"Navy secretary threw us ‘under the bus,’ say Marines in gender-integrated infantry unit"

RallyPoint Shared Content — Fri, 18 Sep 2015 09:44:13 -0400

From: The Washington Post

Marines involved in a controversial experiment evaluating a gender-integrated infantry unit say they feel betrayed by Navy Secretary Ray Mabus after he criticized the results of a nine-month study that found women are injured more frequently and shoot less accurately in simulated combat conditions.

“Our secretary of the Navy completely rolled the Marine Corps and the entire staff that was involved in putting this [experiment] in place under the bus,” said Sgt. Danielle Beck, a female anti-armor gunner with the task force.

Mabus questioned the findings of the research after a four-page summary of the results was released Thursday, saying he still thinks all jobs in the Marine Corps should be opened to women. He said results that found women were more than twice as likely to be injured and ultimately compromise a unit’s combat effectiveness were an “extrapolation based on injury rates, and I’m not sure that’s right,” he told NPR.

Sgt. Joe Frommling, one of the Marines who acted as one of Beck’s monitors for the experiment, said he was frustrated with the secretary’s comments.

“What Mabus said went completely against what the command was saying the whole time,” said Frommling. “They said, ‘Hey, no matter what your opinion is, go out there and give it your best and let the chips fall where they may.’”

“All the work that the task force did, the rounds that we shot, didn’t mean anything if he had already made up his mind,” he added.

Capt. Patrick McNally, a spokesman for the secretary, said Mabus had no further comment beyond his earlier remarks and “remains committed to opening combat fields to women.”

Last week, the Marine Corps released the results of the nine-month experiment, known as the Ground Combat Element Integrated Task Force, which examined and tested the effectiveness of a gender-integrated infantry unit. The results, in short, determined that women were injured at a higher rate and did not do nearly as well as their male counterparts in the majority of the tested areas.

“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 in the Friday interview with NPR. “When you start out with that mind-set, you’re almost presupposing the outcome.”

The task force was stood up in October 2014 and consisted of roughly 300 men and 100 women broken down into a number of smaller units. Each job that is currently closed to women, known as combat arms, was represented. Artillery, tanks, amphibious and armored vehicles all had a component. The task force then conducted training exercises like any other. Its mission was to hold a number of trials that would evaluate the performance of a female-integrated ground task force.

“If you were to look at our training plan and how we progressed from October to February, you’re not going to find any evidence of institutional bias or some way we built this for females to fail,” said one Marine officer who participated in the experiment.

The officer, who asked to remain anonymous because of his active-duty status, explained that for the first five months of the experiment the Marines of the task force trained as a unit in North Carolina to prepare for the testing phase in California. This phase of training is known as “the work-up,” with the second phase in California — where the trials would be held — acting as the deployment.

“We consulted physical trainers from [the school of infantry] to help develop an appropriate hike plan, and we fired roughly a year’s worth of ammo for a regiment in a quarter,” the officer said, referring to the massive amounts of ammunition used to train the relatively small task force at Camp Lejeune. “In the time that we had, there wasn’t a day wasted when it came to training for California . . . From the top down, we were trying to level the playing field.”

The main components of the task force were Alpha and Weapons companies. Alpha would be a female-integrated rifle company, or “line” company, while the Weapons company would consist of three female-integrated sections: mortars, machine guns and an anti-armor section.

A weapons company in an infantry battalion, arguably, has the most rigorous set of requirement in combat. Each section in the company is dedicated to hauling a weapons system that regular rifle companies don’t have to carry—from 90-pound 81mm mortars to 85-pound .50-caliber machine guns.

Beck, a Weapons Company Marine in the Task Force, was one of 17 women and 21 men who were left in the company at the experiment’s conclusion in August. According to Marines involved in the experiment, numbers fluctuated frequently as those who volunteered to participate could drop at any time. A large number of men in the company dropped because they were promised an assignment to any unit in the Marine Corps for participating in the experiment. This caused the company to shrink considerably from its initial strength of around 90 volunteers in October.

“Every day we were training,” said Beck. “We didn’t know what we were going to expect when we got to Twentynine Palms, but the training that we did do got us physically ready and mentally in the mind-set for what we’re going to do.”

Though the entirety of Weapons Company, men and women, trained to the same standard before deploying to California for the evaluation period of the test, another criticism leveled by Mabus was that the women probably should have had a “higher bar to cross” to join the task force.

To Beck, a 30 year-old who was one of the strongest women in the company, Mabus’s remarks were insulting.

“Everyone that was involved did the job and completed the mission to the best of their abilities,” said Beck, adding that Mabus’s remarks about the type of women in the experiment were a “slap in the face.”

“The caliber of the women in Weapons Company are few and far between in the Marine Corps,” she added. “They are probably some of the most professional women that anybody will ever have chance to work with, and the heart and drive and determination that they had is incomparable to most women in the Marine Corps.”

Of the men and women who were in Weapons Company and participated in the majority of the experiment’s trials, the women performed better than the men on the Marine Corps-wide physical-fitness test. The average score for the men in Weapons Company was 244 out of 300 while the women’s average was 283, according to documents obtained by The Washington Post. For an average all-male infantry unit, physical-fitness scores are usually in the 260s.

In Weapons Company, all of the women who were evaluated against their male infantry counterparts had passed the same School of Infantry the men had attended.

