AP sources: Marines seek to close combat jobs to women

[webfact]

AP sources: Marines seek to close combat jobs to women
LOLITA C. BALDOR, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Marine Corps is expected to ask that women not be allowed to compete for several front-line combat jobs, inflaming tensions between Navy and Marine leaders, U.S. officials say.

The tentative decision has ignited a debate over whether Navy Secretary Ray Mabus can veto any Marine Corps proposal to prohibit women from serving in certain infantry and reconnaissance positions. And it puts Gen. Joseph Dunford, the Marine Corps commandant who takes over soon as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at odds with the other three military services, who are expected to open all of their combat jobs to women.

No final decisions have been made or forwarded to Pentagon leaders, but officials say Defense Secretary Ash Carter is aware of the dispute and intends to review the Marine plan. The Marine Corps is part of the Navy, so Mabus is secretary of both services.

The ongoing divide has put Dunford in the spotlight as he prepares to start his new job next week. And it puts him in a somewhat awkward position of eventually having to review and pass judgment — as chairman — on a waiver request that he submitted himself while serving as Marine commandant.

The debate includes jabs at Mabus for his public criticism of the Marine plan that triggered a call for his resignation from a member of Congress.

Officials say the Army, Navy and Air Force are expected to allow women to serve in all combat jobs and will not ask Carter for any exceptions. They say that Special Operations Command is also likely to allow women to compete for the most demanding military commando jobs — including the Navy SEALs — though with the knowledge that it may be years before women even try to enter those fields.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to discuss the matter publicly.

Mabus on Monday made his position clear.

"I'm not going to ask for an exemption for the Marines, and it's not going to make them any less fighting effective," he said, adding that the Navy SEALs also will not seek any waivers. "I think they will be a stronger force because a more diverse force is a stronger force. And it will not make them any less lethal."

Mabus' comments angered Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter, who has asked Carter in a letter to demand Mabus' resignation because he "openly disrespected the Marine Corps as an institution, and he insulted the competency of Marines by disregarding their professional judgment, their combat experience and their quality of leadership."

Hunter, who served as a Marine in Iraq and Afghanistan, said Mabus' comments raise questions about whether he can be objective and continue to lead the Marine Corps. And he said Mabus should have no role in any decisions about women in the Marine Corps.

Under the current plan, the service chiefs will present their plans to the service secretaries, who will then forward recommendations to Carter. He will make the final decisions by the end of the year.

If Dunford does seek the exception, it puts the new Joint Chiefs chairman at odds with public statements by Carter asserting that anyone, regardless of gender, who meets the standards and requirements for a job should be allowed to do it.

Informing Dunford's decision is the Marine Corps' yearlong study on gender integration. It concluded that, overall, male-only units performed better than gender-integrated units. It found that the male-only infantry units shot more accurately, could carry more weight and move more quickly through specific tactical movements. It also concluded that women had higher injury rates than men, including stress fractures that likely resulted from carrying heavy loads.

Women make up less than 8 percent of the Marine Corps, the smallest percentage across the four active-duty services.

But the report also pointed to the 25-year-old report by a presidential commission on women in the armed forces that concluded: "Risking the lives of a military unit in combat to provide career opportunities or accommodate the personal desires or interests of an individual, or group of individuals, is more than bad military judgment. It is morally wrong."

The services have been slowly integrating women into previously male-only roles, including as Army artillery officers and sailors on Navy submarines. Adding to the debate was the groundbreaking graduation last month of two women in the Army's grueling Ranger course.

In January 2013 then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey signed an order wiping away generations of limits on women fighting for their country, ordering a quarter-million positions open regardless of gender. They called for sweeping reviews of the physical requirements for combat jobs and gave the military services until January 2016 to argue if any positions should remain closed to women.


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-09-18

[lovelomsak]

All they will do is lower the requirements so women can access the positions and put everyone at risk not only those fighting in the field but those they are fighting to protect.

[reggaebkk]

Scandalous. Women have the right to die for nothing like men do! Equality for all and everything!

