Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Case for Female SEALs (More PC Insanity)
The Atlantic ^ | December 24, 2013 | Elliot Ackerman

Posted on 12/28/2013 7:27:24 AM PST by Timber Rattler

Last month, three women became the first of their sex to graduate from the Marine Corps’ famously grueling Advanced Infantry Training Course. The Marine Corps was asking a simple question by running small groups through these courses in experimental test batches, two to five women at a time: Can the female body withstand the rigors of infantry training? The answer, these women showed, is that it can.

So far much of the debate surrounding integration has focused on the physical capabilities of women, as if this were the singular issue. Admittedly the strain of infantry training, or even combat, is relatively easier for a 6-foot tall, 180-pound man, but there are women fit enough to survive these punishing courses. As for combat, well, if we’ve proved anything over the last decade of war, it’s that women can sustain its rigors.

So if the barrier to integrating women into the infantry isn’t a physical one then what is it?

(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: navy; politicalcorrectness; seals; specops
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-59 next last
The PC absurdity has now morphed into insanity. These libs could care less about the military's warfighting mission...all they care about is treating the Armed Forces like a civilian business, with perks and equality for everybody.
1 posted on 12/28/2013 7:27:24 AM PST by Timber Rattler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Timber Rattler

I guess SEALs don’t have to do pull ups.


2 posted on 12/28/2013 7:29:46 AM PST by grobdriver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timber Rattler

Infantry basic is a LONG way from BUDS or Q course. That is out of 100 men who apply, only about 3 actually make it.


3 posted on 12/28/2013 7:35:40 AM PST by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
feh...
4 posted on 12/28/2013 7:36:02 AM PST by Chode (Stand UP and Be Counted, or line up and be numbered - *DTOM* -vvv- NO Pity for the LAZY - 86-44)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grobdriver

This article IMO is a freaking lie.

Any woman who does not look like a Gorilla could not pass the same physical test as the men in the Seals.

I submit the standards were lowered. Perhaps for the whole class to get these women through.

If women were equal to men we would not have women’s sports.


5 posted on 12/28/2013 7:37:38 AM PST by Venturer (Half Staff the Flag of the US for Terrorists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Timber Rattler

There is no reasonable case to be made. I first heard of this stupidity back in the 1980s—they have been working on it for decades. One female Seal means one qualified male that is being excluded. THE BELL CURVE CANNOT BE FUDGED.


6 posted on 12/28/2013 7:41:49 AM PST by SC_Pete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timber Rattler; Revolting cat!; GeronL

Maybe they can start with tranny SEALS. That way you still have men doing the task but you get to check off two identity politicks groups with one pen stroke.


7 posted on 12/28/2013 7:44:54 AM PST by a fool in paradise ("Health care is too important to be left to the government.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timber Rattler

Elliott Ackerman starts off his article in typical “Liberal” fashion. Namely, a lie. He states that over the past decade women have proved they can sustain the rigors of combat. The fact is NOTHING has been PROVEN.

What is really going on, I believe, is that certain officers, worried about what Obama’s thugs might do to their career, are pushing the non sense that women have “proven” they can endure ALL combat requirements like young men so that they can look good to Obama et al and not get put on an early retirement list.

I have read many unbiased articles that are completely contrary to Mr. Ackerman’s fantasies. For those that will write and demand I produce them, it’s called Google. Help yourself.


8 posted on 12/28/2013 7:48:11 AM PST by Cen-Tejas (it's the debt bomb stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timber Rattler

What a grand plan.

If you have something that works (SpecOps), keep F*&%ing with it until it doesn’t.


9 posted on 12/28/2013 7:55:10 AM PST by AbnSarge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timber Rattler

this article is not “PC nonsense”

it is an out and out LIE- to destroy our military-

That is the stated goal of the communists currently
occupying the senate and white house.


10 posted on 12/28/2013 7:55:17 AM PST by mj1234
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Venturer; xzins
If women were equal to men we would not have women’s sports.

