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

Borrowed:

"The proximate cause of the mishap was pilot error. There was an engine failure, but it
wasn't fatal by itself; it had to be compounded by numerous gross
errors on her part. The mishap board identified four "aircrew
factors" as contributing factors to the mishap, including heavy use of
rudder while single-engine (a no-no), failure to execute proper
waveoff procedures, failure to inform the RIO of the emergency, and
failure to make a timely decision to eject.

The Navy issued a press release stating that the "cause" of the mishap
was the engine failure, and this was widely reported as Truth by the
press, who--contrary to what you saw in "All the President's Men"--rarely
dig any deeper than the latest press release. They did this to head
off well-deserved criticism that they had rushed an under-qualified
female through the program just to meet their quota in that category.

Unfortunately for the lying sacks, some disgusted junior officer with
access to the Mishap Investigation Report (MIR) leaked it to "Navy
Times," who put it on their forum on AOL. Not that the truth hadn't
been obvious to anyone who knows a split "S" from a hole in the ground
and had viewed the PLAT tapes.

Whether LT Hultgreen as an individual was underqualified and pushed
into a situation for which she wasn't ready isn't *proven* by this
mishap and can never be shown conclusively to be true or false.
(Based on input of my LSO acquaintances, I believe it to be so, but
that's a personal conclusion.) The fact that this goes on, however,
is nothing short of undeniable.

I will be more than happy to mail a copy of the MIR to anyone who
asks.

(Oh, and the simulator the Navy staged to "prove" that the mishap was
unsurvivable was rigged. The pilots were forbidden to react properly
to the emergency with which they were presented. It was then
announced in another press release, widely parroted by the media, that
of thirteen pilots, only the squadron CO "survived" the emergency."

 

The US military is being flooded by people who want to enlist due to hard economic times, particularly for young people and, increasingly, young people coming out of college to find no real job available. Vastly more are wanting to enlist than needed. Most of all, these are men with little education, offering no particularly valuable knowledge or skills they already have - and most could pass basic training.

What the military is lacking AND LOSING GROUND ON is highly intelligent people who already have high knowledge and skill sets for the increasing and diverse expertise that is necessary and to train. The claim that all but ground troops with light arms are worthless "toy" is as opposite from reality as possible. And many such personnel needs also may take such people into combat zones and even potential combat situations.

The reason the US military is superior to all others is because of the level and quantity of our technology and technologically superior equipment. It is not because Army infantry or Rangers are tougher than North Korean in the military. Excluding women is to ban 50% of our brain-trust and resources, plus is a factor in lack of support of the military moreso by women including women voters, and other negatives in actual combat zones in relation to civilian populations. For MANY "combat" roles, being in good physical condition is good enough since is matters little to none for the task the person is needed for. Nor would it make sense to divert huge amounts of training time and focus on hand-to-hand combat and carrying heavy packs - all that divert from the extremely complex technically training that has to be done in months, not years.

It is a good idea for military brainiacs and technicians to have some combat training in the unliklihood they will be necessary to take a more shooting-fight role, but that is not what they are needed for.

I do recall for the second Iraq war and Afghanistan, the Marines and Army command were howling they don't have enough technical and air support and that we needed to wait. If we were to put a LARGE ground combat force into a war theater now there is a severe shortage of logistics, air and technical support to be able to do. A large number of ground troops can be had quickly by calling up the Guard. But there is no way to support them as in the past for a shortage of the really smart people for the systems to back them up. So, in real terms, imagine a unit calling in they are running out of supplies, ammo and need air support -and being told "sorry, but the electronics are down and we have no one that is allowed in a combat zone to deal with this. Call us next Tuesday."

And it seems everyone else posting on this thread doesn't grasp the military really doesn't advertise everything they are doing. Women are going into active, hot combat zones and coming under fire - where such women (rare) are NOT approved to do so without a pile of paperwork filled out and approved first - something not required for men. Because of the PCism of the anti-women crowd such as seen on this forum, women are scrutinized many times more than men with all manner of special restrictions, limitations and paperwork. One way that is being dealt with is having such women going in "off the books." Either than or the mission doesn't happen.

