Blog #31 Women in Combat Arms? No.

I have stated time and again in writing over decades that women do not belong in the combat arms. I was an infantry platoon leader in Vietnam. It was a physical and mental challenge that some men could not handle. America does not need women to jump into foxholes and live a life on the battlefield where ugly fighting means death to the weakest or unluckiest. Yes, they could act as guards, as is done in Israel, but there is a shortage of warfighters in Israel. We are not in such a dire need. Now, a word from another combat expert - a Marine. His comments about the fragility of females in combat arms are real. A female Marine Captain, who was an Olympic athlete, gave a personal accounting of her difficult time in a combat infantry role. She suffered from serious muscle and back problems, was unable to have normal menstruation, lost her balance and became dizzy after long patrols carrying heavy packs, and had effects on her vision to the point she had to accept a medical discharge.

From another Marine Grayson Story in a Facebook essay:

“Today, I was labeled a misogynist by a self-proclained feminist for my opinion on the recent reinforcement of standards in the Armed Forces by the Secretary of War/Defense.  This particular woman has no direct military connection.  This is my response:

There will be some (many?) men who do not/will not meet the standard of military combat arms, and they will have to either seek another profession or go into a military occupational field where there are lower physical standards.

If that hurts feelings, I really don’t care.   Combat arms in the Service is serious, deadly business, not some social experiment for American feminists or daughters to dabble in to prove some point.

That’s not misogynistic.  It’s science.  

The Department of Defense went full-tilt into a force integration strategy in 2011 after “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was repealed.  I was part of the Marine Corps planning team (of about 50), who reviewed the data, confirmed the physical standards for Marines, reviewed the potential recruiting impacts, and conducted force and social impact studies as well as a cost-benefit analysis.

Our civilian leadership, led by Obama, as Commander-in-Chief, and the late-Ash Carter, as Secretary of Defense, ignored the recommendations of our Marine Commandant, the venerable General Joe Dunford (later Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff), which were based in actual experimentation results of an integrated (male/female) ground combat element (combat arms) task force.

The longitudinal experiment results told us that the higher male standard was a baseline and still needed refinement; that women are injured (and more seriously, many permanently) at twice the rate of men; that men lose social cohesion (male bonding) when women are introduced into the equation at the small unit level; that women do not perform brute, physical tasks as well as men; that women self-select out of physical events at much higher rates than men; that the career viability of women beyond first tour in combat arms approaches zero for advancement & promotion.

Being an Infantryman was hard, tough, sacrificial work.  Women do not belong in combat arms any more than women belong on a tackle football team or a mens locker room, or any more than men belong in women’s sports or a womens locker room.  It’s common sense to acknowlege that military combat arms isn’t a sport, it’s mission is to “to locate, close with, and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver, or to repel their assault by fire and close combat.“

Is it misogynistic to not want my nieces or your daughters in combat arms, purposefully exposed to direct ground combat, or required to register for Selective Service?  No, it’s not.”