There is no law prohibiting women from being hired by professional football teams. The fact is there are no women who can meet the qualifications to play NFL football. The other fact is that most NFL players probably couldn't pass the physical and mental requirements to graduate from the SEAL program.

But we gotta have Women SEALS even if it means they get themselves and their fellow team members killed.

11 posted on 12/28/2013 7:55:44 AM PST by P-Marlowe (There can be no Victory without a fight and no battle without wounds)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Venturer

Yep.


12 posted on 12/28/2013 7:57:25 AM PST by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Timber Rattler
"The PC absurdity has now morphed into insanity."

By lowering the standards for women in combat training for purely sexist reasons, the Secretary of Navy and the Marine Commandant have given aid and comfort to the enemy.

13 posted on 12/28/2013 8:03:34 AM PST by Carl Vehse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timber Rattler; taxcontrol; grobdriver; Chode; Venturer; AbnSarge; xzins; P-Marlowe

My solution, in the same vane as the article:

put in the requirement for male seals to mate with female seals and the little ‘seal pups’ will be required to go into the navy at age 18 and become seals. thus we create a replacement system for the seals, but with a long gap between ‘procurement order’ and enlistment.


14 posted on 12/28/2013 8:05:21 AM PST by GreyFriar (Spearhead - 3rd Armored Division 75-78 & 83-87)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GreyFriar
18 year pipeline...
15 posted on 12/28/2013 8:09:06 AM PST by Chode (Stand UP and Be Counted, or line up and be numbered - *DTOM* -vvv- NO Pity for the LAZY - 86-44)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Timber Rattler

A bad idea, IMHO. I recognize there are many women who serve or have served in the armed forces with honor, and I am thankful for each of them and their sacrifices. But with the SEALs, we’re talking about a program so grueling, so physically demanding, that only a tiny percentage of male candidates are able to complete even the initial phases of it (I know I sure couldn’t). Most women are not as physically strong as most men. The likelihood of a female candidate having the strength and endurance to complete things even the publicly known training exercises like Surf Torture, Drown Proofing, and whatever you call the log carrying exercises seems awfully remote.

Now, I’ll admit such women could exist. (I’m sure there are some lady FReepers out there that could whoop my butt, LOL). But the likelihood is, most won’t and there will be pressure to lessen the standards from Congress. I can only see that as disastrous for a group that is routinely called on to do the impossible, and is expected to act as the ultimate team.


16 posted on 12/28/2013 8:10:54 AM PST by DemforBush (Ice cream, Mandrake? Children's ice cream?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

Also in today’s news: “Reports of Sexual Assaults in Military on Rise.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3106024/posts

Let me think about the wisdom of men like Elliot Ackerman, who have “proven” that there are no barriers to putting women into harm’s way. What could go wrong?


17 posted on 12/28/2013 8:19:06 AM PST by manforallseasons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; Venturer

There has never been any military position opened to females that held females to the same physical standards as males. The recent push to bring females into the combat arms is not driven by a desire to prove the ladies have finally arrived in terms of physical strength. It is being done because all of the highest positions in the military always go to combat specialties....infantry, artillery, aviation, special operations, etc.

In order to have a 4-star chief of staff of the Army who is female, they have to let females in those combat specialties. Since females can’t meet the physical standards, they will change them again. Then they will try to avoid females in actual assignments that would prove their inability to keep up physically. They will be assigned to staff jobs, headquarters companies, etc., or their equivalents.

Some of them will be pre-selected at about the rank of major to receive a star. One of those will be pre-selected to be a 4-star. She will also become a Chief.

That is how they’ve done it in every other field opened to females. That is how they’ll do it here.

My sense is that NO young lady will EVER see a real Seal mission, except, perhaps, one specifically tailored for her....but, she will eventually be put in charge of that which she could not do. That favoritism will injure morale.