[jerome2]

They are afraid of wemen...

you cannot make a children killer out of a girl

i mean a girl will never follow an order to kill children or generaly against her belief ...unlike men

Edited September 18, 2015 by jerome2

[Ulysses G.]

All they will do is lower the requirements so women can access the positions and put everyone at risk not only those fighting in the field but those they are fighting to protect.

Exactly right. Women should not be incombat unless there is no other recourse.

[williamgeorgeallen]

They are afraid of wemen...

you cannot make a children killer out of a girl

i mean a girl will never follow an order to kill children or generaly against her belief ...unlike men

army is useless if the soldiers do not follow orders, just another good reason not to have woman in combat roles.

I was in the armed forces for 3 years. nz infantry. they decided to allow females in. they had to lower physical fitness standards so they could pass. them we went out on a 10 day exercise. by the end of it not one remained. combat is not a place for females, it is not a place for most males.

[williamgeorgeallen]

as I have said I was in the nz army when they were trying to let females into frontline roles. they could not pass the fitness tests. fitness requirements were reduced (only for the females) basic training they were constantly on light duties due to injuries. during basic training a corporal gave some of them a yelling at, then had to go back and apologies for yelling at them. whole exercise was like a circus show. woman are just not cut out for combat roles. simple solution is let them in as long as they can pass the physical requirements. none can, problem solved.

[Expat1]

Not too many combat vets here anymore that's obvious. Women in combat. Not if you have any sense. If there were combat vets here they would not even be discussing this as it is not even worth considering.

Now if you are dying to be PC in that nonsensical media run country then fine. Create women's mortar units and the like. The VC and NVA used women's mortar units and rocket units and hounded the bejesus out of us. They could knock a fly off a buffalo's butt on the run. But what women can not do is carry a 200lb+ wounded man very far. Menstruation in the field is of course a lot of fun. The US military knows they have had it all their way the last decade or so fighting low intensity conflicts against weaker foes and the chances are that this will change in the not too distant future and it could develop into a knock down drag out real fight, with no drones usable as the enemy will have the capabilities to electronically incapacitate them , to hit satellites in space, and readily locate and chase down their troops on the ground that are emitting EM signals and hit them. This is all known by the military. The only people that don't understand this, or don't want to, is the media there that want to the public and govt to be so PC.

I feel for the young men in uniform in the future that will have deal with this nonsense and suffer the results.

[thaibeachlovers]

Scandalous. Women have the right to die for nothing like men do! Equality for all and everything!

Cor, I like your photo .

[thaibeachlovers]

Not too many combat vets here anymore that's obvious. Women in combat. Not if you have any sense. If there were combat vets here they would not even be discussing this as it is not even worth considering. Now if you are dying to be PC in that nonsensical media run country then fine. Create women's mortar units and the like. The VC and NVA used women's mortar units and rocket units and hounded the bejesus out of us. They could knock a fly off a buffalo's butt on the run. But what women can not do is carry a 200lb+ wounded man very far. Menstruation in the field is of course a lot of fun. The US military knows they have had it all their way the last decade or so fighting low intensity conflicts against weaker foes and the chances are that this will change in the not too distant future and it could develop into a knock down drag out real fight, with no drones usable as the enemy will have the capabilities to electronically incapacitate them , to hit satellites in space, and readily locate and chase down their troops on the ground that are emitting EM signals and hit them. This is all known by the military. The only people that don't understand this, or don't want to, is the media there that want to the public and govt to be so PC. I feel for the young men in uniform in the future that will have deal with this nonsense and suffer the results.

Speaking as someone that has been in a situation where one woman was in a base with 100 guys, I know what can happen. Basically, if they are attractive ( and attractiveness increases with rarity ), most guys will be trying to get into their knickers, and if they do have sex with one guy it will cause problems with all the other guys that are missing out. However, all that is known already with even the present level of women in the service.

Even now there is apparently a huge problem with women complaining of sexual abuse in the US military- expect that to get worse with more women involved with testosterone laden guys.

