U.S. Commandos Say No To Women In Special Operations Jobs. Whats Your Opinion?

SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL — Thu, 10 Dec 2015 20:39:46 -0500

In a recent Armytimes Article.

WASHINGTON — The men in the U.S. military's most dangerous jobs care little about political correctness or gender equality. And they have a message for their political leadership.

When they are fighting in the shadows or bleeding on the battlefield, women have no place on their teams.

In blunt and, at times, profanity-laced answers to a voluntary survey conducted by the Rand Corp., more than 7,600 of America's special operations forces spoke with nearly one voice. Allowing women to serve in Navy SEAL, Army Delta or other commando units could hurt their effectiveness and lower the standards, and it may drive men away from the dangerous posts.

An overwhelming majority of those who agreed to respond to the RAND survey said they believe women don't have the physical strength or mental toughness to do the grueling jobs.

Some of the broader conclusions of the survey, taken from May through July 2014, were disclosed by The Associated Press earlier this year, but the detailed results and comments written by respondents had not been released.

The Pentagon released the summer survey and other documents when Defense Secretary Ash Carter announced last week that he was opening all combat jobs to women. That decision was based on recommendations by the military service secretaries and the leaders of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Special Operations Command. Only the Marine Corps asked to exempt women from certain infantry and frontline positions, but Carter denied that request.

Half the men who got the 46-question survey responded to it, and Rand did not identify any of them. In some cases people who feel most strongly about an issue are more inclined to answer surveys.

Some 85 percent of the respondents said they oppose opening the special operations jobs to women, and 70 percent oppose having women in their individual units. More than 80 percent said women aren't strong enough and can't handle the demands of the job. And 64 percent said they aren't mentally tough enough.
"I weigh 225 pounds, and 280 pounds in full kit, as did most of the members of my ODA (a 12-man Army Green Beret unit)," one respondent said. "I expect every person on my team to be able to drag any member of my team out of a firefight. A 130 pound female could not do it, I don't care how much time she spends in the gym. Do we expect wounded men to bleed out because a female soldier could not drag him to cover?"

Another said politicians don't win the covert wars.

"Gender equality is not an option when the bullets are flying," he said. "Most males in the area of the world I work in would rather back hand a female than listen to her speak. There is a reason we send men to do these jobs."

Some saw it as inevitable.

"This integration will happen eventually and we might as well embrace it while we have current solid leadership and incoming solid leadership at the top to facilitate the transition," one said.

The deep challenges the survey revealed with integrating women into tight-knit commando teams are not lost on the Pentagon. Gen. Joseph Votel, head of U.S. Special Operations Command, posted a memo and video online last week after Carter's announcement, explaining the decision and vowing that the qualifying standards for special operations jobs will remain the same.

He noted that women have already moved into some special operations jobs, including as helicopter pilots and crew, members of cultural support teams in Afghanistan and in civil affairs and information operations.

And he added, "If candidates meet time-tested and scientifically validated standards, and if they have proven that they have the physical, intellectual, professional, and character attributes that are so critical to special operations - they will be welcomed into the special operations forces ranks."
The bulk of those who responded to the survey were young, white married men. They worry that having women in their small teams could fuel jealousy at home or create problems with sexual harassment or illicit affairs. And they rely on and trust their teams and units as family.

Ninety-eight percent agreed that their unit is united in trying to accomplish its missions. But when asked whether men and women in a unit would be united to accomplish a mission only 48 percent said yes. Nearly 33 percent said no, and almost 20 percent were undecided.

And nearly 60 percent said they expected that women assigned to their unit would be "treated unfairly" at least some of the time.

Some, however, said they might be willing for women to serve in some, more peripheral special operations jobs. Several suggested that women could be used as attachments or additions to some units, just not as actual members, such as the cultural support jobs they fill now.

http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/2015/12/10/us-commandos-say-no-women-special-operations-jobs/77112648/

U.S. commandos say no to women in special operations jobs

The men in the U.S. military's most dangerous jobs care little about political correctness or gender equality. And they have a message for their political leadership.

Response by MSgt Curtis Ellis made Dec 10 at 2015 8:43 PM

MSgt Curtis Ellis — Thu, 10 Dec 2015 20:43:02 -0500

SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL Gonna be watching this one closely...

