On the 74th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor, this blog has been updated.
The first shoe dropped, as the Secretary of Defense announced that all military occupational specialities (MOS) will be open to women. This decision runs contrary to the Marine Corps recommendation that "front line," most notably MarSoc, infantry and artillery, positions be restricted to qualified males (note: not all males qualify for these assignments). This recommendation came after an exhaustive, comprehensive, and realistic combat skills evaluation the Corps completed, which unequivocally demonstrated that gender integrated units performed worse on combat mission essential skills and tasks than did male only units. It must be highlighted that the evaluation was planned and conducted based upon significant combat lessons learned from our recent wars and therefore is not to be taken lightly. Another telling indicator of the seriousness was the absence of Marine Corps General Dunford, current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and immediate past Commandant of the Marine Corps.
We can easily predict what will accompany the inevitability of the second shoe dropping: lowering of standards. Specifically, progressive activists and others who have never served in the military will demand, and likely get, something along the line of "gender adapted" or "gender neutral" standards. This will be done to further their progressive "social justice" objectives by mandating assignment of women to heretofore closed specialities and units, not in order to meet any compelling military or combat necessity. The issue at hand is not arcane or academic. It is one of life and death and combat survival, which demand high standards.
And high standards have already come under attack, such as the arguments about the "equity" of the Marine Corps Infantry Officer Course Combat Endurance Test, which males and females have failed, though the female failure rate is almost total. And the failures were not because of a lack of desire. (By the way, when I attended The Basic School, there was neither an IOC nor a Combat Endurance Test, indicating hard fought combat lessons learned have been used by the Marine Corps to improve and make training and qualification even more rigorous.) Failure came from inability to meet demanding combat proven standards. As the Military Times reported, "By July 2014, only 20 female officers had attempted the course. Only one made it through the Combat Endurance Test, and none made it to the end." The failure rate for males, at about 10% in recent reports, indicates that not all males can meet the standards. Just as does the reported 75% failure rate at BUDS/UDT. But high standards and combat effectiveness do not concern progressive activists, as they press for their vision of the U.S. military.
Once more the liberals are using the military as their social science laboratory, in order to advance their progressive views. With SecDef's decision, they will now undoubtedly declare that since a MOS is open to women, it would be unfair to exclude women based on existing "male based" standards. In the ultimate irony and hypocrisy, these folks will clamor for gender based standards designed for women, just after clamoring that it was sexist to exclude females. So it can be predicted the standards will be reduced for females, which will then lead to some males declaring that the male standards are too high and they should be allowed to be evaluated against the new female standards. Otherwise they will have standing to claim sex discrimination. (Of course, the transgender Marine can choose whichever standards he/she decides are easiest.) Thus, the requisite high standards will be lowered across the board, endangering those allowed into specialities and units that once required demanding standards be met and maintained.
What all the progressive activists miss is that combat, particularly ground combat of the grueling sort experienced for weeks on end during previous wars, is not the place to pursue their agenda.
Certainly, some women in our recent wars performed extraordinarily, admirably, and heroically on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, with many wounded and killed. The Lioness and Female Engagement Teams are excellent examples. However, these few examples were not born from fully gender integrated units from the four man Fire Team up to the Infantry Regiment. Let alone special operations forces such as SEALs, Rangers, Combat Controllers, etc. The best example of the impact of gender integration was the aforementioned Marine Corps evaluation. The Marines took the right approach, by examining the issue based on combat unit mission performance. This is how we organize and fight. It is the ultimate team effort. And the results were clear, male only units performed the combat mission more effectively and efficiently than gender integrated units.
In spite of the results, it is inevitable that second shoe must drop for the progressive activists to achieve their ultimate goal.
But the price for the failure of their agenda will be needless loss of life and combat mission failure. But the progressive activists will not be around to take any responsibility for their part in this abysmal decision. They will not stand next me and fellow Patriot Guard Riders at the foreseeable military funerals. The progressive activists will not be publicly condemned. They will not be sent to jail. And they certainly will not be on the front lines, carrying a rifle, ill suited and ill prepared to take the fight to the enemy.
No comments:
Post a Comment