wishes to the girl anyway

 

Nations that bring women into combat do so not because women are great front line troops, but because the nation is desperate and facing annihilation.

Your favourite example, Russia in WW2, was being defeated by the Germans, Russia was losing literally millions of soldiers, and they had to bring women (and boys, and old men) to the front lines. Once the crisis was over, the women (and boys and old men) were removed.

Israel has the same history. Despite having a continuing manpower shortage and a constant threat to their survival, Israel does not use women in front line or combat units. They have found women unsuitable to many combat tasks, such as those of armor units.

Espionage, spying, etc. is a very different job than infantry, a Ranger battalion, SEALS, combat rescue. You are basically comparing CIA versus Army. Different skills, different requirements, different objectives. Apples and oranges.

And at the top of that "powerful collection of reasons" is survival - when its your life on the line, all your economic and political and promotion excuses go out the door. In a small team there is no room for any individual who cant keep up because that gets failed missions and people killed. In a large team, such as a Battalion, there is no room for a unit that can't keep up.

While you may cite some selected individual women who might be able to keep up, they are the rare exception. No army can be built on the "exceptions". You might be able to build a very specialized unit for a specialized task based on the "exceptions", something that falls outside the norm, but an army cannot tailor itself to the "exceptions".

All experience shows that with all things being equal - equal training, equal equipment, equal time - the return in many military occupations is much higher for men than for women. The Ranger School experience is well documented, several 100 women start the process and are given special preparation, 18 make it to Ranger School, all fail, a few are recycles, all fail again, 2 are recycled and finally pass.

All that work for 2 female Rangers. The same work would have resulted in 100+ male Rangers. Are you going to quadruple the military budget just to get a handful of women into combat units?

 

Yes, it is better that the pilot and rescuer(s) die being unable to infiltration local population that have a female SERE who could. It is important that rescuers be as conspicuous as possible, and certainly should never do anything sneaky during a rescue, right?

As for the female I was referring it, her resume was so extraordinary in physical skills, proven physical and outdoors experiences, fighting and shooting ability, academic genius and acquired knowledge that height or medical history restrictions were simply ignored and the books cooked. Accordingly none of that has been a restriction. Rather, only male officers determined to not have a female in his unit are a problem.

Rescue in combat zones is far less about fighting ability and strength is virtually irrelevant. It is about smarts, knowledge, tactical mentality, patience and remaining clear-headed calm under extreme stress. Calculating evasion is vastly more likely to succeed than fighting their way out. Avoidance better than confrontation.

Also someone who could pass all physical demands before going in, numerous times a month would swim in the most shark and alligator infested brown and blue water in the USA, and for camping out took no food or water, knowing how to obtain plenty of both - how to determine if water was safe and bugs, snakes, roots etc plentiful and knowing all about them. She could probably kick the ass of most Navy Seals too. Personal hobbies included rock climbing and knife throwing. But exploring it, she recognized there was not a chance in hell she could get past the male-ego freak officers along the way so declined.

The specific reason given to her for wanting her was being female is this gave the circumstantial potential to enter a civilian population in the event this is necessary for food/supplies or in case the downed pilot or personnel was hiding in an urban area daring not to move or come out - dying for lack of food and water. Men would have to fight their way in. Circumstantially, she could just casually walk it as if a female local. Might even be carrying supplies/communication bundled as if carrying a baby making even less suspicious and something no male rescuer could pull off, yet fully ready to fight if need be. Even easier to hide gear and weapons under a dress or burka too. Possibly by bringing local clothing and some makeup, then she and the downed pilot could just walk out of the town or city with him appearing likely her aged father escorting her holding her baby, the makeup making him looking older and ethnically correct. Just walk it - and then just walk out. Even possibly walking in with a male rescuer, made up to look like her grandfather dutifully as required escorting her in public as a female seemingly carrying her baby, her wearing a burka of course. And her carrying far more firepower under that burka and in that bundle if need be than any male rescuer could be.

Such tactical options are not an option of a male rescuer. Since much of our fighting is now in areas where women are not fighters and restrained to limited non-combat and not aggressive roles and therefore not perceived as a threat, this particularly could be an circumstantial rescue need and successful option only a female could pull of.