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 10 at 2015 8:43 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 10 Dec 2015 20:43:22 -0500

SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL Hmm seems like there is a contradiction

http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/careers/army/2015/03/04/women-in-special-operations/24366457/

4,100 jobs opening to women in special operations units

Additional assignment options now available for women in special ops units

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Dec 10 at 2015 8:45 PM

LTC Stephen F. — Thu, 10 Dec 2015 20:45:48 -0500

I concur with their assessment SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL.
if 7,600 of America's special operations forces personnel voiced serious opposition to allowing women to serve in Navy SEAL, Army Delta or other commando units, then I would add my voice to theirs.
I was part of the first Military Academy class which had women included. It was a top down decision which had a year or more to prepare the barracks, uniforms, PT, health, regulations, etc. Many things were not considered which should have been before the women arrived. Less than half of the first class of women graduated [compared to 66% or so of the men]. It was very hard on the women who went through initially.
Political decisions such as this tend to impact those vulnerable long before the system feels a bump.

Response by CSM Charles Hayden made Dec 10 at 2015 8:50 PM

CSM Charles Hayden — Thu, 10 Dec 2015 20:50:28 -0500

SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL Females as force multipliers-yes, they have excellent records for engaging and defusing situations.

Not as 'Operators' however, "Operators" do not defuse situations! They terminate the crisis, what/whomever that might be!

Response by SGM Mikel Dawson made Dec 10 at 2015 9:07 PM

SGM Mikel Dawson — Thu, 10 Dec 2015 21:07:38 -0500

SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL I'm not Spec Ops, nor have I ever been in that position. How dare I state whom should be in that position? I think the "Operators" have a better clue of who should be there and who shouldn't. It's like women in combat: Yes women have been in combat situations, but there is a big difference between being in a position where your job is to seek out the enemy and terminate them at close quarters and what women have already done.

Those who state being Politically correct doesn't belong here, is on the money.

Response by SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL made Dec 10 at 2015 10:22 PM

SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL — Thu, 10 Dec 2015 22:22:03 -0500

SSG(P) Christopher Erickson Roger that I got a thread going on that also.

Response by CSM Michael J. Uhlig made Dec 10 at 2015 11:30 PM

CSM Michael J. Uhlig — Thu, 10 Dec 2015 23:30:15 -0500

Our military is a standards based organization, it is more important than ever to enforce standards! I don't care what color your hair is and I can give a shit if you paint your toenails, standards are standards and we cannot allow our willingness to appease the politically correct desires of career politicians (IN and out of uniform) to put our people at risk! At this point of denying the playing field, we are pissing up a rope, just enforce standards and the best qualified will be the ones that make the cut.

Response by CPT Aaron Kletzing made Dec 11 at 2015 12:14 AM

CPT Aaron Kletzing — Fri, 11 Dec 2015 00:14:07 -0500

Her boot lace fell out...I'm just saying. Or was that not the point? ;-)

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 11 at 2015 12:27 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 11 Dec 2015 00:27:22 -0500

I agree. No to females in combat MOS

Response by MAJ Jim Woods made Dec 11 at 2015 12:37 AM

MAJ Jim Woods — Fri, 11 Dec 2015 00:37:50 -0500

"Embrace The Suck" until someone with "BIG" marbles can reason with the General Staff. BTW women have been serving with special units for years. Leave it alone. It will fix itself.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Dec 11 at 2015 1:08 AM

Capt Seid Waddell — Fri, 11 Dec 2015 01:08:43 -0500

SSG(P) Christopher Erickson, your BLUF is on target.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 11 at 2015 1:22 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 11 Dec 2015 01:22:06 -0500

The issue isn't about gender, it's Who's the Right Person for the Job. If you have a male who cannot meet the standards then he's not the right man for the job, the same for a woman. Is physical strength the only requirement? Is there any case in which you would want brainpower the best strategist, the best SME, on your team irrelevant of their gender? The standards should not be changed in any way that would jeopardized the lives of Soldiers whether they are men or women.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 11 at 2015 1:30 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 11 Dec 2015 01:30:48 -0500

Those that support this asinine decision to allow women in special ops won't actually be on missions with these guys. I guess it will take lost lives to prove a point. If you support this, would you volunteer up one of your children to prove this point?

