Mind Over Matter

So we need more people who will sit quietly, thinking, remaining calm, while their unfortunate comrades actually get up and head into battle. Not a bad role for me, but I'd probably have to fake the "calm" attribute.

Soldiers commonly carry 100lbs of assorted horsesh1t with them on patrols, mostly ammunition.

Tell me again about the "masculine brawn" thing. Oh, and show me a girl who can walk a mile on flat ground with rifle and 100lbs of crap on her back. I couldn't do it now, at 50+. Knees, y'know.

I know there are women out there who can do it. They are few and far between, and most of the ones I've met who can, won't. They are -girls-. Carrying heavy sh1t around is for -boys-.

Yes, because that's exactly what comes to mind when envisioning a unit under fire: a woman remaining calm.

Please, they should just cover the battlefield with spiders and math questions to have them all surrender without a shot being fired.

Yeah, cos quick thinking is surely what the British troops used when they trekked across East Falkland... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yomp

She has a point. The shells of the main guns of tanks having gone from 37mm to 120mm have gotten commensurately lighter. The distances one has to sprint with a GPMG and its ammunition have gotten shorter. And the battlefield of the future has gone from the relatively flat north European plain to isolated mountains in places like Afghanistan with a commensurate decrease in the quantity of ammunition and supplies one has to hump into a potential engagement. Hmmmm . . .
It's not that there isn't the occasional female that can do it. But they are rare. And, as pointed out in an article by a female marine posted previously on this site, the women are far more prone to injury when participating in combat training and action. Lowering standards will cost lives. But whereas conservatives have always been more inclined to risk their lives for their beliefs, liberals have always been more inclined to risk others' lives for their beliefs. Nothing new in that.

This from the folks that actually get shot at...
http://www.blackfive.net/main/2013/08/are-you-really-this-clueless.html#more

This is thinking done by cowards as per Aristotle.

I would suspect this is why cops are so quick to shoot. Change the rules so the women don't look so bad.

With the side effect of making the men into women as well.

No "thinking" person is going to join an Army that covers for mohammadan psychotics like Major Nidal Hasan.

Nothing new. The Canadian Army base in Wainwright was 'inspected' by a rather infamous general years ago. In a 'town-hall' spent with the women of all ranks, he was quite categorical that, in his opinion, forcing female infanteers to carry the same load as their male counterparts was blatant sexual discrimination.

One wonders what the g-g-g-general thought they could leave behind (rifle? helmet? ammo? gas mask? sleeping bag?) and how it would be carried for them.

Being a soldier in my late 40's I would suggest that most 45+ yr old military men could probably outperform 80% or better of military women in their 20s and 30s doing the same obstacle course--if there are obstacles that require pulling your body weight (or more as in you're carrying a rucksack while you're doing the course)over something (up a rope, over a wall, etc) the percentage of women who fail would go up substantially. Even the weakest men in the military outperform women who are in excellent shape.

Good for you guys! Every day you find more things in common with the Taliban. I think all you really need to get it together is some trust exercises, because you're pretty much on the same page with regards to policy.

Umm. The obstacle course isn't designed with the individual soldiers grading in mind. It's there to judge the performance of the team.

Surely the General knows this.

" traditional notions of masculine brawn that celebrate strength over other qualities "
That approach seems to work well for the militant Muslim terrorists.

There's plenty of opportunity for women to be drone pilots or the countless other important but less brawny jobs. I don't understand this fetish they have for crippling themselves and the army.

"...She cites World War II hero Audie Murphy and North Vietnamese insurgents as examples of small people who came up big on the battlefield.

Col. Haring, who had sued the Pentagon over its old exclusion policy, said that Murphy perhaps could not have passed the Marine Corps’ infantry officer qualification course.

"Perhaps" not passed the Marine Corps officer qualification course? Perhaps?

Harding is full of it. She is disingenuously trying to make the connection that size (not strength and fitness)is the reason why the female candidates flunked.

When Murphy was a young soldier back in the 40s, he would have been able to pass the physical part of today's the Marine Corps’ infantry officer qualification course like a walk in the park. And the Viet Cong insurgents she refers to were the equivalent of human mules - shouldering 100 lb. bags of rice and huge loads of weapons and ammo down the Ho Chi Minh trail and into their jungle bases.