From those I have spoken to who now or very recently have been in hot, shooting war zone situations/stationing with hot missions, one thing I notice is that it is well understood the attitudes and actions are vastly different from the rule books, records kept and the diminishing of protocol requirements almost as if the portrayak of the military out of hot combat per policy is one thing, but for those in it, including command, it is an entirely different matter because then the missions matter - not the books and record keeping, not the anti-women or pro-women debate either. If someone is needed for a combat mission or it won't happen, and only a woman is available, they're sending her in. If a woman is the best for the mission, they're sending her in. When your life is on the line, slogans of how society should function and military protocol becomes relative irrelevant. Or so I gather from what I'm hearing.

 

I agree that this is going nowhere. You, without any military experience of your own, is basing your argument on some personal acquaintance who was a bad ass. OK, that's great, but you don't even understand the arguments I've made and apparently are not open to them. I'm just going from my own personal military experience. I was in a combat support position (not combat arms) and had women as supervisors and as subordinates). OK that was fine, and I served with many exceptional women (and unexceptional ones of course) but the argument isn't about if women can be great in support roles, the issue is combat arms.

So few women can meet the standards that it doesn't make any economic sense to try to push them into career paths where they most likely will end up disabled, or at least on limited duty profiles, making them irrelevant in their combat specialties. What benefit is it if only one woman out of hundreds who would volunteer can get through infantry school, and then for something more elite like Rangers, one woman out of thousands? It's a waste of training opportunities. From this thread I still don't really understand your argument and it's unlikely I'm going to, other than to note that this is an issue that you have no knowledge of, or any military experience to give your arguments credibility, so I would just let it lie.

 

I understand that you are claiming that JAG, Naval command and the male pilots all lied in a collective conspiracy because JAG, male Navy Commanders and male Navy fighter pilots are all a bunch of radical leftwing feminists.

That really isn't very convincing to most people, including me.

Beyond that, the whole premise is absurd even if they all did engage in an conspiracy together to lie and it was pilot error. Dozens and dozens and dozens of male pilots have crashed, including for pilot error in the military. Many civilian jetliners crash due to pilot error - nearly all such pilots being ex-military pilots and all being male due to pilot error.

So, CLEARLY 1 only ONE female crash and dozens, collectively hundred upon hundreds of male pilots - military and civilian - crashing due to pilot error that we MUST ban MEN from being pilots in the military by your own logic and it is only PCism that men are allowed to be pilots. That is the extension of YOUR logic. Incompetent men are being fast tracking into being pilots.

 

When you get an army you can put females into combat. The fact that every other country doesn't use women in combat should tell you something. I think the Saudis (or maybe the Iraqi?) just had one of their ace female pilots crash and kill herself.

 

On March 23, 2003, a convoy of the United States Army's 507th Maintenance Company and the 3rd Combat Support Battalion elements, led by a Humvee driven by Lori Piestewa, made a wrong turn and were ambushed near Nasiriyah, a major crossing point over the Euphrates northwest of Basra.[5] The convoy was supposed to detour around the town and instead turned directly into it, eventually running into an ambush. The ambush was unlikely to have been set up in advance, because the Iraqis did not know which course the convoy would take. Although some vehicles had GPS receivers, military GPS systems, unlike civilian equivalents, provide only grid references and not turn-by-turn navigation. Maps of the area lack the detail required to properly navigate through tight city streets. Apparently, the convoy took more than one wrong turn. The convoy came under attack by enemy fire. The Humvee in which Lynch was riding was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade and crashed into the rear of a tractor-trailer. Lynch was severely injured.[6]

Lynch, then a supply clerk with the 507th Maintenance Company from Fort Bliss, Texas, was wounded and captured by Iraqi forces.[7] She was initially listed as missing in action. Eleven other soldiers in the company were killed in the ambush. Five other soldiers were captured and subsequently rescued 21 days later. Lynch's best friend, Lori Piestewa, received a serious head wound and died in an Iraqi civilian hospital.[8]

A video of some of the American prisoners of war, including Piestewa, was later shown around the world on Al Jazeera television. Later, footage was discovered of both Lynch and Piestewa at an Iraqi hospital before the latter died.[9]

A good example of women in combat. It was the Ranger who rescued her.

 

OK, so really your argument is that the role of "combat arms" such as "Rangers" should increasingly be limited in an increasingly technological military and should increasingly be dependent upon outside support as a matter of limited by highly selective and trained specialization AND as a highly dependent limited application unit.