When women become involved, they try to impose their notions on the guys, not accept them, hence affairs like the Tailhook scandal that caused some men to lose their jobs. Are they going to accept Playboy centrefolds at work- probably not.

I do know that soldiers in combat need to be able to rely 100% on everyone else, and is that going to work in a place like Khe San, which is what the marines do. Not like being in a behind the lines job that I have no problem with women doing.

I think that if a woman is going to want to be a grunt, they should be equal in all respects- same physical qualifications and not made easier to get women through. I had a problem with carrying a heavy guy for the required distance- can't imagine how a smaller and less strong woman would manage.

Also, allowing them to have long hair and wear ear studs on duty is BS. If men can't, why should they be able to?

During WW2 women did all sorts of jobs that males used to do, and did it well, but I don't recall them serving in the front lines

Why would a woman even want to be a marine, given that you need a hell of a lot of testosterone to do that job? I wouldn't want to be a marine.

However, I'd like to hear from servicemen that have served with females to understand how they get on with the sexual aspect of life, when it's forbidden to have sex with them.

I know that guys are OK when there are no women around, but put one or two women into the mix, and it can cause massive problems. I have seen it happen.

[thaibeachlovers]

Just to be clear, I have no problem with women being in the forces as long as they aren't allowed an easier physical test than the males, and have to have short hair and no ear studs, like males, plus if they use their sexuality to try and get special treatment, like I have seen myself, they would be charged. Also, no special consideration for menstruation.

If that were the case, I don't think there would be any in combat roles.

BTW, just wait till some females get taken prisoner in combat- the stories won't be pretty. Front line troops aren't usually gentlemen in combat.

Edited September 19, 2015 by thaibeachlovers

[MiKT]

Seems to be a load of bs here. How many women are there in the Chinese army? How many women died fighting in the Russian armies in WWII? How many are in the Israeli army? When push comes to shove a woman can kill you just as well as a man.

[thaibeachlovers]

Seems to be a load of bs here. How many women are there in the Chinese army? How many women died fighting in the Russian armies in WWII? How many are in the Israeli army? When push comes to shove a woman can kill you just as well as a man.

WW2 is hardly relevant to today's professional soldiers. All times when women were used in combat were when their countries were engaged in a life and death struggle. When the war was over, women went back to support roles and most left the forces.

Chinese army. 7.5%, most of which are in support roles, and apparently it helps to be attractive, for the obvious reasons.

Russian army. In 2002 10% and currently women are not conscripted. Most are not in teeth arms.

Israeli army, About 33%, but they are needed as Israel doesn't have enough eligible men.

From Wikipedia

While the army has since tried to curb sexual harassment, it remains a problem. In 2004, it was reported that 1 in 5 women soldiers suffer sexual harassment.

[MiKT]

Seems to be a load of bs here. How many women are there in the Chinese army? How many women died fighting in the Russian armies in WWII? How many are in the Israeli army? When push comes to shove a woman can kill you just as well as a man.

WW2 is hardly relevant to today's professional soldiers. All times when women were used in combat were when their countries were engaged in a life and death struggle. When the war was over, women went back to support roles and most left the forces.

Chinese army. 7.5%, most of which are in support roles, and apparently it helps to be attractive, for the obvious reasons.

Russian army. In 2002 10% and currently women are not conscripted. Most are not in teeth arms.

Israeli army, About 33%, but they are needed as Israel doesn't have enough eligible men.

From Wikipedia

While the army has since tried to curb sexual harassment, it remains a problem. In 2004, it was reported that 1 in 5 women soldiers suffer sexual harassment.

And in WWII probably 90% suffered sexual harassment (or at least what would classify as sexual harassment today but at the time was probably viewed as joking - maybe 40% of it anyway) so times change and if they can make it through the training good luck to them. One also hopes that the days when the marines were under-armed cannon fodder have changed and they get the right equipment and support so they dont get thrown away on gung-ho missions. Maybe a few women in the ranks will help to change that.

[chuckd]

What's needed are common sense rules of engagement so the Marines can be soldiers instead of targets.