It seems that in your opinion, the only measure of a rescuer is who can do the most push-ups.

But she realized that along the training path would be officers with your opinion that such an potential option must never ever be allowed to exist - and would then do everything possible to make that happen.

However, otherwise in the roles she is in since the still higher ups are more concerned with mission-success than the male-egos of replaceable mid-level officers and since aircrews and pilots were prefer not to die, she has been flying thru position and rank, often as the only female in the unit and/or entering into under-fire combat zones. Already she has saved aircrew lives in the most literal sense not as a rescuer and lead to mission success and avoidance of mission failure in ways outside norms.

The few times it literally has come to a showdown between and CO and her - due to her refusing to comply with an order that endangered the mission or personnel, the end result is the CO is told ala-Trump-style "you're fired!" and she is given commendation. Been flying thru rank and ratings.

However, the military still has been able to successfully bully any female from even attempting to be in any rescuer role and it is not for lack of ability. That is unfortunate. I only know 1 outdoors-type person I would more rely on for a rescue success than her. It isn't because both are tough - though both are. Rather, both are extremely skilled with very good trained instinct and tactical good sense, both perfectly calm under fire or in stress situations - a personality most people don't have.

One was a Marine squad leader in Afghanistan and this woman. Curiously, time to time both completely ignored or defied their direct COs - moments of their greatest successes and earning them the most positive recognition to the still higher up. Both are mission (and life) success oriented, whatever that takes, COs not withstanding.

The anti-women slogans you recite are accurate except when they are not. When they are not? Someone dies who otherwise wouldn't. The USA does have women in combat roles and I have yet to read of one instance where this caused a mission to fail in any branch of the military.

 

If Ranger standards are such that 100% of men pass and only 2 women of "several hundred" pass, something is very seriously amiss among the evaluators or the standards - likely both.

In basic training the female I have been writing not only greatly exceeded the physical levels of the other women, but was exceeding male standards from day 1. Without a word to her, soon she was given an extra 10 pounds in her pack plus required to wear full body armor including plates - overall her carrying 50% more the weight on runs. No reason was given to her. Rather just something that happened, and she didn't say a word about it when it did. This was not sufficient to knock her back to performance levels of the others - which later was explained to her as why, giving excuse it was to keep her from believing she is superior. For numerous reasons, she was given some best of all recruits for that session of the base award before everyone, citing her perspective (quoting her) as reason.

She had been asked why she never pulls ahead of her squad when running - and why she disregarded for everyone in the barracks to take care of their own bunk and gear, and instead had organized the barracks as an assembly line, each person assigned to be an expert in 1 task. No one in her barracks failed or was recycled. Her response? "We are a squad. We all pass or we all fail, because in combat my squad will all live or we all die." They declared her the best of the class of recruits in that base session, when combined with her performance and other actions expressing her philosophies about her and military service. It was never about her, but about everyone collectively as a unit.

It is easy enough to make someone fail or declare they have. Women failing does not mean they couldn't meet the standards. It means they were failed. Whether for inability or being failed to keep them out is something you and I can not know. She has come across COs so determined to NOT have the only women ever in his unit that it has been one who gave her an order than was essentially a death sentence if she followed it - the order specifically a prohibited action. She did not. Nor did she refuse. Recognizing it was a prohibited action he was ordering, she pursued following it incorrectly and safely - causing a real cluster-(*)(*)(*)(*). This lead to the base CO demanding to know what the hell happened - and since it a prohibited order that was the end of the CO who gave it, not her.

In certain areas, the anti-female attitudes of some male officers in the military approaches fanaticism.

She recognizes that such male-ego officers are willing to take a reprimand in response to her filing a complaint - since a complaint would go in her record (damaging) and cause her to be reassigned even if in the right. She never complains. But if need be she will otherwise get the officer moved out of her way or that officer reassigned.

The CORE Of my disagreement is the belief that all combat troops should be generic clones of each other of exactly the identical skills, knowledge, training, usage and abilities. Since no one can be made knowledgeable in everything possibly relevant, this is an inefficient concept that is highly limited.

