Not that I am begging, but can I get a job explaining to the LameStream Press at a duly called and constituted press conference why exactly allowing women in combat arms branches is a bad idea?
I know I have talked about it before on this blog, and you can dig into the archive, but the leftards are back at it now with a lawsuit from the ACLU. The fact that the USMC just did this in their Infantry branch course and of the two that volunteered, one Female Marine didn't last the first day and the other didn't finish (along with 26 men who didn't make the cut either) should be an indication.
And why in the world do these chicks want to be in the combat arms so bad? Do they have a mud fetish? Do they long to spend sleepless hours standing watch in a fox hole while their buddies snort and fart in their sleep underneath a poncho liner inches away in their patrol base? They have to check off "spend 3 hours putting 95 pound 155mm shells into a cannon and firing them" off their bucket list? They can't live any longer until they have carried an 81mm mortar baseplate up the side of a mountain, along with part of the machine gunner's ammunition and their own equipment after getting 2 hours of sleep in the last 36 hours?
I can't believe I need to explain this, but since the SecDef and his PIO aren't in a position to comment on this, I will take it from here...
It would go a little something like this:
Ladies and gentlemen, I am here today to address some of the issues surrounding the current litigation taking place regarding the placement of women in combat arms units and allowing them to serve in combat arms billets. I will make a prepared statment and then I will take your questions afterward.
Let me start off by saying the experience of combat is unique to each individual soldier, and is based upon distance, time and location in the war zone; as well as what jobs they work in. The fighting may be close or far, but it doesn't change the fact that it is still combat. The experience of a helicopter pilot flying close air support missions or the artilleryman firing on distant targets will be different than the experience of the Infantryman on the ground receiving that support.
The Secretary and the service chiefs recognize that the nature of warfare has changed. The big set piece battles of maneuvering armies and massive invasions using combined arms are becoming a thing of the past. Soldiers are now fighting the "3 Block War" and the result of that is that many occupations, such as intelligence specialists and engineers now find themselves in positions and situations that involve actual ground combat. We have women serving in these roles in every service that in wars past were previously reserved for men. Today, we have women flying attack helicopters in close air support missions supporting troops fighting on the ground, flying fighter jets and gunships in support of firebases under attack, returning fire and shooting the enemy while escorting convoys, patrolling with male infantry soldiers in order to gather intelligence, provide medical support, conducting civil affairs missions, and leading engineer units in building infrastructure for local villages and at firebases far forward on the battlefield. These soldiers have done fine work and they are an integral part of our efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq to achieve victory.
However, those facts do not change the reality of the nature of how close combat, particularly infantry combat, has not changed in 2,000 years of warfare. Infantry Combat continues to involve, especially in the GWOT, closing the distance with your enemy and killing them.
Soldiers in the infantry, Special Operations, Armor and Cavalry still must, despite advances and developments in technology, close within range of their weapon systems and engage their enemies with fire, maneuver and shock effect. In order to dislodge their enemies from cities and villages, they sometimes close to within bad breath distance and are fighting hand to hand.
Infantry Soldiers still carry the same approximate weight load into battle that their comrades in the Roman Legions did. Artillerymen, who once used wagons and horses to move about the battlefield, are now using vehicles to move powder and ammunition on the battlefield, but that ammunition and powder is larger and heavier than in any other time in history; and it is still loaded, moved and fired using hands and muscles. Armor and Cavalry soldiers must move their ammunition by hand in order to load their tanks and vehicles and even the most basic maintenance on those vehicles is extremely labor intensive. Special Forces soldiers especially, who conduct missions far into enemy territory must take all of their equipment with them in rucksacks that at times are unbearably heavy. Infantry combat is hard, dirty, bloody, murderous, and physically demanding. It takes a terrible toll physically and mentally on men and they are never the same after taking part in it.
The part of this that I want everyone here to understand is not that the SecDef believes that women aren't capable, because they have proven their worth. This is not, as the ACLU believes, a question of the denial of full citizenship of female soldiers in the US Army, as the denial of the right to vote would be. Nor is this a zero sum game in which if male soldiers are being promoted because they have combat experience, that some female soldiers without that experience are not. Soldiers in the US Army do not compete against other soldiers across the entire Army for promotion. Soldiers in the US Army compete with other soldiers in the Military Occupational Specialties they have chosen for promotion, so for example; Male Infantry soldiers compete against other Male Infantry soldiers for promotion. Female helicopter mechanics do not compete against male infantry soldiers for promotions or assignments. Female soldiers are allowed to transition to other career fields that will undoubtedly place them in combat situations; Military Police soldiers escort convoys and protect generals. Human Intelligence specialists and Counter-Intelligence work alongside Special Forces and line combat units.
