Posted on 10/26/2015 4:58:22 PM PDT by markomalley
A Marine Corps study examining the impact of integrating women into combat occupations is “inherently flawed” for failing to establish basic standards for such positions, say researchers who obtained the report, which has not been publicly released.
About 400 male and 100 female Marines participated in the Ground Combat Element Integrated Task Force study, which was conducted from October 2014 to July 2015 at Camp Lejeune, N.C., and Twentynine Palms, Calif.
In September, the Marines released an executive summary that said women in the study sustained significantly higher injury rates than men, were less accurate with infantry weapons and had more difficulty moving “wounded” troops off the battlefield.
The release of the synopsis immediately led to questions about its methodology and calls for publication of the full report, particularly after reports that the top Marine Corps command recommended keeping some combat positions closed to women.
There has been bipartisan pressure to release the full report from two Marine Corps veterans in Congress, Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., and Rep. Seth Moulton, D-Mass. Klein has called for its immediate release for “review by members of Congress and the American people.”
Maj. Chris Devine, a Marine Corps spokesman at the Pentagon, told Stars and Stripes: “We plan to release our studies as soon as practical.”
Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, who has seen the full study, wrote in an opinion piece published in the Washington Post in late September that the analysis relied on “1992 language,” even as “the way we fight and the landscape of our battles has significantly evolved from a quarter-century ago.”
The study, he wrote, did not evaluate the performance of individual female Marines and instead used only averages that “have no relevance to the abilities and performance of individual Marines.”
Defense Secretary Ash Carter has received recommendations from the service branches on which positions should remain off-limits to women; he is expected to make a final decision early next year.
Two researchers — Ellen Haring, a retired Army colonel and senior fellow at Women in International Security in Washington, and Megan MacKenzie, a senior lecturer at the University of Sydney in Australia — are vocal advocates for the full integration of women into combat roles. They say the executive summary failed to convey shortcomings and caveats in the full study they obtained.
“From a research perspective, there’s almost nothing you could reliably draw from this research,” said MacKenzie, who has published two books about women in combat, most recently “Beyond the Band of Brothers: The U.S. Military and the Myth that Women Can’t Fight.”
“The volunteer selection was poor. The physical screening was poor. The consistency and number of people they put in each of the groups was very varied,” she said.
Asked about issues raised by MacKenzie and Haring, the Pentagon’s Devine said in a statement: “Successful integration of women into currently closed positions will take time to get right and requires all the services to be thoughtful and deliberate as the process unfolds. Speculation on the release of information or the nature of Military Department Secretary recommendations and inputs is not appropriate at this time. Our research effort was built upon scientific method and experience, to ensure we continue to maintain our high standards and preserve the quality of our All Volunteer Force.”
The study’s central flaw, MacKenzie and Haring say, is that it failed to establish occupation-relevant standards for Marine combat positions.
“The fact that the Marines chose to do a $36 million study that didn’t establish any standards is, I think, interesting in itself,” MacKenzie said. “We still don’t have combat-specific standards in the Marines. Once you’re in the Marines, the only qualification you need to be in an infantry [military occupational specialty] is to be a man.”
The study pitted all-male groups against integrated groups in physically challenging tasks — some combat-related, some not. That design created a “race with no finish line,” MacKenzie said.
“We know that some teams performed faster than others, but we don’t know if any of them performed adequately or all of them performed adequately,” she said. “We just know some were faster, and so the Marines concluded that the teams that were faster were better. But it doesn’t tell us if they were adequate at performing combat-related activities.”
MacKenzie and Haring criticize the executive summary for not mentioning the report’s conclusion that “gender integration, in and of itself, will not have a significant impact on unit morale.”
“It counters one of the biggest arguments in keeping women out of combat: that they spoil the alchemy of the ‘band of brothers,’” MacKenzie said.
The study also ignored the accomplishments of certain women “who were just amazing physically,” MacKenzie said.
“In fact, there was one woman who outperformed men consistently, just an outlier throughout the whole study,” she said. “There were quite a few women above the 50th percentile. There were all these indicators that there were physically superior women who performed well; it’s just that the Marines focused on how the women performed as a group.”
The full study also noted that had the female participants been properly screened for physical fitness before entering the study, the male/female injury rates would likely have been similar, she said.
“There are members of Congress who want this study,” MacKenzie said. “There’s a very heated debate between the Marines and the Secretary of the Navy about whether women should be in combat and whether this study is legitimate. I think in many ways the release of this study should help settle that debate.”
Put women where they belong!!
I’m thinking the USMC has had scoring criteria and metrics around for a long time.
CFT comes to mind.
Quigley as well.
Not sure there is a flaw to be found there.
One woman outperforming some men is not a reason to open all comat positions to all women. It is the exception that proves the rule.
The fzct “experts” cant figure this out shows that that title is really tossed around lightly today.