For example, the female I'm writing of was published in scientific journals for protocol studies related to toxic and deathly micro-organisms including identifying and measuring them in water. If a group of Rangers become isolated and without water, but find a seemingly stagnant pool of water - what do they do? That could be a puddle of death. Or a puddle of staying alive. A tiny pocket microscope and in 10 seconds she could answer that question. And, if any way to make the water safe to drink would know how - heat doesn't always do it. That isn't a skill taught in Ranger school, is it?

Simply, in MOST situations, a diversity of skills is far superior than all meeting an identical, generic and physical standard. A unit is better off if one of them is an electronics geek, another a naturalist guru, another an extreme marksmen, another a top-notch mechanic. Even if they do 5 less pushups, run 5 seconds under standard or can carry 5 pounds less.

The military increasingly does recognize this. BUT because FAR more people try to enlist than they possibly need, standards are used as reasons to reject people, even if the standards (such as some medical or life history standards make no sense are or basically irrelevant.) How do they reject one person and take another if both meet the standards, but they really want one and don't the other for more abstract or non-regulation reasons? Thus, there are mountains of standards for which it is possible to find a reason to reject anyone they want to reject.

But what about the extremely desirable person for possession certain sets of knowledge, skills or abilities, but fails to meet the standards? It is not rare for some procedure existing, certainly reviewing and measuring personnel, who cook the books to have this person anyway.

Probably the raw physical measures will continue to exist for grunts who are to be put into cannon folder and strong back/weak mind bottom level combat roles (I do not mean that offensively). BUT such standards are not an absolute end in themselves.

 

You can find the rare exception, but you cannot build a military around the exceptions. There are not nearly enough of the "exceptions", and the cost to find and train them is extreme.

What you are writing about is an individual woman who falls outside the norm and who the military is not prepared to accommodate. Maybe its not fair for her, but the military priority is not fairness, its winning wars.

The purpose of military units is not to do everything, but to do certain tasks well. An infantry platoon has a specific job description, each soldier has the same core skills required for the infantry task, each soldier has some cross training so he can fill in the gap when there are casualties. But the infantry platoon is not an armour platoon, they are not special forces, they are not a medical unit.

Wrong, finding water and making it potable is a critical skill. Water is required for life, but its heavy (8 lbs per gallon), in many cases there is no way a small unit can carry enough water to accomplish their mission. Particularly special forces whose mission is to operate without external support, often living off the land, and being as invisible as possible. They must find water along the way, and know how to purify it or filter it. Heat is almost never used, chemicals and filters are used.

There is no need to take a pocket microscope or a microbiologist on a mission. I don't need to know what is wrong with the water, all I need to know is some basic information about the local environment and then apply the chemicals (pills, drops) and procedures and filters that the microbiologists back in some lab developed and tested that will make the water safe to drink.

And sometimes, whats the point? You are crawling through mud, swimming through dirty rivers and creeks, you are covered in all kinds of (*)(*)(*)(*) and you get it in your mouth. Even if you have perfectly clean drinking water, you still get "intestinal issues" and are going to have to spend some time in recovery when you get back.

A team that can do everything well would be great, but there is no such thing. Its not reality. Everyone in an infantry unit (armour, SF, etc) has to have a certain core set of skills in order to function in the infantry environment, and many will have additional skills suitable for the infantry job. There is not the money, time, manpower to train people to be experts in all kinds of subjects they are very unlikely to ever need.

Physical standards are not an end in itself, but they are the foundational requirements. An electronics geek would be fine, but he has to be an infantryman first otherwise he is useless.

 

This sound like to typical bull(*)(*)(*)(*) made up story. I spent 20 years in the Army, Airborne '82, Jumpmaster School '82, Ranger School '83, SERE Level C '83. Never saw a woman in the army in my career that could do one pullup. I drank more nasty water than I care to remember. The thought of having some chick look at it through a microscope to tell me if it is safe to drink makes me laugh. We have iodine tablets for that.

I went through Ranger School in two months, 58 days to be exact. It took both of the women 6 months and they were both West Point grads (and lesbians, but who's counting).

Women have no business in the military much less combat units. The women pilots taught us nothing. I think the first six all crashed killing themselves or were relieved for incompetence.