18 posted on 12/28/2013 8:22:35 AM PST by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Timber Rattler
As for combat, well, if we’ve proved anything over the last decade of war, it’s that women can sustain its rigors.

I'd like to know how we've proven this. Beyond brash assertions by cocktail sipping beltway feminists I know of nothing that qualifies as an assessment of females in sustained combat operations. The reason for this is simple: At no time during the past 10 years has the U.S. military been involved in sustained infantry centric combat on the order of World War II, Korea, and Vietnam. Women have performed well in the type of combat experienced in Iraq and in parts of Afghanistan, but they were not infantry soldiers and were not subject to the physical demands of long term infantry combat operations.

Liberal feminists just want another scalp on their belt, they would never volunteer to serve in the military, and even less volunteer to serve in the infantry. They just want to flex their political power in order to intimidate government to provide them with the financial and competitive advantages of being declared a favored group. This also helps to destroy our military, one of the few institutions not yet destroyed by the plague of liberalism.

19 posted on 12/28/2013 8:24:14 AM PST by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timber Rattler
Kinder, gentler SEALs will work out so well.
20 posted on 12/28/2013 8:25:10 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (Government is the greediest, most corrupt, incompetent and murderous force on earth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Excellent explanation.


21 posted on 12/28/2013 8:25:28 AM PST by Venturer (Half Staff the Flag of the US for Terrorists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

Amen.


22 posted on 12/28/2013 8:26:19 AM PST by Venturer (Half Staff the Flag of the US for Terrorists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: GreyFriar

LOL interesting idea.

When I was in Germany during the 80’s, it was suggested that since we won WWII, that all German girls between the age of 18 and 22 would be required to report for duty to service the service men. Those who were not attractive enough for personal service would be required to cook and clean. After a pregnancy or 4 years, which ever came first, the girl would be released from service.

Now it was all in jest but the individual who made the suggestion said that it would replace the men lost to WWII.


23 posted on 12/28/2013 8:31:38 AM PST by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Timber Rattler
The 0bama regime is doing everything in its power to get our service men and women killed. From this insanity to the ROE in the 'Stan.

[Sidebar: why doesn't the state controlled media give us a casualty count every day like they did when Bush was in office?]

Oh, and where is Cindy Sheehan, and Media Benjamin these days, huh?

5.56mm

24 posted on 12/28/2013 8:37:25 AM PST by M Kehoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol

I have always thought that there needs to be three standards based upon either MOS or unit status. The standards being combat, combat support and support.

Combat units would have to pass the most stringent standards (run (2 miles timed), pushups, sit-ups, pull-ups, dead lift (60 lbs sand bag from ground up to shoulder as many times in 2 min), drag (100 yard drag of 60 lbs sand bag, timed) and a forced march (5 mile speed walk with 60 lbs ruck and weapon)

Combat support would have to pass a less rigorous set (run, pushups, sit-ups, pull ups and dead lift.

Support units would only have to pass the lest rigorous test (run, pushups, sit-ups, pull-ups)

The measure would not “accommodate” male vs. female as they are job performance based.

The most difficult standard being applied either individual or unit. For example, an Infantryman MOS assigned to a transportation or other support unit (it happens) would be required to pass the combat standard. Likewise a chemical NCO assigned to an Infantry unit (MOS based) would be required to pass the combat standard (unit based).

Promotion points should be awarded such that passing the combat standard is awarded the most promotion point but passing the support standard is awarded the least promotion points.


25 posted on 12/28/2013 8:43:14 AM PST by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Timber Rattler
The PC absurdity has now morphed into insanity

Although Women do make very effective assassins
It is usually under the cover of a “harmless” exterior

26 posted on 12/28/2013 8:44:09 AM PST by HangnJudge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timber Rattler

Okay. Now that we have “the case”, the next question should be WHY? Are we having problems recruiting MALES for the SEALs these days? Anyone with a brain knows that the standards will have to be lowered in order for the “gay” people in the Pentagon to push the first female through BUDS as the “honor graduate”. It happens all of the time. Males and females are different regardless of what the “progs” like this guy would have us believe. How in the hell did this guy get the Silver Star? Didn’t Hanoi Boi Kerry get a Silver Star also?