That is largely how, historically, the US military has operated. Most historians agree that the German infantry was significantly superior to the US military's infantry, and rather is mass materials support and massive quantities of equipment, superior logistics and massive air power that is what the Allies defeated Germany, not that the Allies and American troops were superior. This has been studied extensively. The reason the German infantry was superior in the view of many is because they were capable of operating more independently and were less dependent upon command and support. The leader of a German squad was like the captain of a ship in the past - full authority - while an American squad leader was restrained by an huge command structure and in a system designed around highly complex oft with bad communications coordination by various units and even different branches of the military and of different nations.

Like in education, anything taught and focused upon diminishes other things than can be taught and focused upon. What you have NOT shown is that the continued decisive and excluding factor of the current standards for physical strength is not only an important goal, but the all decisive measure 100% of the time. I've repeatedly asked for any actual combat skimishes or battles where any of your concerns was proven accurate - yet on no forum nor thread does anyone even attempt to try.

While you being in the military means you have greater knowledge in some regards, it does not make you an expert on overall military policies, tactics and strategies now and in the future. Even if you were a member of Congress, that does not really mean then you are wiser or more accurate on what Congress should do.

I've commended I do know someone who was a "bad ass," a female in service now who is truly extraordinary - and I also noted I know or have known more who were what I would call average, plus a couple lazy asses - one female and one male - currently in the service.

Here's where we MAY have an issue. Do we? It seems you are saying NO WOMEN should be in ANY combat role. You also say that "combat arms" current physical standards must never change. I claim that there is no inherent reason to exclude women from combat roles and I believe the standards are misfocused if excluding ALL women, noting the military are routinely made standards stricter or more relaxes or otherwise changed them.

I understand your economics claim, but that opens a whole can of worms since the greatest expense of military personnel is not during service, but after service in veteran's benefits of a huge list, medical care and for career then retirement - largely denied to women solely for being women. Would buy that claim for other branches of government? I prove women keyboard faster than men, so therefore no man should be allowed government service in any job that may require any keyboarding - that only women should have these jobs - noting a majority are women and then pointing out the extra costs of having on-average slower men, needing men's restrooms etc.?

I believe few join the military for desiring to be in combat. Only that one Marine I know enlisted specifically wanting an opportunity for combat. They join for the pay and benefits. Did you join because you WANTED to be in a war, wanted to be in combat, and wanted to kill enemy? So in this there is an economic equality issue since only a very small percentage in the military will ever be in or near combat.

If you believe lack of experience means a person is not qualified for a topic, then by all means do stop posting anything about politicians and government in any relation to elected politicians. I did comment that I may have more fighting experience than anyone and maybe everyone else on this forum. Do I get to claim fighting-expertise knowledge over you?

On forums, explaining views based upon what you know and others tell you all is relevant. Life experience does matter and telling of it helps make a point or show why a person believe what s/he believes. But ultimately, debate should be on the issues involved in a logic/reality/persuasion level and everyone has a equal right to do so. Anyone claiming some superior knowledge by experience of itself doesn't have much value for anyone.

I do see you are trying to draw a distinction between "combat arms" while I am referring to "combat roles." Yet for a person to be on a "combat role" usually they are required to meet "combat arms" standards - and I claim that is unwise and unnecessary. As a concession, yes I can see tasks that virtually only men are capable of. But my list and the importance of those roles is likely substantially less than yours.

 

Your point is that you don't like military personnel who are captured? Damn those 5 men!

Many American and British military women were captured by the Japanese. They had received essentially no combat training and therefore not trained to fight along with the men nor to fight for themselves.

If an American base is surprise raided and there are women in the only roles you would allow (nurses, secretaries, doing laundry) I gather you want them try to find a place to hide rather that joining in the defense of the base. Is that correct?

I seem to remember that and it was very rallying for Americans.

"On April 1, 2003, U.S. Marines from 2nd Battalion 8th Marines and 1st Battalion, 2nd Marines, as well as members from the Navy SEALs under the command of the U.S. Army, staged a diversionary attack, besieging nearby Iraqi irregulars to draw them away from Saddam Hospital in Nasiriyah. Meanwhile, an element from the Joint Special Operations Task Force 121 composed of U.S. Army Special Forces (Green Berets), Air Force Pararescuemen (PJs), Army Rangers, and Delta Force launched a nighttime raid on the hospital, and successfully retrieved Lynch and the bodies of eight other American soldiers.[14]"

Was she the female who publicly told of while seriously hurt she also was gang raped by the Iraqis - and smiling she said her thoughts were they must really be losers to need someone as much a wreck as her for sex? I thought that was a downed helicopter. Familiar with that?