 

To the contrary, the military command structure was 100% willing to "accommodate" her outside of standard and, in fact, did so. Technically by standards she can not even be in the branch of service that she is. Rather, she is aware that the obstacle would be the ocean of replaceable mid-level officers who are little more than pencil pushers and clothing inspectors, but believe they are a big deal and are to preserve their unit as an all-male little personal empire in terms of potentially being the first in-the-field rescuer SERE, not just a trainer. She was strongly urged by the military to pursue it and wanted to, but did not because, candidly, she was certain their were too many COs with your view in the pathway.

She is currently back for a tour of duty in the ME, often in combat zones and occasionally under fire. She was never put on the books when actually entering a hot combat zone. Curious. From her and a Marine I know very well, those whose REAL concern is mission success, including officers and COs, often do things "off the books" and that is prohibited. They just either cook the books, don't ask for higher permission or don't report it as if it never happened. That a bit surprised me, but makes sense if you think of it. If pencil pushers and policy makers at desks made decisions? Not much would get done and probably a lot of people would die at the same time.So, on the books, no woman still has ever been in a hot combat zone in her field, though she was in combat zones multiple times and came under direct fire now and then.

I fully disagree - and it is the core disagreement overall maybe - that I come across on all military topics. I fully disagree that the military to minimize its options and capabilities in order to have everyone be able to perform an identical short list of options equally well. For example, in debating ships, I advocate for highly diverse types of ships designed to fulfill as many functions as possible and worldwide - always in debates with someone who says really the ONLY thing that matters is having thick armor and big guns for shore landings.

The same in this debate. You present a limited set of situations and argue against diverse skills and options. For example, your statement that a geek is worthless unless an infantryman is an absurd statement in my view. Truly absurd. No, rifles are not defense or offense against enemy missiles, armor and aircraft. Infantry MAY fight in modern warfare. It does not win modern warfare and American infantry is heavily designed around highly technical and computer drive systems.

As for my discussion on water and you asking "what's my point?" - you made my point. No, bad water isn't just "intestinal issues" and no, chlorine tablets do not purify all water. No, all combat situations are not crawling thru mud getting in your mouth, though that may be routine in training. I could try to explain that as a rescuer behind-enemy-lines being an expert in biological toxins - lethal, disability, or pain causing - is a vast collection of potential totally covert and never detected even after sprung traps for purposes of diversion and distraction. Of course, you just ignored the potential advantages a woman has with civilian populations and in urban settings entirely.

Nor do you seem to grasp that not everyone who enlists comes in with an empty brain. Not everyone is a C-student fresh out of high school, but was on the high school football team's first string as a lineman. Some who pursue enlistment have areas of high levels of specific (and desirable) expertise - no training required as the person is already vastly trained and experienced. Nor just educational, scientific or technical skills. Some who enlist already have more relevant combat and rifleman skills than could possibly be trained to a newbie in training as well. It is NOT about $$ for training as they are already trained and experienced - possibly for years and with training and proven skills beyond what the military can even offer.

I did concede that bottom level grunts, those the military tends to see as sacrificial cannon fodder, are likely suitable to be measured and selected solely on physical capabilities. If the only tasks they will fill is as a rifleman trained with no skills from scratch in a few weeks, then crude summary physical measurements might make perfect sense. For every person they now need for that limited roll there are probably more than 10 that want to enlist - when only 1 is needed.

The intelligence and knowledge of mules and horses never really mattered to the military either. However, OUR military, in fact, is no longer based upon the rifleman. Even our adversaries now are no longer solely dependent upon RPGs and AK47s. Do you know that ISIS has missiles? Can stop those with rifles. They are using drones too. Rather difficult to hit with a rifle.

One of the greatest dangers of all historically to militaries and nations is allowing old officers and veterans to determine tactics, training, equipment choices and personnel training. They can only think in terms of past history, always planning around past wars and past adversaries. This leaves that military and nation 100% exposed to new tactics and different actions of a new enemy. Many a seemingly superior military has been crushed, obliterated, because of this. Counties have been erased from existence because of it.

The vision you have of how battles - great and small - now occur is increasingly the rare exception rather than the rule. More than ever, it is virtually always true that brains defeats brawn.