[thaibeachlovers]

Seems to be a load of bs here. How many women are there in the Chinese army? How many women died fighting in the Russian armies in WWII? How many are in the Israeli army? When push comes to shove a woman can kill you just as well as a man.

WW2 is hardly relevant to today's professional soldiers. All times when women were used in combat were when their countries were engaged in a life and death struggle. When the war was over, women went back to support roles and most left the forces.

Chinese army. 7.5%, most of which are in support roles, and apparently it helps to be attractive, for the obvious reasons.

Russian army. In 2002 10% and currently women are not conscripted. Most are not in teeth arms.

Israeli army, About 33%, but they are needed as Israel doesn't have enough eligible men.

From Wikipedia

While the army has since tried to curb sexual harassment, it remains a problem. In 2004, it was reported that 1 in 5 women soldiers suffer sexual harassment.

And in WWII probably 90% suffered sexual harassment (or at least what would classify as sexual harassment today but at the time was probably viewed as joking - maybe 40% of it anyway) so times change and if they can make it through the training good luck to them. One also hopes that the days when the marines were under-armed cannon fodder have changed and they get the right equipment and support so they dont get thrown away on gung-ho missions. Maybe a few women in the ranks will help to change that.

I would agree with you if the women had to pass as tough a test as the men had to before they changed the rules to make it easier for women to pass. I could never have stood up to the conditions that real grunts have to, so it would take a real tough woman to do so. Most women I know realise that and would never try. To be frank, I can't understand why any woman would want to be a combat grunt, with the added likelihood of rape if I was captured.

They can already kill people in a variety of ways without any danger to themselves ( pilots, drone controllers etc ) if that is what turns them on.

What they need to do is send them on a week long yomp with only the food they can carry, no washing facilities, can't clean teeth with toothpaste, short hair, no ear studs, carrying a pack as heavy as the men, with belts of machine gun ammo, and an anti tank weapon, doing sentry and little sleep, shit in a hole in the ground, dig fire pits every lager, do ambush drills for hours, stay wet for days, and at the end, have to carry/ drag the biggest man in the group 100 meters, followed by an all up battle drill with hand to hand combat thrown in. I couldn't do that, how many women could? But, real grunts have to do stuff like that.

They might drive around in armoured cars and fly in helicopters, and have hot meals and go back to camp every night now, but they should be able to deal with what MIGHT happen in a real war. Ask any Vietnam vet that fought in the jungle if he thinks western women have what it takes to do what he did.

Edited September 21, 2015 by thaibeachlovers

[MiKT]

Seems to be a load of bs here. How many women are there in the Chinese army? How many women died fighting in the Russian armies in WWII? How many are in the Israeli army? When push comes to shove a woman can kill you just as well as a man.

WW2 is hardly relevant to today's professional soldiers. All times when women were used in combat were when their countries were engaged in a life and death struggle. When the war was over, women went back to support roles and most left the forces.

Chinese army. 7.5%, most of which are in support roles, and apparently it helps to be attractive, for the obvious reasons.

Russian army. In 2002 10% and currently women are not conscripted. Most are not in teeth arms.

Israeli army, About 33%, but they are needed as Israel doesn't have enough eligible men.

From Wikipedia

While the army has since tried to curb sexual harassment, it remains a problem. In 2004, it was reported that 1 in 5 women soldiers suffer sexual harassment.

And in WWII probably 90% suffered sexual harassment (or at least what would classify as sexual harassment today but at the time was probably viewed as joking - maybe 40% of it anyway) so times change and if they can make it through the training good luck to them. One also hopes that the days when the marines were under-armed cannon fodder have changed and they get the right equipment and support so they dont get thrown away on gung-ho missions. Maybe a few women in the ranks will help to change that.

I would agree with you if the women had to pass as tough a test as the men had to before they changed the rules to make it easier for women to pass. I could never have stood up to the conditions that real grunts have to, so it would take a real tough woman to do so. Most women I know realise that and would never try. To be frank, I can't understand why any woman would want to be a combat grunt, with the added likelihood of rape if I was captured.

