Woman in the Infantry?

[Iraqvet 68]

By James Robert Webb

I first need to begin this post with a disclaimer. Not because of any offensive or controversial subject matter but because I have failed to achieve the proper mindset necessary for 'attacking' this kind of subject.

A good friend of mine, who knows the most intimate details about my opinion on this matter, read my draft copy of this post and said, "Jim! Get angry! Let the hate flow through you!" So, I walked down to my local convenience store and bought a 12 of PBR in order to tap into my inner Clint Eastwood (GET OFF MY LAWN!). I then assembled a list of tracks I deem necessary for pushing me to the Dark Side, which may or may not have worked..

So..

Last week I had the opportunity to sit down with a diverse group of people to discuss the new Department of Defense mandate that the military open up billets in combat units to women. The discussion was pretty lively, if not completely one sided. The main (if not only) proponent for the addition of women into combat roles was Martha McSally. On the other side were several women, to include Retired USMC Gunnery Sgt. Jessie Jane Duff, and then myself, the lone male in the group.

Before I get into the meat of my perspective on this particular issue I want to make a couple of things clear. The first is that women have encountered combat in the past decade, just like the rest of the force, and served admirably. On a more personal level my mother, aunt, grandmother and one of my female cousins have all stepped up, put on a uniform at some point during a time of war. I also come from a long line of war fighters, more specifically Infantryman. In more recent history, my father was a Marine and wounded twice in Vietnam, my grandfather was in the second wave of Marines to land on Iwo Jima, my other grandfather was a career Air Force Officer. Serving in WWII, the Berlin Airlift, Korea, and Vietnam.

In short, while only two family members (from either side) have made a career of the military, I can trace my lineage to every American War dating back to the French and Indian and to European conflicts even further back in history. I myself was a Sgt in the Marine Corps Infantry and the phone call to my father after rating a Combat Action Ribbon was one of the proudest moments of my life. I had managed to carry on the war fighter legacy for another generation.

All of that to say: Women entering the Infantry is a hot button issue for me, not as an abstract policy decision, but on a very personal level.

I see this as an attempt to create social progress or make a social statement at the expense of those who put their lives on the line.

Pure and simple, it's nothing short of self promotion... which is ironic given that Infantry units abhor the concept of the individual.

It is preached to the point of mantra that tightly knit teams win wars, while individuals get people killed.

Let's break this down.

1. This is unfair to women.

Plain and simple, if you admit women into the Infantry, you must ask them to be men. This is completely unfair, as women are not physically just smaller men - they are completely different. Now, this is not the same as equality in society - that is a completely separate issue.

In society writ large there are examples of these physical differences. One of these is the Olympics, where there are separate events for both men and women. As Ms. Duff pointed out during our discussion, women have 50% less upper body strength, and 25% less lung capacity. Because of this reality, the physical standards for women in the military are significantly and justifiably lower. The Infantry itself is a lot like your university's football team. They're a bunch of mouth breathing, knuckle dragging, testosterone charged, physical machines (to be clear I say this out of love). These men didn't join the Infantry because the uniforms were cool or they wanted money for college. They joined to push themselves to the limits of human endurance, and well, because over the past 10 years were promised a chance to take a shot at another human being... legally.

Do you really want your daughter hanging out with men who have that mentality?

Additionally, you are opening up the door to a world of backlash as well. The Army has already mandated that not only will women attend Ranger School, but any who are dismissed must be justified to the highest level of command. This is precisely the kind of treatment that creates resentment and makes it harder for women to co-exist in the military with men.

2. The Infantry as a sub-culture.

BLUF: The Infantry exists for one purpose and that is to kill people.

Anyone can try to paint a rosier picture of what grunts do; nation build, hand out soccer balls, etc. but, when it comes down to it, throughout history Infantrymen have hunted down the enemy and killed him.

Intrantrymen are not diplomats, negotiators, social crusaders, or explicit advocates of human rights. They are the men who are sent in when diplomatic channels fail, in order to influence other groups of people through the application of violence. In all other segments of society, except in criminal elements, violence is preached against, avoided, and except in the rarest of circumstances, illegal. In an Infantryman's world, violence is actively sought out, and participating in a gunfight is not only sought out, it is a standard by which you are judged. As this is a primal kind of existence all things are judged by whether or not they make you more effective in combat. That is to say, does this policy enable you to take life more effectively, or does it put you and your fellow grunts more at risk of losing your own. Everything boils down to exploitation of weakness and preservation of your own. Needless to say this is very different from the day-to-day in everyday America.