It is necessary to stroke the egos of those trained to be riflemen - Army and Marines - because they are the ones mostly likely to die, least likely to be promoted to any degree and are the ones considered most expendable (though wouldn't use that word of course). The Air Force, Navy, and Marines with spend millions of dollars each to make aircraft safer for pilots, but won't spend an extra $20 dollars for a superior helmet or $500 for Hummer armor for ground troops. That should tell people something. In return, it is appropriate to constantly tell such troops how THEY are the most important of all, when treated in every real way as the least. Those ego stroking slogans are not the basis for making military policy including personnel policies that are absolutes.

A geek in an infantry squad potentially could save everyone's life or make it so the mission could continue, where an extra "infantryman" would make no difference. The minimal standard for the geek is whether she/he can keep up. Either one of them can fix the crashed system, or not. It is not just about carrying a rifle and pack and carrying the wounded. Rifles are NOT the only equipment an infantry unit carries now. I don't know your age, maybe that post dates your experience or info sources. Not EVERYONE who tries to enlist comes with an empty brain. Strong but stupid should not be an infantry requirement. although possibly for the majority of them that is ideal.

 

Now and then I post protractedly on this topic of women in the military because at its core not only is that issue, but a far great one too of the overall design and functioning of our military.

Here is an example from past debates. Someone arguing that the core necessity of all members of a tank crew is upper body strength. The argument being that anyone who can not repeatedly and protractedly lift shells much be barred from that role.

Really? It would seem that someone with highly advanced relevant mechanical skills and knowledge beyond what can be taught in a short time by the military (ie already had those skills and knowledge so only need a tad of info specifically about the tank) would a better choice for 1 of the crew than all capable of lifting shells rapidly, but none who can fix the tank. Maybe it would be a good idea to have someone highly skilled and knowledgeable about repairing electronics and electrical systems might be a good idea too.

So that was the debate. The other person claiming that lifting shells ability must be the standard for everyone in a tank crew, while I claim that the best tank crew is a crew most capable of performing every possible functional need.

 

You sound like you know as much about the military as you do everything else. All special op units require an I.Q of 110 or more which is one reason Special Op is so White. You would be surprised how many Special Op types have college degree, that is the enlisted ones.

It is always fun to watch a noob tell his boss how he did it back in the civilian world.

 

Injecting racism into this doesn't add anything to the conversation, does it?

In reality, any position in the military requires whatever is - and isn't - required. Standards must exist. Standards must be ignored. Rules must exist. Rules must be broken.

There are few veterans I know who are not certain the military must be and remain exactly as it was while they were in the military. It just depends upon when they served. They also tend to claim the equipment and systems were better then than now too.

No one accomplishes anything extraordinary by being generically ordinary. That is why extraordinary people of extraordinary accomplishment are rare. For example it is always curious if someone claims Trump is stupid. Love him or hate him, in fact he is an extraordinary person of extraordinary life accomplishments and, accordingly extraordinary intelligence. His overall life resume' is both unique and amazing including in diversity of accomplishment. There are many accepted standards required to qualify and win the presidency. He broke most of them - and that is why he is going to become president.

Absolute standards and absolute rules are generally because that is all low intelligent people can grasp.

If your last is about how people who served in the military enhance the stories they tell later on in life or brag about their past in exaggerated ways? No doubt, that is human nature in general. I know the female I have posted about in terms of prior civilian life. No one who knows would dispute that she was a superstar in many regards, an extraordinary person of extraordinarily diverse acquired skills and knowledge. Full scholarship to private university. Published. Honors on top of honors. And when deciding to add military service to her growing resume? She was more than just acceptable for possible recruitment. Unique person from the service were brought in solely to get her in. Others? They were in the crowded room for examinations and interviews. Not her. Private office. Different people.

Because of physical standards, her enlistment was delayed. She replied then she'll go talk to the Army. "N! No! No! You're in, it just takes a bit of time to line up the right people."

 

Being female shouldn't in itself disqualify you, but it takes a special woman to be have as much physical potential.

When in the job they should treated identically. No soft gloves. Your tits hurt from crawling through mud? Tough (*)(*)(*)(*) love. Deal with it.

 

It's called affirmative action.

 

Slogans...

