Op-Ed: Women in Combat Roles - The Social Experiment That’s Destined to Fail

I'm going to get long winded here, so I apologize.

For a moment, let's ignore GENDER. Just ignore. Forget about it. We're going to use Cats & Dogs.

Your average Cat weighs about 10-18 pounds. Your average (Medium Sized like Lab or Shepherd) Dog weighs about 65-95.

Your average Cat has almost no Body Fat, and is strictly carnivorous, and an Alpha level predator. If you want to catch a Mouse, Bird, Bat, Rabbit, or Snake, they can do it. They can get into a fight with almost anything and walk away. However they sleep 20 hours a day, and are most active at dawn & dusk.

Your average dog is Omnivorous, is a Pack hunter (Alpha level). If you want to take down and chase anything, they can do it. They need help killing though. They don't need the same level of sleep. Physically they are stronger, but in different ways.

We would never try to compare a Cat & a Dog. Because you can't. They are fundamentally different creatures on almost every level (physically). Neither one is "better" as a Predator, but they occupy Niches in the food chain.

That said, every MOS, is a Niche in the Food Chain. Every Service Member is a Predator of some type. Trying to compare the contributions, skills, etc doesn't work. However... and I pause for effect, we can try to marry up the correct skills to the right niche.

If (Foot) Infantry is a specific place in the food chain, then we want a medium sized pack animal. The rigors (damage) of Infantry are not aligned for smaller animals.

That brings us to "classes of people." We like to divide people to make "accounting" easy. In "general" this works because we have two very distinct classes, which have near identical physiological makeup. One is slightly larger (as a class), and one is slightly smaller (as a class). This does not mean there is not overlap. Additionally, because of these physiological differences, there are difference "mechanical differences" which grant more "physical prowess" which directly correlates into how we define "Ground Combat Prowess" (aka Infantry Skill Set).

This does not mean that INDIVIDUALS cannot succeed or even excel, however we have to look at Macro, not Micro when making plans. Additionally, because this specialty is "damage causing" (as in to the troop), we must weigh their welfare against the opportunity. When you have a larger troop, they are "less prone" to sustained injury than a smaller troop because of the requirements. This is not gender biased, but size biased. This leads back to the "class of people" issue, where the majority of one class falls under the size cut-off, but the majority of the other is above it, creating the perception of discrimination based on gender, when it is in actuality a safety concern which is BADLY EXPLAINED, and needs to be redefined in policy.

What of those who are above the line when it comes to size? That alleviates the safety issue (somewhat), and then allows us to address the Requirements issue. Every specialty has requirements, regardless of whether it is Administrative, Logistic, or Operative in nature. If the applicant cannot meet the requirements, then they are shifted to a field where they do. However, keep in mind THERE ARE NO REQUIREMENTS FOR COMBAT. We have requirements for training to give our folks the best chances of surviving Combat. Combat happens, and we hope we trained our folks adequately. We therefore use risk assessment tools to base these requirements on.

But every time we call this a "Social Experiment" or "Gender Integration" we are doing ourselves a disservice. We're not an Experiment. And we've been Integrated since WWII. There are individuals who keep forgetting that, and who are looking at this equation in the wrong way, but none of this is about Gender. Gender is irrelevant to the discussion, and an eraser needs to be thrown at someone every time it is brought up.

We're looking a Capability, and Safety. "Mission Accomplishment, and Troop Welfare" and we're using statistical models to support that.

Based on the physiological differences between two classes of people, there is a higher loss of combat efficiency for one class than the other. Additionally, under the same training conditions, that same class experiences dramatically more injuries.

This does not say any specific individual is not capable, nor will they be hurt, however they are in a higher risk pool, and that must be accounted for. However, the order has been given, and until it is rescinded, we march on.

I was attending my Wife God Daughter Dabute. And I tried to start a rumore with he female court. I asked them if they knew that Hilary was going to reinstate the draft. But now women would would have to register.

Most of us "non-infantrymen" MOS new (or in my case "Newer"-I completed TBS after being promoted to 1st Lt, with two short summer active duty periods in the FMF) Marine Officers hated The Basic School and all the time we spent in the woods, being uncomfortable, tired, cold, dirty, and at times, hungry doing infantry shit, but looking back at it 25 years later, the training we received and the hardships we endured were priceless! Most who advocate for women in the infantry have literally not a clue about what goes into your MOS 11 Bang Bang. And I only experienced an intense non-combat environment. Being under a real artillery shelling or mortar attack, and then being expected to pick yourself up, and go on the attack after something like that, well that is something totally different. Or keeping your shit together for another six months of your combat deployment after you have just lost a leader or a popular member of your squad, platoon or company due to an IED or sniper attack or some other type of enemy action (or even an accident in country). You can't just say this sucks, I quit, as an Infantryman.

I can't believe how stupid the current SecDef is for ignoring the recommendations of the Marine Corps, and Army when it comes to the Infantry. There is NO FUCKING privacy in the infantry. NONE. People see you at your best and at your worst, shitting, showering, snoring, at your most nakedness and vulnerable in more than the literal meaning of that term. Putting women in that dynamic and those conditions without a long term study (I say three years minimum) on a specific Battalion-sized unit to see the effect on morale, unit cohesion, and combat effectiveness of that battalion is INSANITY!