General: Marine Corps infantry skeptical of women in combat
SAN DIEGO (AP) - The commandant of the Marine Corps said the infantry side of the most male of all military branches is skeptical about how women will perform in their units, and some positions may end up closed again if too few females meet the physically demanding standards of combat.
Gen. James Amos made the remarks to reporters Thursday at a defense conference in San Diego hosted by the U.S. Naval Institute and the defense trade group AFCEA.
Amos says most Marines support the Defense Department's lifting of the ban last week, which opened thousands of positions to women.
He pointed out that over the past decade, many male service members already have been fighting alongside women in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Women who serve in supply troops, as clerks and with military police have ended up on the unmarked front lines of modern warfare, blurring the distinction between combat and noncombat jobs. More than 150 women have been killed in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan while serving in support roles.
Many of the positions opened by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta's announcement are in Army and Marine infantry units and in potentially elite commando jobs. It will be up to the military service chiefs to recommend and defend whether women should be excluded from any of those more demanding and deadly positions, such as Navy commandos or the Army's Delta Force.
The infantry units are smaller and spend more grueling time in battle.
"I think from the infantry side of the house, you know they're more skeptical," Amos said. "It's been an all-male organization throughout the history of the U.S. Marine Corps so I don't think that should be any surprise."
Military officials say they will not lower standards, but they are reviewing them to ensure they are necessary in making a warfighter and not just difficult to be difficult.
When asked by The Associated Press about whether women will be allowed to someday serve as SEALs, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan W. Greenert said it will be up to special operations commands to determine how they will transition the standards to females.
"It is a matter of what are the expectations, and is it feasible to change the standards they have right now, physical standards," Greenert said. "They would say early on 'No, we can't do that,' but I think that's really to be determined."
Amos said his branch also wants to gauge how much interest there is among women to join the infantry units and whether enough can qualify for those units. If there is little interest or few can pass the infantry officers school, then certain positions may be closed to women.
Still, he emphasized, that doesn't mean he is expecting that to happen. He said military leaders want to ensure the military continues to be an effective war-fighting force. And if the data and analysis support closing some positions, he believes the defense secretary will support that.
"I have every expectation that the secretary of defense will honor that," Amos said. "It's a commonsense approach to this thing."
The Marine Corps opened its tough infantry course at Quantico, Va., to female volunteers last fall. Two tried unsuccessfully in the first session. In the second session, none signed up. Amos said two female lieutenants have signed up for the third session that will start in March.
Amos said he met with them Monday.
"They're stalwart," he said. "It looks like they're in great shape and they're excited about it."
Amos said he also met with one of the female officers who almost made it to the second-week mark of the course last fall. He said she was forced to drop out because of a stress fracture that was so severe it could have left her permanently injured.
"She did anything but quit," Amos said, adding that the woman was cheered on by her male counterparts. "She's a phenomenal officer."
The woman is now in flight training school in Pensacola, Fla. Amos said she was part of the team so he is optimistic that "we're going about it the right way."
"It's just a very, very difficult course, and it's a very small community," he added.
Women make up about 7 percent of the Marine Corps, compared with about 14 percent overall among the military's 1.4 million active military personnel.
Gen. James Amos made the remarks to reporters Thursday at a defense conference in San Diego hosted by the U.S. Naval Institute and the defense trade group AFCEA.
Amos says most Marines support the Defense Department's lifting of the ban last week, which opened thousands of positions to women.
He pointed out that over the past decade, many male service members already have been fighting alongside women in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Women who serve in supply troops, as clerks and with military police have ended up on the unmarked front lines of modern warfare, blurring the distinction between combat and noncombat jobs. More than 150 women have been killed in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan while serving in support roles.
Many of the positions opened by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta's announcement are in Army and Marine infantry units and in potentially elite commando jobs. It will be up to the military service chiefs to recommend and defend whether women should be excluded from any of those more demanding and deadly positions, such as Navy commandos or the Army's Delta Force.
The infantry units are smaller and spend more grueling time in battle.
"I think from the infantry side of the house, you know they're more skeptical," Amos said. "It's been an all-male organization throughout the history of the U.S. Marine Corps so I don't think that should be any surprise."
Military officials say they will not lower standards, but they are reviewing them to ensure they are necessary in making a warfighter and not just difficult to be difficult.
When asked by The Associated Press about whether women will be allowed to someday serve as SEALs, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan W. Greenert said it will be up to special operations commands to determine how they will transition the standards to females.
"It is a matter of what are the expectations, and is it feasible to change the standards they have right now, physical standards," Greenert said. "They would say early on 'No, we can't do that,' but I think that's really to be determined."
Amos said his branch also wants to gauge how much interest there is among women to join the infantry units and whether enough can qualify for those units. If there is little interest or few can pass the infantry officers school, then certain positions may be closed to women.
