Does This Make our Military Better?

[dgs49]

The United States Military is – it would appear – about to open up its most elite fighting units to women. The USMC has already been terminally infected, so I speak of the U.S. Army Special Forces and the Navy SEAL’s.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-1 ... -jobs.html


In any large and mature organization, particularly one that is facing massive budgetary “challenges” over the coming years, it goes without saying that any major initiative must answer in the affirmative the question, “Does this make us better?” For the U.S. Military, that is true whether we are speaking about a new major weapon system, a major reorganization, a geographical move, or whatever. Does it make us better?

One might note initially that the phenomenon that is drawing the most public attention to the United States Military these days is what appears to be a minor but broad-based (no play on words intended) epidemic of sexual assaults. Who woulda thunk it? You inject tens of thousands of young women, typically with the dreaded “low self esteem,” into an organization fueled by testosterone…and you get aggressive sexual conduct by the males.

And we’re surprised and horrified.

You can’t make this stuff up.

Does introducing women into the SEAL’s and Army Special Forces make them better? Let’s see, you introduce new members who are smaller, weaker, less able to deal with heat, cold, and physical stress…O yeah, much better. For sure.

“Women seeking direct combat jobs will have to meet the same physical standards as men, defense officials told reporters in January in announcing the policy change. They also said those standards will be reviewed, leaving open the possibility of revised requirements for all applicants.”

Do they really think we are this stupid? Not one woman in a thousand could have successfully completed the Basic Training course I took at Fort Jackson, SC, in 1968. Special Forces or SEAL training? One in ten thousand.

And they aren’t going to water down the requirements? Gimme a fucking break.

I personally don’t believe it is necessary for a President to be a military veteran, although there is something to be said for it. But when you elect a pussy, who surrounds himself with other pussies, this is what you get.

Heaven help us.

[Big RR]

Let’s see, you introduce new members who are smaller, weaker, less able to deal with heat, cold, and physical stress…O yeah, much better. For sure.

Well, if that were true, you might have a point; but just saying it does not make it so. There are many big, strong women who can deal quite well with heat, cold, and physical stress. As for requirements, so long as they're linked to performance on the job they should, and I'll bet will, be upheld; if not, then they shouldn't be a prerequisite and should be dropped. Having a penis is only one of the latter.

[Rick]

All it seems to have done is increase the number of harassment allegations...

[dales]

Does This Make our Military Better?

In a word, NO.

[Grim Reaper]

Does it make us better?

The more important question is, does it make our military weaker? Whether it makes things "better" is irrelevant. If they can do the job, then they should be able to do the job.

Do they really think we are this stupid? Not one woman in a thousand could have successfully completed the Basic Training course I took at Fort Jackson, SC, in 1968. Special Forces or SEAL training? One in ten thousand.

Last time anybody checked, there were roughly 60 million females that could be considered for military duty. One in ten thousand still leaves six thousand potential candidates.

[rubato]

Few women, but not none of them, will be able to meet the challenges to be a SEAL, Ranger, &c. Now, most will fail because they are not able. Before, all were excluded from even being considered.

The difference matters. If you care about a just society the difference matters.


yrs,
rubato

[oldr_n_wsr]

I thought Demi Moore already broke this barrier.


Seriously, let them try. Do not water the requirements down and lets see what happens.

[rubato]

This makes our society better and our military will be no worse for it.

[Big RR]

And keep in mind the other criterion--that the requirements must be needed to perform the job. so while getting people with IQs over 160 or able to lift 500 lbs in a standing press might not be bad things, they are not required to be a ranger, seal, etc. So set forth the requirements as needed, and don't waive them for men or women.

[dgs49]

Again I ask: Will introducing a few Super Women into the ranks - women who at best would be the physical equal of the bottom 20% of the Force - make those units better in any way? And consider also the normal and natural forces in play when young adults of different genders are forced into close quarters for extended periods of time. Without any doubt whatsoever, their presence will cause problems that far outweigh any advantage (if one could be found) to having them there.

This is political adventurism for no good purpose.

[Grim Reaper]

Your question is irrelevant.

The only question that matters is will it make our military worse?

If it does not hinder our military capability, then they should be able to do the job if they can pass the training.

Without any doubt whatsoever, their presence will cause problems that far outweigh any advantage (if one could be found) to having them there.

More irrelevant nonsense. Soldiers who can't control themselves around other Soldiers have no business being on the battlefield in the first place.

[Scooter]

Notice how when Dave has no argument left, he pulls statistics right out of his skunky ass.

His question comes down to asking if having to pick from a broader pool of qualified applicants is better than having to pick from a smaller pool of qualified applicants. Only a moron could see the answer as ever being anything but yes.

[Lord Jim]

Seriously, let them try. Do not water the requirements down and lets see what happens.

I agree with oldr on that...

And, I agree with what The Stupidest Person In The History Of Three Boards has to say on this:

Few women, but not none of them, will be able to meet the challenges to be a SEAL, Ranger, &c. Now, most will fail because they are not able. Before, all were excluded from even being considered.

As painful as it is for me to agree with TSPITHOTBs, he has a valid point...

So long as (as oldr pointed out) the standards for acceptance are not reduced, (at my age, I certainly couldn't meet them) I see absolutely no reason why women (who are so inclined) should not have the right to compete, and earn a position on those teams.

[dales]

As painful as it is for me to agree with TSPITHOTBs, he has a valid point...

Who?

Are you posting in code again, Lord Jim?

[Lord Jim]

Are you posting in code again, Lord Jim?

I thought it was obvious...

ETA:

The Stupidest Person In The History Of Three Boards

Just didn't feel like typing it all out again...

[Econoline]

Pronounced "Tea-Spit Hot-Bees"?

[Lord Jim]

[liberty]

I myself have no objection with women volunteers in combat, but what I really care about is military effectiveness. The military does a lot of social good, but that is not its purpose. The purpose of the military in its simplest terms is to kill people and break things and in the end that is all that really matters. We shouldn’t forget that. One can say that having women in combat would have no negative effect the unit’s ability to achieve the mission. One can say it but that does not make it so. There is a big difference in theory and application. So lets test the theory by placing a unit of women I a small remote location on the border region of Afghanistan and see what happens. For some reason, I feel that the Taliban would be willing to cooperate.

And it may also turn out to a good tactical strategy as well. Some may object to using woman as bait, but in war logic rules. Has anyone here ever heard of the wild weasels in Vietnam?

[Scooter]

You weren't aware that women are already serving in combat roles in remote areas of Afghanistan? Just how dense is the concrete block that passes for your brain?

[dgs49]

Scooter you royal fucktard: the proposal was to post a UNIT OF WOMEN, not a few women scattered amongst the troops.

Huge difference.

Good suggestion by Liberty; it exposes the ridiculousness of the whole idea. If one woman is a good idea, then a unit of women would be a GREAT idea, right?