As a result, the Infantry is probably the least politically correct and most exclusive group in America. It's allowed to be, it HAS to be. This is not to say that Grunts are sexist men who drive fancy cars and are haggled by the Paparazzi. Fairness in the Infantry is pure. It is simple. It is determined by how effective your unit is on the battlefield. The more elite the unit, the more 'unfair' the entry standards are, and the more 'unfair' the fight is for the enemy. Anything which hinders your ability to dominate your battlespace is stripped out. As an individual you are constantly evaluated to determine your worth, more specifically, whether or not you are a liability. We eat our own. If it is determined that a new member is weak or undependable, every attempt is made to get rid of that person by any means necessary. Additionally, these screening methods, which would boil the blood of activists across the country, has a very unique effect which isn't really witnessed in any other institution. All races and creeds present understand what is at stake and all stand together because you're held to the same murderous standard. There's a saying, "All Marines are Green" and unlike anywhere else, in Grunt units it's true.

Why is it important not to alter this equation?

Because it's a methodology that works... and has to work, because if it doesn't then we no longer have the most effective fighting force in the world. Additionally, it is inherent to the existence of Infantry units that they are able to police their own. This mandate is the exact opposite of this, and opens the door for groups, many of whom have no association with the military at any level, to determine the correct way for such units to conduct themselves.

More to the point, if the calculus is altered, our people, my peers, die. So, if we have the most capable and lethal ground combat force on the planet, it isn't broken. If it isn't broken, what are we trying to fix?

3. There is a marked difference between 'Combat' and 'Sustained Ground Combat Operations'

Combat in its simplest definition entails that shots are exchanged between two hostile groups. This can last a few seconds, minutes, or hours. Combat, or what is commonly known as a 'firefight' can occur at any point. Typically non-infantry units who are attacked, seek to respond with force to get away from the attack, or 'out of the kill zone'. They do not seek to necessarily close with and destroy hostile forces. In essence, the less time engaged with the enemy, the better.

Sustained ground combat operations , as conducted by infantry units, are quite the opposite. If an infantry unit encounters hostility in an area, their focus becomes driving the enemy from that area. Unlike non-Infantry units, Grunt units will keep going back until the threat is eliminated. This means days, weeks or months away from any kind of comfort, while you constantly move around looking for a fight. Fundamentally, it is an assertion of dominance and control. It is a primal an animalistic existence. This kind of attitude is shunned and feared in today's main stream society. However, in warfare it is inherent that you act this way, because if you do not, your opponent will. Once a specific area is under control, leadership then finds a new area in which to repeat the process. Infantrymen do this day in and day out for the length of their deployment. In the "War On Terror" these types have deployments have ranged from 7 to 18 months in duration.

Now, take this attitude which is completely contrary to societal norms, and do it with a series of factors which make degrade your ability to be effective. First, strap on around 100lbs of additional equipment, thereby making you slow, cumbersome, and constantly uncomfortable. Next, remove a regular meal schedule, which makes you weak. Finally, only sleep for a couple hours at a time, usually in your gear and when it's too hot to move, as many Infantry units operate mainly at night. All of this reaches a crescendo when it's combined with the ever present reminder that any mistake you make can cost your peers life and limb. This is not your typical day job, and it is not a place for social experimentation. As if it's some kind of lab set up to 'see' if certain people can hack it or not. This environment is the complete opposite of that. It is the ultimate crucible of human physical and emotional endurance, which only the most capable people should apply.

4. It can physically break off even the strongest men

I will never be as proud as I was about serving as a Grunt in the Marine Corps. However, it was the most physically taxing and damaging thing I have ever done to myself. To this day I still wake up every morning, and have a nice 'walk down memory lane'. When I look in the mirror I see the scars on my body left by a reconstructive surgery on my shoulder, at least once a year my back seizes up because I have compressed vertebrae. I'm not yet 31 and sometimes feel like an old man. On the same note, I have never been a physical slouch. At my peak physical conditioning I weighed in at 170 pounds, could do 26 pull ups and ran 3 miles in under 18 minutes. However, even in that kind of shape, the sheer magnitude of the equipment I had to carry around took its toll. An easy day was carrying around half my body weight. At times, it was significantly more.

To put it metaphorically (and to draw on a previous one), everyone should be afforded the opportunity to go to Ohio State, but for obvious reasons not just anyone can be on the football team.