They can already kill people in a variety of ways without any danger to themselves ( pilots, drone controllers etc ) if that is what turns them on.

What they need to do is send them on a week long yomp with only the food they can carry, no washing facilities, can't clean teeth with toothpaste, short hair, no ear studs, carrying a pack as heavy as the men, with belts of machine gun ammo, and an anti tank weapon, doing sentry and little sleep, shit in a hole in the ground, dig fire pits every lager, do ambush drills for hours, stay wet for days, and at the end, have to carry/ drag the biggest man in the group 100 meters, followed by an all up battle drill with hand to hand combat thrown in. I couldn't do that, how many women could? But, real grunts have to do stuff like that.

They might drive around in armoured cars and fly in helicopters, and have hot meals and go back to camp every night now, but they should be able to deal with what MIGHT happen in a real war. Ask any Vietnam vet that fought in the jungle if he thinks western women have what it takes to do what he did.

But Vietnamese women did; and then some, most of whom would have received very little training. So can we assume Asian (and Israeli) women are much tougher than US girls? You are right, its a hard life, but it seems that when the s... really hits the women are able to step up and do whatever is required. Maybe what is required are women only Marines squads, which will cut out grunts stuffing tampex up their noses.

[thaibeachlovers]

WW2 is hardly relevant to today's professional soldiers. All times when women were used in combat were when their countries were engaged in a life and death struggle. When the war was over, women went back to support roles and most left the forces.

Chinese army. 7.5%, most of which are in support roles, and apparently it helps to be attractive, for the obvious reasons.

Russian army. In 2002 10% and currently women are not conscripted. Most are not in teeth arms.

Israeli army, About 33%, but they are needed as Israel doesn't have enough eligible men.

From Wikipedia

While the army has since tried to curb sexual harassment, it remains a problem. In 2004, it was reported that 1 in 5 women soldiers suffer sexual harassment.

And in WWII probably 90% suffered sexual harassment (or at least what would classify as sexual harassment today but at the time was probably viewed as joking - maybe 40% of it anyway) so times change and if they can make it through the training good luck to them. One also hopes that the days when the marines were under-armed cannon fodder have changed and they get the right equipment and support so they dont get thrown away on gung-ho missions. Maybe a few women in the ranks will help to change that.

I would agree with you if the women had to pass as tough a test as the men had to before they changed the rules to make it easier for women to pass. I could never have stood up to the conditions that real grunts have to, so it would take a real tough woman to do so. Most women I know realise that and would never try. To be frank, I can't understand why any woman would want to be a combat grunt, with the added likelihood of rape if I was captured.

They can already kill people in a variety of ways without any danger to themselves ( pilots, drone controllers etc ) if that is what turns them on.

What they need to do is send them on a week long yomp with only the food they can carry, no washing facilities, can't clean teeth with toothpaste, short hair, no ear studs, carrying a pack as heavy as the men, with belts of machine gun ammo, and an anti tank weapon, doing sentry and little sleep, shit in a hole in the ground, dig fire pits every lager, do ambush drills for hours, stay wet for days, and at the end, have to carry/ drag the biggest man in the group 100 meters, followed by an all up battle drill with hand to hand combat thrown in. I couldn't do that, how many women could? But, real grunts have to do stuff like that.

They might drive around in armoured cars and fly in helicopters, and have hot meals and go back to camp every night now, but they should be able to deal with what MIGHT happen in a real war. Ask any Vietnam vet that fought in the jungle if he thinks western women have what it takes to do what he did.

But Vietnamese women did; and then some, most of whom would have received very little training. So can we assume Asian (and Israeli) women are much tougher than US girls? You are right, its a hard life, but it seems that when the s... really hits the women are able to step up and do whatever is required. Maybe what is required are women only Marines squads, which will cut out grunts stuffing tampex up their noses.

Yes, Vietnamese women were fighting for their homes against the invader. Can you imagine soft western women being as tough? Even the US guys were too soft to defeat a bunch of civilians with AK47s. If the women were fighting to protect the US from a foreign invader, perhaps they would toughen up too.