I think she better pick some other examples.

Back when I played soldier (Cold Warrior) I thanked God for the muscleheads who were sinew and muscle and piss and vinegar. Women may be just fine in a lot of military positions but stay the frig out of infantry. Infantry has to pack their kit and be strong enough to use it when the fight starts.

"She cites World War II hero Audie Murphy and North Vietnamese insurgents as examples of small people who came up big on the battlefield."

Small in stature doesn't mean "weak". Murphy was a tough farm boy,and those Viet Cong were wiry, tough little buggers that could out perform any woman,and half the conscripts of the U.S Army.

My Dad was one of those smaller farm boy types, served from '39-45,at about 5'9", 155 lbs he was a lot stronger than I was at 6'2" and 200. Muscles from years of hard work.Used to frustrate the hell out of me that no matter how hard I tried he could always outwork me.

Go ahead,lower the standards for the U.S military, you've already lowered all the others.

It is true that Audie Murphy was initially rejected by the Army and Marines, in part becuase he was a small fry. And yes, by all accounts, he was the perfect soldier, a giant warrior from a country of warriors.

While I agree that "Combat sense" is preferred over strength, there exists no method to verify "combat sense". Anyone can tell a recruiter that she is the perfect warrior, but the recruiter actually needs a measuring stick. Since strength is preferred over weakness, the Army measures this. Until the day we have an "Audie Murphy litmus test", strength is a more than sufficient measuring stick.

I am sorry that I cannot provide the link(I’m sure someone can) to the episode of “The Burn” (Jeff Ross) that had Gilbert Gottfried as a guest.

There was a line that was sooooo funny, and relevant to this discussion I’ve practically got it memorized.

Jeff Ross asks Gilbert Gottfried: “What do you think about women now having combat roles in the military?

Gottfried yells in reply: “I THINK IT’S GREAT! I’VE ALWAYS THOUGHT WE WERE WINNING TOO MANY WARS!”

That is comedy gold!

The answer to the problem posed by the Bat Sh*t crazy Col. Ellen Haring, is answered by one concept: That a fool becomes a high ranking military officer (among many, many similar fools) shows that the society that has spawned such a situation is near collapse; it is rotting within. The military has become a jobs program, a sociological experiment, a political plaything, anything except a war fighting mechanism that is effective. Pray, it never has to fight a really determined enemy.

Dan Kurt

"Fixating on physical standards is a tactical-level approach that misses a strategic-level opportunity.” Col. Haring

Beg pardon, infantry combat is all tactics. Strategy is bombing the tank factory and/or blowing up all the bridges so the enemy can't bring their tanks to the battlefield. Tactics is dealing with an enemy tank on the battlefield.

It should be noted that Col. Haring has never been in combat, here's her resume

http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=37064

while the training courses have all been designed by infantry officers who were in combat in WWII, Korea, Vietnam etc.

Who's a better judge of combat infantry training requirements, people who have been in combat or an academic who has not?

"Perhaps it is time to take a hard look at what really makes a competent combat soldier"
~Ellen

Yes, Ellen, it is time that you took a hard look at that, girl.
Men have already stared at that question pretty hard in the winner-takes-all contest of WAR for thousands of years.
You, Ellen, have nothing to contribute but you can still learn.

Dear John:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWBUl7oT9sA

You know , if "thinking" is the new criteria and sheer physical ability is out, would this not increase the number of asians getting admitted and cut down on the number of some unmentionable racial group (I don't want to get banned for life)?

Audie Murphy was a sociopath, I mean that in a good way.

There used to be a U.S. Army study, online, that dealt with the fact that 60% of all the killing done on the battle field was done by 1 or 2 % of the soldiers. The study then went on to analyse why this was so and concluded that most (male)soldiers cannot overcome their natural empathy and the social taboo against kill, kill, killing their fellow man.

The study went on to tell unit commanders how to recognize, with the U.S. Army profile supplied them(which Audie Murphy fit to a "T"), the natural born killers(sociopaths) under their command and encourage them to train and specialize in crew served weapons that could reap maximum dividends from their killing potential.

Last time I looked I couldn't find that study anymore. Does anyone have a link or copy of it?