27 posted on 12/28/2013 8:48:37 AM PST by FlingWingFlyer (The Truth Is Out There. Just don't let anyone know that you're looking for it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timber Rattler

How tough can the advanced training for women Marines be if they don’t have to pass the standard training anymore?


28 posted on 12/28/2013 8:58:01 AM PST by My hearts in London - Everett (You think you know me. You don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins
My sense is that NO young lady will EVER see a real Seal mission, except, perhaps, one specifically tailored for her....but, she will eventually be put in charge of that which she could not do. That favoritism will injure morale.

But...but...but Demi Moore did it!/sarc

29 posted on 12/28/2013 8:58:55 AM PST by Don Corleone ("Oil the gun..eat the cannoli. Take it to the Mattress.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Timber Rattler

Its a physical one - even the smallest man is far stronger and weighs more than the tallest woman.

You can’t wave biological realities out of existence and Hollywood movies that show tiny women kicking strong men into unconsciousness is pure fantasy.

And assault weapons are not made to carry easy and and having to slough around 100 pound backpack on a full march takes a lot of endurance.

As well being able to fight in the heat and cold and day and night. When your life is on the line you want to be sure your partner can pull their weight. PC in the military has nothing to do with ability to defend our country but everything to do with ideology and social engineering.

Our enemies aren’t drafting women to fight us. We’re losing sight of what’s important here.


30 posted on 12/28/2013 8:59:14 AM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timber Rattler

“....easier for a 6-foot tall, 180-pound man.” I’m reminded of Audie Murphy.


31 posted on 12/28/2013 9:02:15 AM PST by VerySadAmerican (".....Barrack, and the horse Mohammed rode in on.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SC_Pete

Bottom line is men should stop volunteering. Bring back the draft and draft the women, too. Then let’s see what happens.


32 posted on 12/28/2013 9:03:33 AM PST by VerySadAmerican (".....Barrack, and the horse Mohammed rode in on.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Don Corleone
But...but...but Demi Moore did it!/sarc

Even Demi only half did it.

33 posted on 12/28/2013 9:04:31 AM PST by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Timber Rattler

Yes, it has. The odd part is we’ll be downsizing all branches of the US military in the next few years. Fewer men will be needed. Drones and robots will also do more of the things humans used to be needed to do. In the meantime, the social experiment of making women fill traditionally male roles will get pushed even harder. There are tradeoffs to these types of things, of course.


34 posted on 12/28/2013 9:05:43 AM PST by elhombrelibre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timber Rattler
As for combat, well, if we’ve proved anything over the last decade of war, it’s that women can sustain its rigors.

Combat is not the same as the Infantry. Huge difference.

35 posted on 12/28/2013 9:06:05 AM PST by Future Snake Eater (CrossFit.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timber Rattler

Let ‘em. The way this government is going our military is being groomed to be used against us. I sure as Hell don’t want to be facing hardened men.


36 posted on 12/28/2013 9:07:24 AM PST by CodeToad (When ignorance rules a person's decision they are resorting to superstition.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Don Corleone

And that’s the fine point of it. the movies are full of women showing “anything you can do I can do better” and gullible mush~for~brains are lapping it up.

I don’t envy the grunts who have to pick up the slack in real-time situations.


37 posted on 12/28/2013 9:13:16 AM PST by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Rather than weakening the combat ranks, women could go the administrative route to becoming a general or other high ranking officer. Eisenhower never saw combat, but his administrative and strategic skills got him to the highest level of military service.

IOW, IF women want to be generals, they need to serve in the positions for which they are most qualified and prove themselves worthy of command. They are not qualified to man an artillery barrage. They call it “manning” for a reason.