5. My Biggest Fear

Plain and simple, that standards are dropped to allow 'social progress.' To me, this will mean nothing short of a marked drop in effectiveness on the battlefield, which in turn results in needless deaths of our people. Let's be real for a second, whomever we're fighting could care less about whether or not we have women on the battlefield. Their only concern is how easy it is to kill our people. What I truly believe is that those who are proponents of Women in the Infantry are actively attempting to change the culture of the Infantry, because for one reason or another, it disgusts them. Infantrymen are notoriously aggressive, combative, politically incorrect and downright offensive at times. This is precisely the type of attitude that the job demands. I don't tell anyone else how to live their life or how to do their job, and what I resent is the line of people coming in and telling me how to do mine. Furthermore, if you look at American culture, the 'beta' male has become the norm, or even the social ideal. While James Dean, or John Wayne used to be the 'ideal' American male, we now have Justin Bieber and Justin Timberlake. Gone is the man's man.

This is no accident.

On the flip side, the Infantry is an old school, 'man's man' environment. Furthermore, the majority of Americans have never even met an Infantryman, let alone know what it takes to make a unit effective in combat.

Yet, these people are determining the fate and direction of such units.

Some .45% of Americans have served in the War on Terror, and I promise you it's vastly different than any video game you've ever played. But, what I do know, is that once groups such as NOW, the ACLU or anyone else starts going through the 'dirty laundry' of Infantry units (such as how they enforce discipline...for those who have been there, you know what I'm talking about), I have no doubt that they will demand, and get, 'change.' If and when this does happen, you will see the wholesale destruction of more than 200 years of tradition which has separated our Armed Forces from those of the rest of the World.

Edited March 7, 2013 by Iraqvet

[X Factor 1,112]

Masculinie women on testosterone are the exception

[BaBamSam 239]

Oh yay. Another white male who believes he can comment on the physical and emotional capabilities of women because he knows and happens to be related to a couple of women. Let's take a look.

"Last week I had the opportunity to sit down with a diverse group of people to discuss..."

Define diverse. Men and women? Different political analogies? Different ages? Different lifestyles? Just men and women is not diverse enough to get an actual debate on this topic, but points for trying.

"...if you admit women into the Infantry, you must ask them to be men"

No. You ask them to be exceptionally strong individuals.

"As Ms. Duff pointed out during our discussion, women have 50% less upper body strength, and 25% less lung capacity..."

Source this? Also, there are a million other variables that determine capacity more than biological sex. Health, lifestyle decisions, height and weight, training, etc. Obviously there's a difference but considering the top female lifter and top male lifter are not separated by this alleged 50%, I'm going to suggest that this gets fact checked.

"Do you really want your daughter hanging out with men who have that mentality?"

I wouldn't want my son OR daughter to be, actually. Thanks for reinforcing that gender construct.

"More to the point, if the calculus is altered, our people, my peers, die. So, if we have the most capable and lethal ground combat force on the planet, it isn't broken. If it isn't broken, what are we trying to fix?"

Substituting an equally trained and competent woman for a man of lesser or equal quality would not break your formula. But it might help erode some engrained gender constructs.

"It is the ultimate crucible of human physical and emotional endurance, which only the most capable people should apply."

And some women can be in that "most capable" group should you allow them to prove themselves.

"Plain and simple, that standards are dropped to allow 'social progress.'"

No one is advising that standards be dropped. They are advising that women should be allowed the opportunity to meet those standards.

"Furthermore, if you look at American culture, the 'beta' male has become the norm, or even the social ideal. While James Dean, or John Wayne used to be the 'ideal' American male, we now have Justin Bieber and Justin Timberlake. Gone is the man's man."

...the ignorance. I just can't even reason with the logic of someone who doesn't understand gender constructs.

"If and when this does happen, you will see the wholesale destruction of more than 200 years of tradition which has separated our Armed Forces from those of the rest of the World."

Doomsday prophecy point! Because change always results in the worst scenario. Tradition is always better. /sarcasm

This person is arguing about the culture of the infantry primarily, which can and has been changed. Accepting women does not have to, nor will it, lessen the effectiveness of the infantry in anyway. If capable women want the chance to serve in the infantry, they should be given that opportunity.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Well, this is some bullsh*t.

[Iraqvet 68]

This letter comes from the son of former Virgina Senator Jim Webb of the Democratic party. Who has served in the infantry and came up with this from his own observations of the infrantry due to his military experience. NOT from sitting on his asss with no military experience trying to change something he has absolutley no clue what he is talking about.