Women are, as Leftists never tire of claiming, supposed to be the more empathic half of the population.
I'm sure Ellen has total access to the study I was referring to above.

Ok, so the Pentagon lowers the standards, finds the 'rare' women that it takes to complete and master the course and training, thereby; removing the best and brightest women from society and placing them into the military and then sends them out to combat where they get killed right along side the men, because, you know, the enemy doesn't know that their enemy is a woman dressed like a man. I mean, unless the Joint Task Force Leader is gona email the bra-sizes to everyone on the mission then you wouldn't know they were women, eh ?

Anybody, anyone, Anyone ? See anything wrong with this scenario ?

"small in stature..."

She obviously hasn't met my 5'2" brother-in-law who decked every bully in Rosemount school who picked on him. So much the so, when his younger taller brother (but not a fighter) finally started attending school, every one of those bullies veered away from him.

One standard for all to get the job and form the standard around actual conditions.

Women are just as violent as men, not usually as successful in hand to hand combat, but just as violent.

The march of societal feminization carries on.

Since we don't need to fight wars, we don't need to be able to win them.

Here is taking a hard look at what really makes a competent combat soldier.
Yes, Ellen, history didn't just start when you got out of bed this morning.

https://notes.utk.edu/Bio/greenberg.nsf/a80806fbebea8dd285257015006e1943/09613ff986b2a86885257599001505c1?OpenDocument

Obviously I misremembered some of the details of this paper in my comment at 12:17

She misses the point of the 'brawn'. Being strong has benefits beyond merely being a pack mule on the battlefield, physical strength helps the psychological strength of the individual, helping cope with the massive stress of the battlefield. Which in turn helps leaders remain calm and make decisions under that stress.

Simply being calm problem solver in the MBA sense of the word is useless if you can't march the 20km in marching order with the endurance to actually carry out your task when you get to the start line.

So many great comments above.

That will work out well when the sh*t hits the fan.

Another small step in the collapse of the American Empire.

We continue to see this same stupidity in Canada even with our police, prison guards and fire fighters and the results are not pretty. The truth is that there are plenty of men who could not meet the physical requirements (the real ones) of the job and should not be hired or assigned either but due to allowing "diversity"/affirmative action to trump actual job requirements they and women are given priority. No wonder we have more and more cases of enforcement agents resorting to tasers and guns instead of simple physical restraint.

Would anyone like to discuss what happens when these women are taken as POWs?

Not only the for the women, but for the psychology of the men in battle, the military and the nation as a whole? Gee, won’t it be fun to watch youtube videos of our women being raped and enslaved by the jihad savages?/sarc

Let me ask this a different way... if we are not fighting for the liberty and the lives of our women and children; what the f r we fighting for?

Would anyone like to talk about the unnecessary philandering and flirting and fooling around that will be going on, and how it will be a major distraction for any military fighting group?

Physical strength is the least of the issues(although a good one) when it comes to why women should not be in military combat.

One word: moron.

WHat she is describing are the attributes of officers. They are the ones that have to keep calm and still be capable of rational thought.

When they have decided what to do, they rely on having capable and strong troops who will obey seemingly dumb orders to the letter.

This is how battles (and indeed, wars) are won.

The fact that this woman is an officer and doesn't understand this is worrying.

I was a US Army Infantryman, serving both as an enlisted soldier and as a commissioned officer. While the Army has certainly upgraded its technology and the ability to quickly assess the information now flooding the foot soldier is very important, that very ability is degraded if that soldier is physically stressed, by either what they have just gone through or are currently dealing with. Eighty pounds of body armor and gear is still eighty pounds, no matter how smart you are.

If anything, the physical standards need to be increased, so as to allow a soldier to arrive onsite, correctly assess the situation, and make split second decisions without having to spend 80% of his energy sucking in air until his body catches up.

If women can do this, I won't say fine, but I will allow that it then makes their participation in combat operations workable on the practical level. But to lower physical standards now, just when that participation threshold is being crossed smacks, no, stinks of political correctness. And it will get soldiers killed.

"WHat she is describing are the attributes of officers. They are the ones that have to keep calm and still be capable of rational thought."

Effective NCO's have to be capable of staying calm under stress and make rational decisions. It's not just an 'officer attribute'.