Still, he emphasized, that doesn't mean he is expecting that to happen. He said military leaders want to ensure the military continues to be an effective war-fighting force. And if the data and analysis support closing some positions, he believes the defense secretary will support that.
"I have every expectation that the secretary of defense will honor that," Amos said. "It's a commonsense approach to this thing."
The Marine Corps opened its tough infantry course at Quantico, Va., to female volunteers last fall. Two tried unsuccessfully in the first session. In the second session, none signed up. Amos said two female lieutenants have signed up for the third session that will start in March.
Amos said he met with them Monday.
"They're stalwart," he said. "It looks like they're in great shape and they're excited about it."
Amos said he also met with one of the female officers who almost made it to the second-week mark of the course last fall. He said she was forced to drop out because of a stress fracture that was so severe it could have left her permanently injured.
"She did anything but quit," Amos said, adding that the woman was cheered on by her male counterparts. "She's a phenomenal officer."
The woman is now in flight training school in Pensacola, Fla. Amos said she was part of the team so he is optimistic that "we're going about it the right way."
"It's just a very, very difficult course, and it's a very small community," he added.
Women make up about 7 percent of the Marine Corps, compared with about 14 percent overall among the military's 1.4 million active military personnel.
Have the pharmaceutical companies come up with a drug that will keep them on PMS, hand them a weapon and then stand back.
Sorry ladies, I couldn't resist.
Â
Having served in an infantry unit at Camp Pendelton in another lifetime, the realities of being out in the field for days at a time lends itself to being intimately familiar with your fellow Marines. Standing guard over someone while they dig a hole and take a crap, showering together, dressing together and near each other, employing the "buddy system" in every imagineable way......introducing a woman, especially if she was attractive into environment would be a real dicey and uncomfortable situation. It would completely change the dynamics of the unit. I understand the principal and its a noble gesture, but it just wont work well in a lot of units.
@Superman_1967 As you said, another lifetime. It is proven that things change. As a current soldier, female soldiers do exactly the things you just described. Maybe it's time you put your bias aside and see just what female soldiers really are capable or, what all soldiers are capable of.
This makes sense. Women in close confines tend to synchronize their periods. Can you imagine the terror the enemy would feel with a squad of PMS psychos charging at them?
@Glassman That sounds like a good idea...now that you mention it.
These were the same people who said that gay people shouldn't be able to serve openly. So far their track record isn't looking so stellar.
@DeadRabitz - it's the same General who said that gay men will be a distraction...
Â
He was wrong then, he's wrong now.
@FormerMarineSgt Yup
I have no questions as far as women being able to handle the situation. I just don't think the MEN could handle the women being in the same situation.
 @EASTSIDE 1 It changes the dynamics of the battle by changing how the men act, that is true. Look up the Israeli experience with women on the front lines.
Next women in the NFL!!! Yea
@BocaBob -- You know you'd pay to see that.  LOL.
I have no problem seeing women on the front line if they can preform at the same level as a male. I do not want to see them de-rate the tests or requirements to get them in as they have done in so many other fields that woman have entered. If someone was guarding my back I would want them strong, capable, and able to do the job not some underrated get by person that will collapse at the critical moment. Many other countries use women on the front lines and they do a good job. I would like to see our women that want to serve be able to with the pride that men now have.
Men and women are equal, but we are NOT the same.
We were simply not created to be the same. Ever since the push for women to be treated like men we have seen the crumbling of morals in our society. We have created a society where males are unsure what being a MAN is really about. Why is there such a push make women more manly and make men more feminine?
@Unsalvageable -- NO ONE is saying 'they are the same'. What they are saying is that women should have the same opportunity as men. If they can meet the requirements for the job, they should have no arbitrary or biased decisions blocking them from doing it.
Â
You clearly have a very disturbed view of society if you think that society is pushing men to act like women and women to act like men.
Â
 @Unsalvageable I don't think it's a push to make women more manly - it's about serving their country. Other countries have women serving and they do a fine job of it. If she meets the requirements, she should be allowed to fight alongside the boys.
I think he hit right on the head. Bring the PT standards up for women to the male equivlant and that way it is equal and fare. want to be equal and treated the same there is the standard. That is were the Bar sits. Just like a basketball rim is 10 feet above the floor of the court. for all leages and all sexs. can't dunk the ball to bad not lowring the rim for you. can't keep up with men to bad not lowering the standards just to acomadate you.
Can the average woman carry 150 lbs of equipment plus possibly 350 lbs of a fallen soldier that she may have to drag out of a combat zone?
Define "average woman"
@NW-Economist - Let's not pretend that arguements against women in combat are about what they can and can't do. Â
Â
The average man can't do what you're detailed these days anyway, so let's not pretend that this is just women.  If the woman can pass the same physical requirements that men who are currently in these combat positions, they have earned the right to be in that job. It's that simple.
Â
And by the way, female Marines and female soldiers have been in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan and served with distinction. Â
Â
The only real issue is simple bias.
Â
btw - This Commendant is the same clown who said very similar things about letting gays into the military, and he's been proven wrong on that issue too.
"Gen. James Amos said a repeal of the law that bans gays from openly serving could prove to be a life-threatening distraction for combat Marines." link: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/14/marine-corps-chief-distraction-gays-serving-openly-cost-marines-limbs/#ixzz2JfOXsUxF"
Â
Â
@FormerMarineSgt I thought he looked familiar.Â
 @FormerMarineSgt Perhaps the average "man" can't carry 150# of gear, but the average "infantry soldier" can, at least for a while if not all day. Yes, women can and have fought well and bravely, that's not the question. With no real "front line" it's GOING to happen. The question is will be train them and send them heading directly into the attacks, which is what the "combat" MOSs like infantry do. The demands are grueling, the psychology difficult, the conditions brutal. It's not there are not ANY women that might make the cut, it's that there need to be enough of them to make it worth the modifications needed and inevitable disruptions to really make it viable. Throwing a few young women into a very high-testosterone area WILL have some negative side-effects.
@RN1 Other countries have succesfully done this without all the doomsayer predictions from folks like you coming true.
Â
Folks said the same crap about gays - and gee, guess what? Nothing bad happened with the allowance of gays.
Â
If a woman can meet the same requirements that men are required to meet, they shouldn't be prevented from serving in the same capacity as men. Not all women can meet the requirements, just like not all men can.
Â
And in Iraq and Afghanistan women (and gays) are serving side by side in combat. Even though women aren't supposed to be in combat (and gays weren't even allowed in, even though they have always been in the military), they have generally served with distinction (just like the men).
Â
So let's deal with actual facts instead of 'supposedly this will happen'.
 @FormerMarineSgt Sir, I have serious doubts as to your military experience based on many comments I have read from you, there are extreme inconsistencies and some fabrications not congruent with someone that has been in an NCO position.
Â
Whereas 500lbs is unrealistic, did you overhead lift the white jesus with your squad at 3AM in the sand. A woman cannot do this, it would not only injure herself but the rest of the squad by offsetting the weight to their frames.
Â
When it comes to serious training injuries or heavy combat responsibilities, the military should not play PC games. This opinion is not reflected by combat soldiers as they are apolitical under contract with the US govt. to be so. The top officers, however, wine and dine the same as our politicians, and can be bought as their career depends on the whims of said lawmakers
Â
Also, there is no such thing as a former marine.
 @FormerMarineSgt  @7th Sir, I did not miss that. The statement was left open, and you are making an assumption. The statement is as follows:
Â
"Military officials say they will not lower standards, but they are reviewing them to ensure they are necessary in making a warfighter and not just difficult to be difficult."
Â
The military currently has two standards, male and female. Combat service, as defined by a combat MOS, not mixed unit service, has been all male therefore the higher standard is applied, in which case you would be correct and the women would be required to meet the male standard. However, they did not state that they would continue to use the male PT standard for both sexes.
Â
His statement could also mean they will continue to use the standard(s) which are different, for males and females. That means that males still have higher requirements and females still have lower requirements for a combat MOS, rather than the current status being all members (being male) are held to the higher standard.
Â
Combat MOS's are indeed more grueling, require higher strength and endurance. I do believe though, that if a female can meet and retain the higher standard she should be admitted.
Â
Is this how you feel as well?
Â
@7th Cav - you are clearly missing that the military has said that they are NOT reducing the requirements for combat service.  The fact that non-combat service PT standards are different has no bearing on whether women get into combat.
@straightshooter - Semper Fi straightshooter.
Â
People go after me with the 'you were never a Marine' for only one reason:  I do not fall within the 'former/current military member always equals right wing extreme conservative' stereotype.  It's as false as every other stereotype, but these folks don't seem to care.
Â
And you're right. People do confuse 'former' Marine with 'Ex' Marine in that saying. I don't often try to explain the difference myself when they attack because that kind of person wouldn't accept that there is a difference between the two.
Â
Thanks for your support fellow Marine.Â
 @straightshooter  @7th  @FormerMarineSgt Sir, I will take that into consideration next time. Thank you for the correction.
 @FormerMarineSgt  @7th Sir, you are using 'bias' incorrectly as I do agree with you concerning PT standards being the same across the board. I also agree that gay persons should serve with no strings attached, and I have served with them.
Â
I did not make such a statement for you to become unhinged, and it is not I who treats women differently, it is the military PT standards. If you agree that all PT standards should be the same across the board, then we are on the same page whether you realize it or not.