I also seem to remember convoy drivers (male) threatening to boycott unless they could get better support.

Anyway, what is your point of "a good example of women in combat?"

 

My point it an incompetent female got herself and a bunch of other folks killed. They didn't even put up a fight.

 

An incompetent MALE General U.S. General Edward King Jr. got tens of thousands of other folks killed - and horrifically - when he surrendered to the Japanese leading to the Bataan Death March and torturous imprisonment.

They didn't even put of a fight and he wasn't fatally wounded.

This is a good example of men in combat.

 

I will comment that your level of contempt for US military personnel - if female - in your message is despicable. She was driving an unarmored truck in a convey in a war zone without support that was hit by an enemy RPG causing the truck to crash, her knocked unconscious and gravely wounded, then taken prisoner. The other female was also hit in an unarmored truck, the convoy sent without escort due to a totally incompetent MALE commander, her dying KIA - and your only comment is the sneer at those US personnel in combat including purple heart and KIA out of an apparent truly deep contempt of women at least in your messages. Is this how you personally REALLY feel about this - or just an off-the-cuff fast message before thinking it thru?

I seem to recall recently MALE commanded 2 Navy boats "strayed off course" and 10 surrendered without putting up a fight. The MAN in charge nor anyone else was wounded nor knocked unconscious. There was 1 woman among the 10. One of the tens started crying before the propaganda cameras. IT WASN"T THE FEMALE CRYING, was it?

[video=youtube;tSEpvtnGErs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSEpvtnGErs[/video]

So much for male superiority over women in the same unit! It was a white male crying - even though no torture or beating done, just sitting on the floor.

Seems to me you stated that you were safely behind a desk somewhere. Am I correct about that?

 

I doubt if women in the military would really work because their emotions would get in the way.
For example-
Officer- "Why didn't you shoot that fleeing terrorist?"
Woman private- "Because he had nice eyes".
Or-
Submarine captain- "Why haven't you turned our sonar on?"
Woman operator- "Because that wretched pinging sets my nerves on edge"
Or-
Squadron leader- "Why didn't you drop your bombs on that town?"
Woman pilot- "I kept thinking of all the fluffy kittens down there"

 

You mean men in combat. In combat as many as 80% of men will not fire their weapon. Camera footage in Vietnam documented that in a firefight less than 1/2 of US male soldiers were firing their weapons and less than half of those who are firing are not aiming but just spraying out bullets worthlessly.

Entire MALE US platoons refused to fight in Vietnam.

("Good examples" of men in combat...)

Acts of mutiny took place on a scale previously only encountered in revolutions. The first mutinies in 1968 were unit and platoon-level rejections of the order to fight. The army recorded 68 such mutinies that year. By 1970, in the 1st Air Cavalry Division alone, there were 35 acts of combat refusal.42 One military study concluded that combat refusal was "unlike mutinous outbreaks of the past, which were usually sporadic, short-lived events. The progressive unwillingness of American soldiers to fight to the point of open disobedience took place over a four-year period between 1968-71."43

The 1968 combat refusals of individual units expanded to involve whole companies by the next year. The first reported mass mutiny was in the 196th Light Brigade in August 1969. Company A of the 3rd Battalion, down to 60 men from its original 150, had been pushing through Songchang Valley under heavy fire for five days when it refused an order to advance down a perilous mountain slope. Word of the mutiny spread rapidly. The New York Daily News ran a banner headline, "Sir, My Men Refuse To Go."44 The GI paper, The Bond, accurately noted, "It was an organized strike...A shaken brass relieved the company commander...but they did not charge the guys with anything. The Brass surrendered to the strength of the organized men."45

This precedent--no court-martial for refusing to obey the order to fight, but the line officer relieved of his command--was the pattern for the rest of the war. Mass insubordination was not punished by an officer corps that lived in fear of its own men. Even the threat of punishment often backfired. In one famous incident, B Company of the 1st Battalion of the 12th Infantry refused an order to proceed into NLF-held territory. When they were threatened with court-martials, other platoons rallied to their support and refused orders to advance until the army backed down.46