38 posted on 12/28/2013 9:17:17 AM PST by P-Marlowe (There can be no Victory without a fight and no battle without wounds)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: rockrr

That is the worst thing about the Hollywood, females can always beat males, propaganda, and it is propaganda. It is purposely put there to make people believe it is true.

I have been surprised how many women really believe it and not a few men do too.


39 posted on 12/28/2013 9:30:40 AM PST by yarddog (Romans 8: verses 38 and 39. "For I am persuaded".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol

I was honest with myself about BUDS. There’s no way I could get through it (I’m not a wuss- just an average man), so I never applied. I don’t see how a woman is going to get through it without some major standard relaxation/elimination.

Then there’s the problem with acceptance on the teams. Nobody’s going to want to have a half-load/no-load to drag around on an op. She’ll get left behind on the boat or aircraft to do paperwork.


40 posted on 12/28/2013 9:40:53 AM PST by EricT. (ARBEIT MACHT FREI- now get back to work you taxpaying peasant!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Venturer
The big secret is you get cycled through at SOI. So long as the WMs didn't get hurt and put on med-hold, they were going to pass infantry school.

Now The Fleet? That's where all the fun of being in the grunts really begins.

41 posted on 12/28/2013 9:43:23 AM PST by Repeat Offender (What good are conservative principles if we don't stand by them?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: yarddog

None of the believers have ever been punched in the face - figuratively OR literally. If they ever had they wouldn’t subscribe to such silly fantasies.

But they do subscribe. Ten minute fight scenes where they leap from third-story windows and land on their feet. Where they routinely do cartwheels over the heads of their opponents. Where they fire hundreds of rounds (from a single magazine) and emerge (victorious of course!) with only a smudge on their cheek.

This little social experiment is not going to end well...


42 posted on 12/28/2013 9:52:38 AM PST by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Timber Rattler
Somebody’s been watching too many reruns of Demi Moore in “G.I. Jane”. I've seen the kind of training that SEALs do and it is intense. the Training takes nearly a year and the attrition rate is about 90%. There are three phases: 1) BUD/S (Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL) training; 2) Underwater Swimmer; 3) Land Warfare.

BUD/S presupposes that entrants are in tip top physical condition. Trainees are pushed to and beyond their limits of physical and mental endurance. Candidates can voluntarily DOR (Drop on Request) at any time by ringing the bell or they can be dropped for lack of progress. Injuries result in setback until healed and the candidate can join another class. The last week before graduation is aptly termed “Hell Week”. Trainees are lucky to get more than four hours’ sleep during this week. Make it through this week and you graduate from Phase 1.

Phase 2 is U/W Swimmer. You do a lot of swimming both in the pool and in the ocean. More people get dropped here; either DOR or for lack of progress.

Phase 3 is Land Warfare held at San Clemente Island. Exercises are done with live fire after multiple dry runs. Screw up here and you'll be dropped, but there are few DORs and some admin drops.

Bottom line: for a class of 100 prime physical specimens, only 10 or less will make it through to the end of Phase 3. Even then, the newly graduated SEAL still has to prove himself on an operational team deployment. While on deployment with his team, the new member is still probationary and he can be dropped from SEAL Team if his team mates feel he is not up to the job.

43 posted on 12/28/2013 10:12:39 AM PST by MasterGunner01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rockrr

As a small woman, I always laugh at those movies. Not only does the 90-pound female take down the big bad male, she does it in evening dress and 4-inch heels! Then, she cleverly blends back into the upscale cocktail party, not even breathing hard, her make-up intact and not a hair out of place after running through a dirty cellar and up or down four flights of stairs. Sometimes, she even jumps from one rooftop to another, all the while killing bad guys with unerring aim while her attackers/victims always miss.

Comic books. Who would take that seriously?