Â
The fact is, as you have stated, women are different. I have seen this first hand as it is extremely rare to see a woman with a 300 PT score, even with lower PT standards, yet it is quite common for males. In specialty schools, no matter how much you'd like to believe what you think or whomever has told you this, women wash out at an extremely high rate (70% average) and men at a low rate (20% average).
Â
I also did not say you had experience with women in combat, and therein lies the problem. You would not know the above information is accurate, then form an opinion without knowing the facts.
@7th Cav @FormerMarineSgt Actually, I think you're mixing up the "once a Marine, always a Marine" and "there's no such thing as an Ex-Marine, only former Marine" adages. Don't worry, though. It's a Marine thing- you wouldn't understand.
@7th -- you really need to remove your own bias when you read other people's comments.Â
I DID NOT claim to have personal experience with women in combat roles.   Nor did I say that women and men are the same.
What I DID say is that if a woman can pass the same physical requirements that a man can, she's earned the spot on the team. That includes successful completion of air assault and airborne schools or any other school.
I also said that women HAVE been successful in combat (and I assumed you had the brains to realize that I mean in Iraq and Afghanistan where the combat and non-combat roles mixed frequently).
You have seen washouts from air assault and airborne schools - I assume you mean women AND men - because men washout at pretty high rates too.
I don't agree with you on this - but I'm no rock either. I know that many women will not pass the requirements. However, many western countries have women in combat roles, yet we don't hear anything about them being a deterement...  We only hear that they serve with distinction as well as the men they serve with. Women only get treated differently by people like you who have pre-determined that they can't do the job. The rest of us expect standards and requirements to be left as is and if a woman can meet those standards and requirements, she's good to go.
I think you have a preconcieved notion that women are fragile little things that can't do anything dangerous like a man can... I pity you.
 @FormerMarineSgt  @7th Sir, I did not make this a party issue. If you were indeed a service member 30 years ago, you would have no functional experience with women in combat positions, which would make your statements purely an emotional opinion. Whereas I have seen the washouts from air assault and airborne school, they are not the same.
Â
I admire your drive to be inclusive of all genders in all things possible, but it is simply not the way it works in reality. Women will not be held to the same standard, as they have not been since they were admitted into the armed forces. They simply will not, it will not happen. Even if it did come to pass, it would be struck down on (ironically) equality legislation.
Â
The entire premise of agreeing that it will be ok if they are able to meet the men's standard is moot because they will adjust the standards as the washout rate climbs ever higher, backed by the women's rights lobby.
Â
It is what it is, and they will never be held to the same standard, period.Â
@7th Cav -- Your own bias is getting in your way there 7th.
Â
You can beleive whatever you want about me.  If I don't comply with the conservative right wing stereotypes of being a former military man - so if that is why you doubt my being a Marine, go ____ yourself for all I care. Â
Â
I was a Marine Sgt and served 8 years active + reserve time. That was getting closer and closer to 30 years ago, so forgive me if I get some terminologies wrong or if my experiences and knowledge don't jive with your likely more current time in the military.
Â
It's amazing how many clowns who AREN'T Marines try to play the 'there is no such thing as a FORMER Marine game....
Â
Here's the details for you and anyone else wondering why I use the term 'Former': I use the term 'former' in respect for and to differentiate between myself and the folks who are CURRENT Marines - aka 'currently enlisted in the Marine Corps'.  I am not currently enlisted, therefore I am formerly enlisted. Add that to the fact that I was a Marine Sgt, and you get 'Former Marine Sgt.'.
Â
After all these years, I still bleed Scarlet and Gold and celebrate the Marine Corps Anniversary with a shot of Rum in rememberance of the buddies I served with (with whom we got drunk too many times in the e-club with doing double shots of 151).
Â
Those are the facts. You may doubt me, but I really don't give a S.Â
Â
But enough of this. Let's stick to the subject at hand instead of playing stupid games.
Â
There are women who are fully capable of being physically capable of being in combat. Saying otherwise is a blatant lie.
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
@FormerMarineSgt I think you've forgotten the mandatory"fireman's carry" in basic training. I'll bet it's still required for the "men."
@Klondiko -- Go back and re-read my comment, but if you won't, let me help you by turning the volume up a little:   IF A WOMAN CAN MEET THE PHYSICAL REQUIREMENTS, THEN THERE IS NO REASON OTHER THAN BIAS TO PREVENT HER FROM BEING IN COMBAT.  MANY WOMEN HAVE ALREADY SERVED IN COMBAT AND DONE SO WITH DISTINCTION, WITH NO REPORTS OF 'BEING UNABLE TO MEET THE DEMANDS OF COMBAT'.
Aha..the stress fracture strikes again and has screwed us all.