As the fear of punishment faded, mutinies mushroomed. There were at least ten reported major mutinies, and hundreds of smaller ones. Hanoi's Vietnam Courier documented 15 important GI rebellions in 1969.47 At Cu Chi, troops from the 2nd Battalion of the 27th Infantry refused battle orders. The "CBS Evening News" broadcast live a patrol from the 7th Cavalry telling their captain that his order for direct advance against the NLF was nonsense, that it would threaten casualties, and that they would not obey it. Another CBS broadcast televised the mutiny of a rifle company of the 1st Air Cavalry Division.48

When Cambodia was invaded in 1970, soldiers from Fire Base Washington conducted a sit-in. They told Up Against the Bulkhead, "We have no business there...we just sat down. Then they promised us we wouldn't have to go to Cambodia." Within a week, there were two additional mutinies, as men from the 4th and 8th Infantry refused to board helicopters to Cambodia.49

In the invasion of Laos in March 1971, two platoons refused to advance. To prevent the mutiny from spreading, the entire squadron was pulled out of the Laos operation. The captain was relieved of his command, but there was no discipline against the men. When a lieutenant from the 501st Infantry refused his battalion commander's order to advance his troops, he merely received a suspended sentence.50

 

Nope, 20 years infantry, mostly Ranger. They never gave me a desk. I did learn to read a map. The female warrior who got all the folks killed couldn't read a map and took a wrong turn that went through a village known to be a hot spot.

 

A psychopath male commander sent them the wrong way to get them killed to get women out of his unit. The reason she was leading is cowardly male drivers refused to go. It is common for men in the military to be so cowardly that they refuse to fight.

 

Complete bullchit. Most of the units that refuse to fight seem to be Black.

 

More blacks were in Vietnam anyway due to cowardly white men fleeing to Canada. Overall, the problem seems to be white men in the military. Cowardly. Incompetent.

Women need to be ready for all roles to deal with vital missions and the men are too cowardly to participate. The reason bases have to be fenced is to try to slow down the rate of white male soldiers going AWOL. Sgt. Bowe Bergdah is a good example of white men in combat. A white male soldier surrendered without a shot fired to Iranians. A white male sobbing for the Iranian propaganda media. Do they teach white men to surrender in basic or officer training? Is there a training manual on the correct way for men to cry before the enemy?

Women certainly should be in command roles due to white male officer = incompetent is proven by so many incompetent decisions by males officers that have gotten people killed and missions to fail too long to even list. The military is a favorite choice of men who can not hold a job in the private sector and are too lazy or stupid for school.

 

Oh, and white men ducking the draft by hiding out in community and junior colleges.

 

Another urban myth:

During the Vietnam War era (draft era to be precise) blacks of military age made up 13.5 percent of the total population, but only 9.7 percent of the Vietnam era military forces were black. 88.4 percent of the men who actually served in Vietnam were white. 10.6 percent of the men who actually served in Vietnam were black. 86.3 percent of the men who died in Vietnam were white. 12.5 percent of the men who died in Vietnam were black. 86.8 percent of the men who were killed in actual battle were white. 12.1 percent of the men who were killed in actual battle were black. In sum, while the percentage of blacks of military age was 13.5 percent of the population, they accounted for 12.1percent of the deaths in Vietnam.

Yeah, don't forget the 58,000 men and 8 women who died in Vietnam.

 

You count the 8 women?

The Vietnam War saw the highest proportion of blacks ever to serve in an American war. During the height of the U.S. involvement, 1965-69, blacks, who formed 11 percent of the American population, made up 12.6 percent of the soldiers in Vietnam. The majority of these were in the infantry, and although authorities differ on the figures, the percentage of black combat fatalities in that period was a staggering 14.9 percent, a proportion that subsequently declined.