I know former SF men. ALL of them have permanent musculoskeletal injuries and look 10 years older than they really are. I also know some young women who went through basic NG training. Most had disturbances of their menstrual cycles, problems with muscle injuries and instances of unwarranted sexual abuse, if not battery. And that was just for a Basic Training for the National Guard!


44 posted on 12/28/2013 10:39:08 AM PST by reformedliberal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: MasterGunner01

I watched a couple of extended reports on “The History Channel” about Ranger training and also Air Force Para-Rescue training. This was before that channel turned into “tattooed men around Las Vegas”.

After watching there was no question in my mind that I could never have passed any of them. Interestingly, I was probably a better athlete than the majority of them. I still hold records set in the 1960s and early 1970s in high school and college.

I am a weak swimmer. I have to get at least 9 hours of sleep or I am worthless. I never could run more than 120 yards before getting totally exhausted. I always had a bad habit of losing my temper and refusing to do something I did not like.


45 posted on 12/28/2013 10:42:57 AM PST by yarddog (Romans 8: verses 38 and 39. "For I am persuaded".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Timber Rattler
I'm a retired ARMY Ranger and to be totally truthful about it I have strong doubts that I could have ever make it through SEAL training. There are not women in the Rangers because of the physical training requirements and now they think they can push them on up the ladder and make SEALS out of them. Unless they significantly lower the physical requirements it will never happen.

Here is another truth, in combat your team is only as strong as your weakest member. One weak link in that team brings the whole teams abilities down to that level. Many times in a combat situation it comes down to a few very basic truths. Do you have the physical and mental strength to make something happen or do you lay down and die. Do you accomplish your assigned duties or do you fail and let your friends around you die.

Here are is how it works with training. Combat is all about training and everything you do in training is harder to accomplish in combat. In a combat situation you will do what you have been taught to do in training. You train like you fight and you fight like you train. The absolute truth in this is if a person is unable to do something in training then they will be unable to do it in combat and they and others around them will die.

I am not anti woman and I have no wish to put artificial barriers in the way of a woman's advancement but I know how it is in combat. I am not willing to sacrifice the lives of great soldiers by dropping the standards and training requirements so women can pass just to make a Politically Correct point.

Men and women are different. Men are much better at doing some things and women are much better at doing other things. We are not biologically the same. This is not a case of who is better or worse it is just realizing that we are different and those differences are limiting in some situations.

46 posted on 12/28/2013 10:47:44 AM PST by oldenuff2no
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timber Rattler

“As for combat, well, if we’ve proved anything over the last decade of war, it’s that women can sustain its rigors.”

Really? You send a few females on patrol so that you can interrogate Muslim females, and you call that combat? Get a grip. The heavy-duty fighting was well past finished.


47 posted on 12/28/2013 11:11:16 AM PST by Tallguy (between taglines...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: centurion316

“Women have performed well in the type of combat experienced in Iraq and in parts of Afghanistan, but they were not infantry soldiers and were not subject to the physical demands of long term infantry”

Brief HumVee sweeps outside the wire of a fortified FOB do not meet the definition of sustained infantry operations. More like combat tourist.


48 posted on 12/28/2013 11:16:22 AM PST by Tallguy (between taglines...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: MasterGunner01; All
Somebody’s been watching too many reruns of Demi Moore in “G.I. Jane”.

Leave it up to the fantasyland garbage coming out of Follywood. I recently finished watching a six-part series (each about 50 minutes) on YouTube that followed a class from start to graduation.

BUD/S Class 234

The class started out with 114. After five weeks of pre-training they were down to 83.

About six months later the graduation class consisted of 25.

While watching the series I tried to imagine a female making it to the end.

49 posted on 12/28/2013 12:42:12 PM PST by QT3.14
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: QT3.14

It is surprising, even here on Free Republic, how many ex military will defend women in combat roles. My guess that small minority are probably members of the Log Cabin Republicans.


50 posted on 12/28/2013 12:46:36 PM PST by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-59 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson