Navy Secretary criticizes Marines' infantry study in interview

Marine Corps Times — Fri, 11 Sep 2015 17:52:05 -0400

From: Marine Corps Times

Navy Secretary Ray Mabus has doubled down on his assertion that all combat jobs should be opened to women in the wake of a new study showing that all-male Marine control groups outperformed those with women in nearly every infantry task.

Mabus spoke to David Greene at NPR a day after Marine officials revealed findings from a nine-month infantry experiment that assessed the performance of male and female Marine volunteers during physically demanding ground combat tasks. A summary of data showed that mixed-gender teams completed tasks more slowly and shot with less accuracy, and that women sustained injuries at more than twice the rate of their male counterparts.

In his radio interview, Mabus suggested the Marines' study was flawed due to the caliber and mindset of the volunteer participants.

"It started out with a fairly large component of the men thinking 'this is not a good idea,' and 'women will never be able to do this,' " Mabus said. "When you start out with that mindset, you're almost presupposing the outcome."

Mabus also said the Marines could have selected female volunteers who were better suited to the task of marching under heavy loads, which accounted for many of the injuries that were observed.

"For the women that volunteered, probably there should have been a higher bar to cross to get into the experiment," he said.

Female volunteers, except for a small "provisional infantry" group, were required to graduate from the Marines' entry-level enlisted infantry training course and specific combat job schools, if applicable. They also had to get at least a third-class score on the male version of the Marine Corps' Physical Fitness Test, requiring three pullups, 50 crunches in one minute, and a 3-mile run in 28 minutes.

In a Pentagon briefing Thursday, however, officials said the female Marines who volunteered tended to be athletic, with high scores on the PFT and combat fitness tests.

"These were good Marines," said Paul Johnson, the principal investigator for the integrated task force experiment.

Despite the disappointment he expressed with the study, Mabus said it did reveal ways to set entry-level performance standards for each infantry job in order to mitigate injury risks and control for male and female Marines who are likely to execute physical tasks successfully.

"When you look at some of the outside analysis of this from the Center for Naval Analyses, they've looked at these and they've said there are ways to mitigate this so you can have the same combat effectiveness, the same lethality. Which is crucial," Mabus said.

That CNA study has yet to be released publicly.

Mabus' remarks come on the verge of a crucial decision for the Marine Corps: whether to ask to keep certain ground combat jobs closed to women to preserve combat effectiveness, or to move forward with integrating female Marines into every infantry specialty. Commandant Gen. Joseph Dunford has not revealed his thinking on the matter ahead of a final decision. Mabus, however, has been vocal about his plans to work toward full gender integration.

"That's ... my call," he told Military Times this month about the upcoming decision.

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/2015/09/11/secnav-criticizes-marines-infantry-study-interview/72059308/

Mabus spoke to David Green at NPR a day after Marine officials revealed findings from a nine-month infantry experiment that assessed the performance of male and female Marine volunteers at physically demanding ground combat tasks.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Sep 11 at 2015 6:00 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Fri, 11 Sep 2015 18:00:55 -0400

Sec. Mabus has specific goals, and although he is "critical" of the initial reporting, we don't actually have word regarding the final report, nor do we have the Commandant's Recommendation, which is due this month.

Sec. Mabus, like us is getting "pieces" of the picture, and likely second hand, and we are getting his opinion of that second hand picture, third hand.

Response by PO2 Jonathan Scharff made Sep 11 at 2015 6:09 PM

PO2 Jonathan Scharff — Fri, 11 Sep 2015 18:09:26 -0400

Leave it to the government to "forge ahead" inspite of the facts. Nothing really new here...

Response by MSgt Erik Copp made Sep 11 at 2015 6:24 PM

MSgt Erik Copp — Fri, 11 Sep 2015 18:24:01 -0400

He won't have to pay for "his call" IF things don't work out. He needs to listen to the war fighters. I am not against integration when it is smart to do so. But to integrate just to be able to say "I made that happen" (which is how it looks to me), is a bad idea.
Just my opinion.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 11 at 2015 6:27 PM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 11 Sep 2015 18:27:19 -0400

I think the article is very interesting. While Secretary Mabus may be correct about biases being introduced, the study being released and his criticism of it will come under a lot of scrutiny.

Response by Sgt Spencer Sikder made Sep 11 at 2015 6:42 PM

Sgt Spencer Sikder — Fri, 11 Sep 2015 18:42:18 -0400

Just to be PC at the expense of these female Marines???

Response by Sgt Tom Cunnally made Sep 11 at 2015 6:50 PM

Sgt Tom Cunnally — Fri, 11 Sep 2015 18:50:33 -0400

Generals Dunford & General Neller are studying this & will render a decision in a few weeks.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Sep 12 at 2015 2:14 AM

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel — Sat, 12 Sep 2015 02:14:46 -0400

Sounds like the Secretary has some question and doubts about the Methodology of the Research.

Response by Capt Jeff S. made Sep 12 at 2015 2:46 AM

Capt Jeff S. — Sat, 12 Sep 2015 02:46:42 -0400

You can't put common sense in the head of a Liberal. It is a subject that is completely foreign to them and makes their heads explode.

Response by Cpl James Waycasie made Sep 12 at 2015 6:52 AM

Cpl James Waycasie — Sat, 12 Sep 2015 06:52:58 -0400

Maybe they need an all women's infantry division. They can bond as "Sisters of war". If they fight with just females, they will have to develop the same kind of bond the Infantry already has about taking care of each other. If they have to carry wounded personnel out, it will be normally someone their own size and a plus would be that there would not be any worries of sexual misconduct, or men being overly worried more for female troops. That might be a way to compromise. Of course only the women who can hack it would be allowed in the division. Don't cut the standards, let them train with their male counter parts at Infantry school then those who pass get in. Of course I am sure in war zones there will be a mixing of the two somewhere along the line, but keep the " Band of brothers" and add a "band of Sisters" might be one solution to a compromise that gives everybody a "win".

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Sep 12 at 2015 1:30 PM

Capt Richard I P. — Sat, 12 Sep 2015 13:30:15 -0400

I'll wait for the full report.

Response by COL Ted Mc made Sep 12 at 2015 1:54 PM

COL Ted Mc — Sat, 12 Sep 2015 13:54:09 -0400

His remarks about "bias" MAY have some validity.

When people expect something to succeed then it has a higher chance of succeeding. When people expect something to fail then it has a higher chance of failing.

Absent a fuller analysis of the results (and the study methodology [including the participant's mental attitudes towards the hypothesis being tested]) I'll reserve judgment on whether women can be successfully integrated into American combat forces.

Since they have already been successfully integrated into the combat forces of other nations that had different attitudes towards the integration of women into combat roles the results of the studies by those nations are not applicable to the US because the participant's attitudes were different from the participant's attitudes in American studies and the results of American studies are not applicable to those nations for the same reason.

Response by SGT Dylan Epp made Sep 12 at 2015 5:09 PM

SGT Dylan Epp — Sat, 12 Sep 2015 17:09:43 -0400

Some people just want to see the world burn. Did Mabus ever serve? Cause it just seems no matter what military leadership says or members of the actual units they're trying to open to women to they just ignore them and follow their own political objectives.

Response by CDR Michael Goldschmidt made Sep 12 at 2015 8:07 PM

CDR Michael Goldschmidt — Sat, 12 Sep 2015 20:07:19 -0400

It's a fair test or it isn't. Above all, however, any decision should NOT be based on political considerations.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 13 at 2015 2:46 AM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 13 Sep 2015 02:46:57 -0400

You know, a few years ago, I was with a small detachment of engineers. I'm a Seabee (Navy's engineering battalions), and we had 3 females on our Detachment. One was an Intelligence Specialist (IS), one was a Steelworker (SW), and the other was a Builder (BU). The BU was a Crossfit fanatic. She could - and did - outrun, out-push up, and out-sit up most of us guys. When our Officer in Charge (a Marine on an engineering Officer exchange) was running us through Marine Corps Martial Arts, he deliberately paired some of us guys with the females. "You never know who you're going to have to carry, so you have to be ready to carry ANYONE." Our 2 smallest guys (about 150 - 160lbs, and lean, wiry dudes) were able to carry our BU and SW with no issues. I was paired with our IS. She couldn't carry me in the fireman's carry or perform the belt drag with me, but I could carry her or drag her, no problem.

Ms. Crossfit. . .had a rough time carrying one of the smaller guys. She was a hell of a worker, a hell of a PT fanatic, but she didn't have the strength to carry one of the guys as far or as fast as a guy carrying a guy. Granted, adrenaline does wonders, but still.

To be so bold as to decry a force for not wanting to risk lives by creating integrated units that can't do what an all-male unit can do is a fallacy. When will all-female sports teams open up to guys? Even in school, boys are sometimes allowed to be on girls' teams, until they get stronger and faster than the females they compete against. THEN, it's "unfair". Well, it's unfair to risk the lives of men AND women by trying to be politically correct.

Men and women are built completely different. Even going through my "A" school, the Construction Electricians (CE's) went to the same place we did for school. Almost EVERY SINGLE female had issues climbing the utility poles, and it was explained that women's hips are wider than men's and that changed the angle at which their legs had to be at to engage the gaffs to climb. And THAT came from an Air Force FEMALE instructor. How true is it? I don't know. I just know what I'd heard a Sister that was notorious for falling tell the Senior Enlisted Advisor as to why she fell more times than any of the guys. Guys fell, too, but not as much as our Sisters.

Response by SPC John Decker made Sep 13 at 2015 5:40 PM

SPC John Decker — Sun, 13 Sep 2015 17:40:56 -0400

If you're going to allow women in combat units, you can't pick only the ones with an acceptable body style. The idea that, at least some of the men believed it was a bad idea going in might cause the experiment to fail is a valid one. The voluntary nature of the study might be looked at differently. Unless I'm very wrong, the primary duty of a marine is combat. Correct? Perhaps they should do the study with randomly selected marines of both genders. Just a thought.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Sep 13 at 2015 7:17 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Sun, 13 Sep 2015 19:17:54 -0400

Of course they are, they are circling the wagons as highers mandate changes.

Response by TSgt Marco McDowell made Sep 14 at 2015 12:22 AM

TSgt Marco McDowell — Mon, 14 Sep 2015 00:22:24 -0400

I'm out so he can't touch me hahaha. So what about the fat body men who work their way into shape? no one is pre-selected for combat arms, they choose or go open then they train. if they can't hack it, they're gone, if they have moto to push through, they succeed. You can't pick and choose which females get a shot at it. They need to go through the process on their own merit. Fact: the Marine Corps applied the dreams and wishes of those who want women into combat MOSs and they got data from the effort. I'm pretty sure the Corps wants females to succeed, that's more grunts to put into the mix, but they won't risk the effectiveness of the GCE if it is a failure suck it up SECNAV.

Response by LCpl Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 14 at 2015 12:25 PM

LCpl Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 14 Sep 2015 12:25:55 -0400

SecNav made up his mind long before the study came out. Looking over it I'm not sure how it could be made more fair. All the boot females went to SOI's ITB from what I understand, and the experienced infantry Marines were diluted with POGs and boot grunts. So it's not like they copy pasted a company from 3/5 and said "Okay kids, play fair now." That said, if SecNav wants tougher girls so it's more fair, the first thing he needs to do is issue an order reinstating Lt Col Germano to 4 RTR time yesterday. Issue a requirement to the Commandant to increase PFT standards for our female Marines, and, in a long overdue move, issue a requirement to lengthen and increase the difficulty of MCT. If we're going to say we're all riflemen first, perhaps it's time to ensure that happens, and then ensure that regular refreshers are handled at the unit level.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 14 at 2015 5:43 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 14 Sep 2015 17:43:39 -0400

Interesting. IMHO, there are two ways to look at the entire situation. First of all, historically, the Marine study sounds a lot like several "studies based on fact" that were presented in various forms and forums that declared that "Negroes are mentally incapable of being led and cannot fight." or words to that effect several decades in the past. In fact, there are STILL individuals and groups - and some of them are perhaps within our ranks now - that cling to that belief to this day, in spite of multiple proofs to the contrary.

With all that said, I have not read the entire report. What I do know is that any report or any study can be set to obtain either one result or the other based on how the study was created and the parameters established. Numbers don't lie. However, the interpretation of the numbers can and frequently do.

Now, perhaps this should actually be the question regarding the study: If it is proven that a mixed unit of male/female troops cannot fight as well as an all-male troop - what do we do? Do we decide that it's simply impossible and say "fuck it!"? Or do we find the tactics that can make a mixed male/female troop as combat effective as an all-male troop?

Not for one moment do I suggest we lower our standards for what is considered a combat effective unit. Our methodology must evolve. Our enemies do not recognize borders or the difference between civilians, combatants or non-combatants. In fact, if you do the background work, you will find that there are multiple declarations that killing innocent women and children is acceptable and expected. We need to modify our way of thinking and fighting to defeat our enemies.

Adapt, Adjust. Overcome.

Response by LT Charles (Chuck) McCoy made Sep 15 at 2015 9:03 AM

LT Charles (Chuck) McCoy — Tue, 15 Sep 2015 09:03:23 -0400

I think it was inappropriate to make such a comment without a thorough discussion with the Marine Corps Commander beforehand.

Response by LtCol Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 15 at 2015 4:30 PM

LtCol Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 15 Sep 2015 16:30:46 -0400

Of course he did. Mabus wanted to hear that all women are as strong and as fast and as tough as those women who completed Ranger training recently. Basic physiology tells us something different.

Response by PO2 Nick Burke made Sep 17 at 2015 9:52 PM

PO2 Nick Burke — Thu, 17 Sep 2015 21:52:19 -0400

This is on par with this Administration's dealings with the Military.
They are more concerned with their legacy.
Another instance of form overriding function.

Response by Sgt Tom Cunnally made Sep 21 at 2015 1:44 AM

Sgt Tom Cunnally — Mon, 21 Sep 2015 01:44:24 -0400

"Under an order signed in 2012 by former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, all of the services are required to lift the "co-location" restriction on women in combat roles by the end of this year, unless they ask for an exemption by Oct. 1. Both Army General Martin Dempsey -- chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff -- and Navy Secretary Ray Mabus have urged the services to accept the change, on the grounds that a more diverse force is a stronger force"

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 21 at 2015 1:45 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 21 Sep 2015 01:45:13 -0400

Hard to say if women will be allowed in "all" units, and I doubt the answer is yes anytime real soon. But, the Corps already did their study, so they have some ammunition to try to fight the requirements that will inevitably be coming down from DoD.

I'm sure there will be an integration timetable for most units, but I don't know that "all" will be integrated right away. Eventually, though, most likely.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 21 at 2015 10:31 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 21 Sep 2015 22:31:56 -0400

The Marines should be commended. They have not surrendered common sense regarding the gender integration. They have requested verification and data Which they have gotten. Apparently the facts regarding stronger men that we than weaker men ... Make that stronger people regardless of sex is socially inconvenient and not politically expedient. Those inconvenient truths are none the less true. We have to decide if we will be intellectually honest and decide to truly be impartial in the face of common knowledge and now statistical data about gender diversification or decide that the lethality and combat readiness is secondary to the mission of the military to be lethal and strong as possible. If we surrender to that we need to brace for impact and decide upon out next area of surrender, I'm for skinny guy like me to be immediately allowed into delta regardless of whether I can meet the criteria ... Also brace for blind piolets, mentally challenged professors and doctors, etc. Politically correctness should not be allowed to supplant common sense.

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 25 at 2015 10:30 AM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 25 Sep 2015 10:30:09 -0400

Well, SECNAV has his own agenda and has to stick to political correctness I guess.... although I am disappointed at his stance (or lack thereof).

Response by Sgt Jamie Grippin made Apr 14 at 2016 9:36 AM

Sgt Jamie Grippin — Thu, 14 Apr 2016 09:36:21 -0400

I think the Secretary needs to face the facts. Men and women are not the same.

Response by SFC Charles Temm made Apr 17 at 2016 11:10 AM

SFC Charles Temm — Sun, 17 Apr 2016 11:10:37 -0400

He has an agenda like everyone else in the Administration has, reality be damned. The services represent training aids for social planning.