I would support female only squads. Then they couldn't expect the guys to do the heavy lifting. However, would the US public accept massive women casualties, in the same way as they accept male casualties?

[MiKT]

WW2 is hardly relevant to today's professional soldiers. All times when women were used in combat were when their countries were engaged in a life and death struggle. When the war was over, women went back to support roles and most left the forces.

Chinese army. 7.5%, most of which are in support roles, and apparently it helps to be attractive, for the obvious reasons.

Russian army. In 2002 10% and currently women are not conscripted. Most are not in teeth arms.

Israeli army, About 33%, but they are needed as Israel doesn't have enough eligible men.

From Wikipedia

While the army has since tried to curb sexual harassment, it remains a problem. In 2004, it was reported that 1 in 5 women soldiers suffer sexual harassment.

And in WWII probably 90% suffered sexual harassment (or at least what would classify as sexual harassment today but at the time was probably viewed as joking - maybe 40% of it anyway) so times change and if they can make it through the training good luck to them. One also hopes that the days when the marines were under-armed cannon fodder have changed and they get the right equipment and support so they dont get thrown away on gung-ho missions. Maybe a few women in the ranks will help to change that.

I would agree with you if the women had to pass as tough a test as the men had to before they changed the rules to make it easier for women to pass. I could never have stood up to the conditions that real grunts have to, so it would take a real tough woman to do so. Most women I know realise that and would never try. To be frank, I can't understand why any woman would want to be a combat grunt, with the added likelihood of rape if I was captured.

They can already kill people in a variety of ways without any danger to themselves ( pilots, drone controllers etc ) if that is what turns them on.

What they need to do is send them on a week long yomp with only the food they can carry, no washing facilities, can't clean teeth with toothpaste, short hair, no ear studs, carrying a pack as heavy as the men, with belts of machine gun ammo, and an anti tank weapon, doing sentry and little sleep, shit in a hole in the ground, dig fire pits every lager, do ambush drills for hours, stay wet for days, and at the end, have to carry/ drag the biggest man in the group 100 meters, followed by an all up battle drill with hand to hand combat thrown in. I couldn't do that, how many women could? But, real grunts have to do stuff like that.

They might drive around in armoured cars and fly in helicopters, and have hot meals and go back to camp every night now, but they should be able to deal with what MIGHT happen in a real war. Ask any Vietnam vet that fought in the jungle if he thinks western women have what it takes to do what he did.

But Vietnamese women did; and then some, most of whom would have received very little training. So can we assume Asian (and Israeli) women are much tougher than US girls? You are right, its a hard life, but it seems that when the s... really hits the women are able to step up and do whatever is required. Maybe what is required are women only Marines squads, which will cut out grunts stuffing tampex up their noses.

Yes, Vietnamese women were fighting for their homes against the invader. Can you imagine soft western women being as tough? Even the US guys were too soft to defeat a bunch of civilians with AK47s. If the women were fighting to protect the US from a foreign invader, perhaps they would toughen up too.

I would support female only squads. Then they couldn't expect the guys to do the heavy lifting. However, would the US public accept massive women casualties, in the same way as they accept male casualties?

The big differnce (and its not something to brag about, its just a fact) is that europe has been ravaged continually for centuries and in WWII the whole continent and many places in the UK were devastated. The US has never faced anthing like this. In the old days a few people lost their scalps when the indigenous population got a bit fed-up when they were cheated out of their hard earned wampum for tins of baked beans; and certainly lots of brave US soldiers lost their lives or were wounded in both World Wars, but at home the US have never really suffered like the rest of the world; even in the civil war the extent of destruction and depredation was limited. However, if the worst came to the worst and the US was invaded I am sure that US women would be out there fighting for their country just as hard as any other women and would put up with massive female casualties as the Russians had to in WWII. Lets hope never, ever and the best possible way to ensure it does not happen is to have a strong US army backed by government that is willing to use it only when really, really necessary. Despite far too many ignorant detractors (and a lot of own foot shooting) a strong US is still the best guarantor of world peace