And so everyone here understands, not every man that can be assigned to combat arms, espcially the Infantry or Special Forces, is accepted into those branches. There are men who cannot make the grade physically of not only US Army Standards, but also for what is expected of them to maintain the standards of the combat units they could be assigned to.
This is something that the ACLU cannot get injunctive relief for, The Supreme Court cannot rule on, the US Army cannot regulate nor can the US Congress legislate; and that is the fact that men and women are created differently. Males weigh about 15 percent more on average than females and they are on average, taller as well. Males are physically stronger than females. The difference is due to females having less total muscle mass than males, and also having lower muscle mass in comparison to total body mass. Males are stronger than females when adjusting for differences in total body mass. While individual muscle fibers have similar strength, males have more fibers due to their greater total muscle mass. The greater muscle mass of males is in turn due to a greater capacity for muscular hypertrophy as a result of men's higher levels of testosterone. Males have denser, stronger bones, tendon and ligaments. Male and female pelvises are shaped differently. The female pelvis has a wider pelvic cavity which is necessary for giving birth. Male pelvises did not evolve to give birth and are more optimized for walking. Males typically have larger trachae and branching bronchi with about 56% greater lung volume per body mass. They also have larger hearts, 10% higher red blood cell count, and higher haemoglobin which allows for greater oxygen-carrying capacity. They also have higher circulating clotting factors (vitamin K, prothrombin and platelets). These differences lead to faster healing of wounds and higher peripheral pain tolerance.
This is a lot to absorb but these facts are not something, try as the ACLU might, that can be wished away because, as I stated previously, there are men that cannot meet the standards to be in the combat arms and these are men with dense bones, good lung capacity, and good red blood cell counts. The machine guns, mortar system base plates, ammunition, rucksacks and rifles are not going to suddenly become easier to pack, carry or maneuver because the ACLU demands that we allow women to serve in the combat arms branches when there are men who have been screened out because they cannot carry or use those same pieces of equipment to an established standard.
And this is about standards and what it takes to fight and win the nation's wars, In the heat of battle, when opposing forces are locked in the fight to the death, physical strength and size will allow soldiers to carry heavy loads of ammunition hour after hour, up mountains and through cities without injury. Thicker bones, and bigger muscles and the ability to carry heavy loads great distances will truly mean life or death. Stronger ligaments and tendons means less possibility of injuries before encoutnering enemy forces. Hand to hand fighting will require physical strength and muscle mass that will mean life or death not only for the individual soldier, but for the soldiers they are fighting alongside. The small unit battles will be won by strong men with muscles who are closing with their enemies and destroying them, mostly with rifles, but sometimes with knives, fists, feet, hands, clubs, rocks. Ask the Soldiers and Marines who fought insurgents in house to house fighting in the city of Fallujah how close, dirty and violent Infantry combat can be on the modern battlefield. Sit down with British Soldiers who fixed bayonets and fought house to house in Basra and ask them about the degree of physical difficulty and bloody violence their job involves.
In addition, US Army regulations require theater commanders to provide Female soldiers in combat theaters specific kinds of medical and life support. There are medical needs that the US Army is required to provide for and female soldiers have specific housing requirements that must be met. These kinds of support are impossible to provide at small firebases and combat outposts where small footprints and close living situations are the norm. These factors will affect combat readiness of the unit and will expose all soldiers to more danger.
The bottom line, bottom dollar, nature of the world is that like it or not, men who have bigger muscles, thicker bones, and nastier dispositions; who are trained and hardened in these small units are the people to get this nasty, dirty, and dangerous work of fighting and winning the nation's wars done. We as a society have to decide what the assignment of women to these jobs means and how it will affect readiness. The fields that involve direct ground combat as the main part of their mission are the tip of the spear of our military and the fact remains that women are denied entry to these career fields not only because the law does not allow it but because, as a group and by percentages, they do not possess the requisite physical skills to be successful on the battlefield as a combat arms soldier.
The number one mission of the US Military is to fight and win the nations wars and anything that takes away from that not only weakens our freedom, it affects our society. Allowing women to serve in the Combat Arms branches for which they are not physically qualified weakens our forces. Saying that we as a society measure full citizenship by allowing the equal opportunity to both men and women who volunteer for military service to plunge a bayonet into the torso of an enemy soldier while fighting to clear an assigned sector of the enemy during war is a poor measure of what it means to be a citizen. Our military is large enough that women seeking to advance need not have infantry combat experience to advance to higher rank or receive preferred assignments.
There, that ought to get me a job, in the Pentagon, in some alternate non-PC universe where we can just tell things like they are.