Well, it is about slogans to avoid reality then obviously it was due to racism and white privilege. She is white and her parents are wealthy. Therefore it must have been due to white privilege and special treatment for the top 1%.

What your message actually demonstrates is that opposition to women in combat roles has nothing to do with abilities, but rather only due to misogyny for some men.

The reason was her knowledge, experiences and skill set resume'. Probably in part related to the same reasons every university she inquired of offered her full scholarship plus room and board if she would pick their university. Not many recruits exceed physical standards before they enlist either.

 

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). I don't know anyone who is in special ops who didn't far exceed the physical standards when they enlisted. Many of them already had college degrees. You little twinkie was an affirmative action hire.

 

You keep repeating yourself. All your issues have been addressed but you keep rejecting information from people who actually know what they are talking about for your own bias.

 

So you have been in special op? Here is a video of what happens to a twinkie when she encounters a man [video]https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video;_ylt=A0LEV1yh.FNYC.cAQw1 XNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE0ZzkzZDk3BGN vbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDQjI4M jNfMQRzZWMDcGl2cw--?p=%22woman%22+%2B%22pugil+sti cks%22+%2B%22knocked%22&fr=yfp-t&fr2=piv-web#id=1&vid=12bff600df5c326d64f486282d 6311d4&action=view[/video]

 

Your message is as worthless as are the rantings of many Democrats over Trump winning the election making up all sorts of excuses for losing and lamenting how unfair it was and that Trump cheated.

She is an exceptional person beyond the norms for women or men. Everyone was surprised when she left her university to join the military. Also surprising is her repeatedly turning down offers to go into officer training and most recently turned down being offered to go into combat pilot training due to her now proven skill sets on flight missions.

That probably had to do with a mission where the aircraft she was on came under mortar attack and couldn't take off to get out of there because the computers shut down due to the pilot panicking and wildly flipping switches. She is not a person who panics. Rather, in situations her response is to take command regardless of rank.

You've already lost this issue. The only remaining obstacle are mid-level, Peter-principle going-nowhere mid-level officers no different than white officers in the past determined to have no blacks in their units. They will all be blown out for lack of worth within a military generation. The problem is not men in combat roles in units with women nor is it upper command. It is mid-level pencil pushers who can not advance on merit. Women are already in combat roles, like it or not. She is.

Women are not given special treatment. Rather, such ignorant loser officers pile on women trying to blow them out. In her instance, all they have succeeded at is blowing themselves out. She is mission oriented and they are not. She kills enemy. They do not. So they lose in what becomes their military career suicide.

Her declining being an officer or a pilot is curious, but she has no plan to be career military and has no doubt she can be and do anything she wants to, so doesn't need it. Her accumulated and earned resume of diverse successful experiences, formal recognition and proven skill sets came to make so any position in private sector she sought the response was "please come to the head of the line."
That women like her blow past men who think they are superior because they're men can sob the way many Democrats are sobbing over Trump winning - since that's all they got.

To the extent you want bottom level grunts not to be trusted with anything more and a rifle lucky if they reach E2 who are the expendables to be limited men? I have no problem with that. The military future is owned by those with brains, not who makes the best pack mule.

You already lost this. Who is the next Commander-In-Chief? Here's a hint: It's not you.

Trump: "I would support women in combat roles."

 

You already admitted she got special. Hell, she is probably not ever as smart as I am. My GT score was 145. What was hers. Were you ever in the military or did you just stay at a Holiday Inn Express?

 

Clearly Marines and Special Ops doesn't need weapons. Just send them in wearing boxing gloves.

I do find that there are still people you believe that boxing gloves have any relevancy to the military quite amazing, that level of absurdity. It really is apparently necessary to stroke the egos of cannon folder enlistees for which there are 10 to 20 times more who try to enlist than are needed. Keep calling them the "tip of the spear."

95% of the time now the tip of the spear is coming from the air. No boxing gloves involved.

 

From her HS class there was a fella who got "special treatment" also enlisting, him into the Navy. He was valedictorian, multiple science fair winner, and a state champion swimmer. He also could not pass the physical for a technical reason. Made absolutely NO difference. They wanted him.