Response by SGM David W. Carr LOM, DMSM MP SGT made Dec 11 at 2015 1:37 AM

SGM David W. Carr LOM, DMSM MP SGT — Fri, 11 Dec 2015 01:37:42 -0500

The will be growing pains

Response by SSG Warren Swan made Dec 11 at 2015 1:45 AM

SSG Warren Swan — Fri, 11 Dec 2015 01:45:55 -0500

I wonder how many are going to be looking for career enhancing civilian jobs when this gets shoved down their throats? They talk DC does not listen. We can think what we want to, agree or disagree, but it's a done deal.

Response by SrA Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 11 at 2015 5:07 AM

SrA Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 11 Dec 2015 05:07:16 -0500

I personally say no. I myself am not in a "fighting" position with my job(maintenance); however, I wouldn't want a female beside me fighting who can't (biologically speaking) can't pull me out of an ef'd building that's collapsing while returning fire. I don't know, that's just me though

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Dec 11 at 2015 5:43 AM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Fri, 11 Dec 2015 05:43:42 -0500

Here's the thing about surveys. For the most part, the only people who respond are the really angry opinionated ones who desperately want a pulpit. The more moderate individuals are too busy doing their jobs to think about surveys.

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 11 at 2015 8:12 AM

PO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 11 Dec 2015 08:12:37 -0500

does it matter? Soldier! this is an order! (done)

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 11 at 2015 9:41 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 11 Dec 2015 09:41:48 -0500

One does not need to be a part of SF to make a difference though that distinction is admirable.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Dec 11 at 2015 12:29 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Fri, 11 Dec 2015 12:29:47 -0500

I see no reason to allow women into SFs unless they can replicate everything men can do. Their is no point weakening teams for the sake of equal opportunity.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 11 at 2015 9:37 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 11 Dec 2015 21:37:23 -0500

I am curious to see how many women actually meet the standards, and are willing to make the sacrifices it takes to achieve the mission. Just because the door is open does not mean that the opportunity will be one that women choose to take.

Response by SP5 David Cox made Dec 17 at 2015 1:39 PM

SP5 David Cox — Thu, 17 Dec 2015 13:39:28 -0500

I say: set realistic standards and then give a chance to anyone who wants to try, male or female. Don't weaken the standards so you can get a more acceptable ratio of whatever the flavor of the week is, and don't make the standards unrealistic and unbalanced in order to favor any group - sex, age, whatever. Is it realistic to require that a candidate be able to hump a certain amount of weight a certain distance? Yes. Is it realistic to require a penis? No - at least until you can show that having one makes for better performance in a combat-related manner.

Response by SFC William Stephens A. Jr., 3 MSM, JSCM made Dec 13 at 2016 10:04 AM

SFC William Stephens A. Jr., 3 MSM, JSCM — Tue, 13 Dec 2016 10:04:45 -0500

How do you think the new Sec of Defense is going to support women roles in combat? Like I been saying there are places for them and places not for them, I can see them on a M1 Tank because the rounds are much lighter and they have a self-loading system and an a women officer could command a tank but I'm not sure if that will go in combat operations. we will see. Let's get to the King of Battle Artillery women are being used in Artillery but not in the hard roles, so my thing is the Paladin, does not have a self-loader and not to many women are walking around in a Artillery unit lifting 100 lbs. artillery rounds because have the guys can't even do it, so the command have to balance out the crews. Now give any women crew that can shoot a Time on Target and I will take back everything I said about women in combat but I don't see the M109A7 platform changing anytime soon. So women can talk all they want and the military can say all they want about women in combat roles but are they really in combat operation roles in Iraq, are they really actively engaged in combat operations? are woman rangers in a ranger BN with ranger men? Who drawling the fine line and who wiping who's ass when the bullets are flying because if that women is sexy looking I'm not going to have a lot of my guys drooling over her in combat operations because they haven't had any in a long time because that's not allowed in combat (sex) Guys are going to fight over that kind of thing. trust me, I saw in Kuwait and Iraq in non-combat type units or whatever they were called. units that are not deployed forward, we came back to relax from being in combat and soldiers have girlfriends in Kuwait, what kind of shit is that. Queen for year. So please who ever is making the choices you haven't lived with combat unit or trained with a combat unit for more then 30 days because they (women) won't last in tank or in Paladin or in foxhole.

Response by SGT Tom McWilliams made Nov 21 at 2019 12:07 PM

SGT Tom McWilliams — Thu, 21 Nov 2019 12:07:08 -0500

This is the first time since it happened can I have been glad that "slick Willy" and his gang forced me to retire.