http://www.english.illinois.edu/maps/poets/s_z/stevens/africanamer.htm

Disproportion of African American casualties

Blacks suffered disproportionately high casualty rates in Vietnam. In 1965 alone they comprised almost one out of every four combat deaths.[60][61] With the draft increasing due to the troop buildup in South Vietnam, the military significantly lowered its admission standards. In October 1966, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara initiated Project 100,000 which further lowered military standards for 100,000 additional draftees per year. McNamara claimed this program would provide valuable training, skills and opportunity to America's poor – a promise that was never carried out. Many black men who had previously been ineligible could now be drafted, along with many poor and racially intolerant white men from the southern states.[62][63] The number of US military personnel in Vietnam jumped from 23,300 in 1965 to 465,600 by the end of 1967. Between October 1966 and June 1969, 246,000 soldiers were recruited through Project 100,000, of which 41% were black, while blacks only made up about 11% of the population of the US.[62] Of the 27 million draft-age men between 1964 and 1973, 40% were drafted into military service, and only 10% were actually sent to Vietnam. This group was made up almost entirely of either work-class or rural youth. College students who did not avoid the draft were generally sent to non-combat and service roles or made officers, while high school drop-outs and the working class were sent into combat roles. Blacks often made up a disproportionate 25% or more of combat units, while constituting only 12% of the military.[60][64]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_casualties#Disproportion_of_African_American_casualties

Likely due to so many white men running away and hiding.

 

Of the 58,152 killed in Vietnam, 7,262 were Black 12.48%, just the facts ma'am.

I liked the Presidents' 100,000 gave retarded Blacks a chance to serve.

 

This bad ass girl must be faannntastic in the sack, because it's otherwise difficult for me to understand you going to bat for her career ambitions wilth so little reason. Let me add to other points, although I've no doubt you'll find them irrelevant:

1. "Differences in physical strength, endurance, and athletic proficiency are an order of magnitude more striking [than mental differences]. The average woman has only 52% of the upper body strength and only 66% of the lower body strength of the average man. Similar numbers are found when comparing muscular endurance. Another way to consider this difference is to look at the overlap in strength distributions between genders. When such a comparison is made, it turns out that only the strongest 2.5-5% of the female distribution overlaps with the male mean strength. Mirroring this, only the weakest 2.5-5% of male distribution overlaps with the mean female strength."

2. You asked for an example, so let me give one that even a civilian with no military background could understand. Go back and watch the movie "Black Hawk Down" again, only this time watch it thinking of a woman Ranger doing the same thing, carrying the same load, in the same environment as the male Rangers. It's possible an Olympic athlete level woman might be able to do everything they did, but I wouldn't bet my paycheck on it.

 

You are referring too "Project 100,000" better known as "McNamara's Moron Corps." Liberal social engineering of too dumb to be drafted because you're a Cat lV, basically a moron but you had to be accepted if you enlisted.

The vast majority of McNamara's Moron Corps were black.

How many of McNamara's morons names are on the "Wall" ? How many of McNamara's morons caused the death of another soldier or Marine to have their names on the "Wall" ?

When the military is used for social engineering, soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen bleed of die in the name of diversity.

 

They were given service numbers starting with 67 so it wasn't hard to figure out what they were. We had one we called "Moon Man", actually had a college degree.

 

That's not how the draft worked during the 50's and 60's.

If you were black you were more likely to be registered with your local draft board and were less likely being drafted than say a white who was registered with his local draft board.

Each draft board was required to produce the same number of bodies for Uncle Sam. If you lived in an area where most of the 18 and 19 yearolds were attending college full time and had a student deferment and you weren't attending college you were very likely to be drafted. If you lived in an area where few went to college you were unlikely being drafted.

In California if you were black and lived in Watts, Compton, Oakland, etc. your odds being drafted were less than say a white who lived in the South Bay area of L.A. County where most of the high school graduates went to college.

The smart way of avoiding the draft was to register with a draft board that covered an area where few went to college. Your odds of being drafted were a whole lot less.

Once or twice per year every draft board was contacted at the same that they had to produce a certain number of inductees. Where I lived in 1968 in the South Bay my draft board was located in Gardena that covered all of the white beach communities in the South Bay. The blacks who lived in Compton, Watts and South L.A. registered with their draft board near downtown L.A. Both draft boards had about the same number of young men of military age registered and both draft boards were contacted at the same time with how many bodies they had to produce for induction. Both draft boards had to produce the same number of bodies for the Army.

By January of 1969 I was going through Marine Corps boot camp at MCRDSD. I remember a letter I got from my sister, just about every person who graduated from my high school in 1967 or were 19 years of age and graduated in the class of 68 who wasn't registered full time in college and had a student deferment got drafted. By the time I went on my first leave April of 69 most of my friends who haven't already enlisted or weren't attending college were at Fort Ord going through Army basic training.