Including due to cuts in the size of the military and changes in military planning that no longer include massive deployment of ground troops combined with lack of jobs in the private sector, the military is swamped with average men, some with college and most without, wanting to enlist. If they are academically average with nothing notable to offer, their best chance is trying for the Marines, as they have the lowest standards with the Army being second. Not 1 in 10 will be accepted as they are not needed and there is a mass of standards to make excuses for not doing so.

The military doesn't need more tough guys. There are more tough guys than they possibly want or need. They need big brains and in specific areas. Those aren't so easy to come by because they are competing with the private sector that still pays big bucks for those same people. And the military needs some of them in combat zones circumstantially as not everything can be done remotely.

That is what the standards are for - an excuse to reject anyone they don't need. 50 high school and college football players want to enlist - and they need only 3. 47 will be told some regulation prevents his enlistment. For anyone they truly want? The standards are irrelevant and there are procedures for entirely by passing them.

The private sector is no different. Job qualifications requirement apply to everyone - except when someone offers so much that the published requirements do not matter so they are set aside.

You're not likely reality as a man changes nothing.

 

You get your squad of twinkies and I'll get a squad of Ranger and we can see how it works out. Really doesn't matter what the challenge, chess, shooting, running, doesn't matter.

 

The military can and does grant waivers. I met a Ranger officer who had a waiver for a felony conviction. Why the silence on military experience?

 

I have no military experience. I would have vastly surpassed any strength and speed standards, but not a chance in hell I would have been accepted nor would the thought of joining have ever crossed my mind. I likely have more fighting experience than everyone on the forum combined, but that is a different matter of no value to go into. I have been clear that my statements are based upon what of military experience have told me and my own perspectives.

No one on the forum has experience as president or in Congress. So why does anyone post on such topics? Nor does someone who was in the military make an expert on the military.

Obviously you voted for Hilary Clinton as she had vast government experience and Trump had zero - therefore he knows nothing and should have just kept his mouth shut in your analysis. I voted for Trump.

 

What I figured. When I had no military experience I could run the mile in under four minutes and lick Cassius Clay. We have something in common, voting for Trump.

 

1. I had zero education and a high school degree is required, though time to time the Marines and Army have accepted a GED (which I also do not have). At that time I was illiterate as well. The number of days I spend in any formal school is zero. I do, however, test as beyond average intelligent. Likely would still be illiterate if not.

2. A medical examine would show significant levels of scarring, which would lead to future examination that would reveal the residual of bone fractures and breaks including on top of each other so I would not pass the physical. All are past fight and violence injuries. Fighting was at the core of my life reality and fighting skills my highest priority for many years. My childhood, youth and adult life until a little over a decade ago was centered around fighting and violence. My survival depended upon it and this evolved to being my adult life focus.

Seemingly, I should now claim (brag) I would have been superior in a combat or special ops role. While I likely would have met all standards and been highly skilled, a superior fighter and could then have been able to carry a wounded person on each shoulder easier than most could carry sacks of potatoes, I recognize there are a million other people who are or can be trained to be tough guys too. While I certainly do admire those who undergo the grueling training and are able to make the cut as a Ranger, Seal or Special Ops - a mindset and tolerance of pain most people can not endure nor have the psychology to do so, and of course their "sacrifice for the country," I don't see them as particularly special in the sense of such people are so numerous nor are the most essential roles in the military. A few centuries ago they would have been. The military is now about technology, that is the reality.

Wisdom can come with age and in reflection I recognize the value and lack of value such physical abilities had. Had I met the educational requirement and been able to pass the medical and had enlisted, I likely would have been particularly good in certain combat roles. But even if I I was the best in the unit I never would have been essential or necessary because bus loads of other people could have been trained to sufficiently do the same good enough. I could win a fight. But it will be those with highly developed big brain skill sets that will win the battles and wars now, not tough guys. Tough guys are a dime a dozen, though tend to see themselves as superior to others. I did, but in reflection I wasn't. It was only when I set aside the tough guy focus that my life became successful in real terms.

Many men of the Taliban and ISIS probably are tough guys. But most will likely never even see their deaths coming and will have no opportunity to use they're physical and close quarters combat training other than to beat women and children prior to their violent deaths coming from US military brainiacs.