“The volunteer selection was poor. The physical screening was poor.” I guess they wanted top female athletes to be the only ones selected. Taking those who wanted to volunteer makes sense as they will want to complete the course. If they don’t because they can’t meet the standards, then: “tough tacos” in a semi-polite language.
The two women, who are obviously biased advocates for women in combat, are also obviously incompetent. They want a “good enough” standard for combat. Think about this! Every loss of efficiency means loss of life. So “good enough” means more dead Americans compared to a standard based on “the best we can be.” I have a hard time not describing these women as evil...
I have posted this before and I will post it again. The Israilis tried it many years ago and had very negative results with women assigned to active combat units. Efficiency declined and the psychological effect on the men seeing women in parts on the battle field had a very negative effect on unit cohesiveness. They don’t do it any more.
Good golly. How can anyone who has done this even consider this Your average USMC infantryman will out hump, out shoot, out fight, out last any woman you want to put out there. This stuff nearly kicked my butt and I was a consistent 300 PFTer (run time in the mid to low 16 minutes able to do my 20 pull ups wearing 80 pounds (you do not have to use weight) 80 situps in under a minute not part of the PFT but swim a mile in 18-20 minutes always qualified expert)
They started some of this crap when I was in and I had never seen a woman keep up in every area. Most cannot carry the gear. The ones who can sort of keep up are not effective fighters as they are worn out from just getting there. Worse, some of the male Marines had their noses so far up the WM’s backside that it made them combat ineffective.
Of course, the deal isn’t to have a combat ready, efficient military.
I spent 4 years in the Marine Corps Infantry, 3 of them as a M249 SAW Gunner. If a female Marine cannot meet the same physical requires of male Marine, they should not be in the Infantry. I recall a point during training for a deployment where my squad was simulating a med evac. Our company Corpsman decided to drop over half the squad to injuries or being killed, leaving 2 of us to provide security and 2 to transport the wounded/dead to the simulated helicopter. Me and my squad leader were providing security. When it was our turn to get to the ‘helicopter’, amazingly my squad leader was determined to be wounded and “unconscious”. At the time I weighed about 160 lbs, he wieghed about 220 lbs. I had to pick him up (dead weight) with him in full gear (add 30-40 lbs) and fireman carry him and all of my gear (another 40-50 lbs) 75 yards.
I expect a female Marine to have to be able to do the same to be in the Infantry.
Allow me:
1. Be able to move four kilometers in 125 degree 90 percent humidity heat with a full combat load of body armor, 2 canteens of water, 400 rounds of ammunition in magazines and bandoleers, two day's rations, med kit, entrenching tool, grenades and two mortar rounds for the 81mm section.
2. Once in position, dig a fighting hole deep enough to conceal your whole body and include a grenade sump and a firing step. When completed, assist in stringing barbed wire and laying our Claymore mines and other defensive details
3. Stay up most of night on 50% watch - except for nights when you are chosen for night patrols and ambushes, when you stay up all night.
4. Close with the enemy and destroy him with fire and maneuver. Be ready to kill him with bayonet, knife or bare hands if necessary.
5.Be able to throw a grenade far enough that you and your own troops aren't injured by the blast.
6. If some of your number are wounded or killed, carry them back to cover.
Repeat as necessary for days, weeks, months.
Easy enough, I guess..
In general, women are physically designed differently, so there is a factual difference.
There will be some exceptions to the rule.
Let only those who are exceptions to the rule (who can meet the male’s standard) qualify for those positions.
Problem solved.
I wonder if the female colonel would have liked to stake her fITREP on some of her ideas when one of her co-ed unit fails a field exercise? This is about putting more women in command slots. Period.
Basically the majority of women are as physically able to perform tasks as a 50 year old, sedentary man.
When these weasels/researchers say “flawed for failing to establish basic standards for such positions,” they are saying that if you make the standards low enough and use pass/fail ratings then the woman would be as good as the men. And that’s their idea of “equal ability.”
Now we need a 15 year study to confirm what we know
Bookmark.
“Ellen Haring, a retired Army colonel and senior fellow at Women in International Security in Washington, and Megan MacKenzie, a senior lecturer at the University of Sydney in Australia”
Well that’s a lot of Marine infantry expertise if ive ever seen it.
These two are profoundly ignorant and demonstrably prejudiced in favor of a political goal that has nothing to do with ensuring the ability of ground combat defeating a determined enemy. Neither of them have any experience to provide any credibility to their opinions. Moreover, the overall experience of the American military in recent combat provides very little insights on combat that was commonplace in World War II, Korea, and Vietnam. This argument is a farce and does not deserve serious discussion. This women are not only ignorant, but beyond stupid.
I hope Haring and MacKenzie aren’t trying to claim that women would have enhanced the combat efforts at Iwo Jima or Omaha beach.
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.