In 2013, the Marine Corps opened its enlisted infantry school to female volunteers. From September 2013 to June 2015, 144 of the 401 females volunteers had passed the once male-only school.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/09/14/navy-secretary-threw-us-under-the-bus-say-marines-in-gender-integrated-infantry-unit/

Navy secretary threw us ‘under the bus,’ say Marines in gender-integrated infantry unit

One female Marine said his comments were like a slap in the face.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 18 at 2015 9:47 AM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 18 Sep 2015 09:47:10 -0400

In a way, I feel they were. Pitted against a unit of men that already had combat operational experience. They lost before the competition even began.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 18 at 2015 10:23 AM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 18 Sep 2015 10:23:38 -0400

I get the frustration because the Marine Corps was already doing this study and spent a lot of time on it. I also understand what he's saying though. There are a few things about the study in which controls weren't in place to make it unbiased. Does that mean there aren't concerns? Of course not, but we also shouldn't get too upset by the fact that it's still pushing forward.

Lastly, do you really think it was Secretary Mabus' idea?

Response by PO1 Glenn Boucher made Sep 18 at 2015 12:45 PM

PO1 Glenn Boucher — Fri, 18 Sep 2015 12:45:55 -0400

I think the SecNav is showing his true colors of being a politician and only being concerned about positive results, not actual results.
I have nothing but respect for anyone who does their best to achieve their goals. Be it an infantry grunt, welder, tank driver, or anything at all. If you give your best and still fall short, then you did something that all of these clowns who sit at a desk and complain have never done.
There is no shame in trying, the only shame is being given the opportunity and not taking it.

Response by Sgt David Hesser made Sep 18 at 2015 8:48 PM

Sgt David Hesser — Fri, 18 Sep 2015 20:48:11 -0400

I watched the whole interview and there was a couple of down right snide remarks toward the Marines, then he admitted he was not a model sailor, but I agree this is from the president.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Sep 19 at 2015 3:19 PM

Capt Richard I P. — Sat, 19 Sep 2015 15:19:27 -0400

The Corps did this the way we do everything. We were professional, disciplined, well-planned and combat-focused. When the study is actually released (not just the commentary on it) there will be much more to talk about. The only criticisms of this experiment I'm interested in hearing are from those involved in arranging and performing it and statisticians/academicians who can demonstrate flaws in the experimental model.

Response by LT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 13 at 2015 5:56 PM

LT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 13 Oct 2015 17:56:08 -0400

From the amount of ammo they shot and the workup they got, plus the physical scores of their female Marines, the secretary is insulting all Marines and the Corps' training by implying that combat veterans had a massive categorical advantage. The Corps as an organization has lots of combat experience, but most Marines are on their first tour, so many won't, and we still treat them as qualified.

Response by PO2 Nick Burke made Apr 19 at 2016 10:05 PM

PO2 Nick Burke — Tue, 19 Apr 2016 22:05:10 -0400

He is just doing as ordered.It's another legacy try by the Administration.
They didn't get the results they wanted.

Response by CWO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 13 at 2016 2:04 AM

CWO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 13 Dec 2016 02:04:07 -0500

Look, to you present Marines and for the future of our Marine Corps, if you had never been there and done things that is very chilling, then you wouldn't know would you. The Marine Corps train its Marines the warrior way. Did everyone just forgot about what the saying is " Close with and Destroy Your Enemies". This is no video game or movie to watch and then you realize that every round you shoot down range will be coming back at you twice as much. Our Country, it's people, it's politicans don't fight the hand to hand combat as we do. They live in a fantasy world of their own. It's bad enough when we lose our Marines in peacetime let alone in war. I have served over 21 years in our Corps. Been in combat,and combat exercises, but nothing to the fact of our brothers in Harms's Way during WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, Afaganistan, and Iraq. The last three was brought upon us because of our political National Interest or whatever. A normal educated male may not be able to handle the mental and physical impact of War. It's not a game, you die, people you know dies. I had my share of those losses and it can't be helped sometimes. So if anyone of you Marines who think that they can handle their share of killings humans, then grow some fortitude and be a Marine 03.
Just my two cents worth.
Semper Fidelis,
Gunner Kaupe

Response by PO2 Chris Hearne made Dec 20 at 2016 12:54 PM

PO2 Chris Hearne — Tue, 20 Dec 2016 12:54:29 -0500

I do not believe that this is the proper way to go about this. Women were not allowed onto the front lines for the fear of getting captured, and the treatment they would endure. Atleast that was the explanation I was given.

I am not saying that they can't, or shouldn't, but they should focus on their strengths and go from there.

Response by PO2 Whitney Mulberry-Chaplin made Jan 11 at 2019 7:28 PM

PO2 Whitney Mulberry-Chaplin — Fri, 11 Jan 2019 19:28:52 -0500

I have an idea. How about make actual Women's gear instead of trying to fit ANY of US into men's gear...we will NEVER be built the same so stop cramming our feet and other areas into a design made for men to use!

Response by Cpl Bernard Bates made Sep 10 at 2019 12:02 AM

Cpl Bernard Bates — Tue, 10 Sep 2019 00:02:26 -0400

I think Political pressure caused the Secretary of the Navy to say what he did. I hope the Marine Corp. never lowers it physical standards just for political reasons .Instead of the Corp. being the tip of the spear in combat they will be a dull knife instead. Semper fi.