Edited March 7, 2013 by Iraqvet

[decocker 7,198]

This letter comes from the son of former Virgina Senator Jim Webb of the Democratic party.

is this jim webb's blogger James Robert Webb?

Edited March 7, 2013 by val erie

[Iraqvet 68]

http://www.jamesrwebb.com/2013/02/women-in-infantry.html

I received this from a chain email. But the website were it came from is there. The comments underneath it are very moving, and really help support women in combat.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I received this from a chain email.

Don't break the chain, dude! That is bad luck.

Oh, and thanks, BTW, now we have to spread this gibberish as well. Damn!

[decocker 7,198]

http://www.jamesrwebb.com/2013/02/women-in-infantry.html

I received this from a chain email. But the website were it came from is there. The comments underneath it are very moving, and really help support women in combat.

yeah, i misread you and thought you were saying it was jim webb's writing (not his son's).

i thought, no way jim webb runs a blogger.

[Iraqvet 68]

This person is arguing about the culture of the infantry primarily, which can and has been changed. Accepting women does not have to, nor will it, lessen the effectiveness of the infantry in anyway. If capable women want the chance to serve in the infantry, they should be given that opportunity.

Are you nuts? So you are under the belief that if the infantry was half women it would still be just as effective? Have you ever served in the infantry? Have you ever hiked 20 miles in moon boots carrying an 80 pound rucksack on your back while holding a 50cal barrel? a very, very small percentage of women on massive amounts steriods would be able to accomplish this.

[BaBamSam 239]

This letter comes from the son of former Virgina Senator Jim Webb of the Democratic party. Who has served in the infantry and came up with this from his own observations of the infrantry due to his military experience. NOT from sitting on his asss with no military experience trying to change something he has absolutley no clue what he is talking about.

He clearly has authority to talk about the military and infantry experience, but he does not have the authority to comment on women's equality within the military. His post highlights that he does not have authoritative knowledge about gender constructs either within or outside of the military (he uses gender constructs to justify his reasoning, for example). He certainly does not have the psychic ability nor the medical/biological knowledge to defend some of his arguments either.

[BaBamSam 239]

Are you nuts? So you are under the belief that if the infantry was half women it would still be just as effective? Have you ever served in the infantry? Have you ever hiked 20 miles in moon boots carrying an 80 pound rucksack on your back while holding a 50cal barrel? a very, very small percentage of women on massive amounts steriods would be able to accomplish this.

Please, do not imply or question my mental ability just for voicing a different opinion and perspective from your own. Thank you.

I am under the belief that the infantry would function best when it was comprised of those who demonstrate that they are sufficiently capable and sufficiently trained regardless of gender. This is not a "make it half and half" thing. This is allow women the opportunity to at least prove themselves.

I think the strength of women would surprise you, as your sweeping generalization reflects gender roles and beliefs constructed by society and is not related to actual biology. My personal competencies are not relevant as I neither would like to serve in the military, nor have I done that specific task. I do, however, know women who could do just that and many men who could not.

EDIT: Also your belief in the lesser effect of women stems from a social norm to perceive women as the lesser gender and sex. Another construct.

Edited March 7, 2013 by BaBamSam

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Oh yay. Another white male who believes he can comment on the physical and emotional capabilities of women because he knows and happens to be related to a couple of women. Let's take a look.

"Last week I had the opportunity to sit down with a diverse group of people to discuss..."

Define diverse. Men and women? Different political analogies? Different ages? Different lifestyles? Just men and women is not diverse enough to get an actual debate on this topic, but points for trying.

"...if you admit women into the Infantry, you must ask them to be men"

No. You ask them to be exceptionally strong individuals.

"As Ms. Duff pointed out during our discussion, women have 50% less upper body strength, and 25% less lung capacity..."

Source this? Also, there are a million other variables that determine capacity more than biological sex. Health, lifestyle decisions, height and weight, training, etc. Obviously there's a difference but considering the top female lifter and top male lifter are not separated by this alleged 50%, I'm going to suggest that this gets fact checked.

"Do you really want your daughter hanging out with men who have that mentality?"

I wouldn't want my son OR daughter to be, actually. Thanks for reinforcing that gender construct.

"More to the point, if the calculus is altered, our people, my peers, die. So, if we have the most capable and lethal ground combat force on the planet, it isn't broken. If it isn't broken, what are we trying to fix?"

Substituting an equally trained and competent woman for a man of lesser or equal quality would not break your formula. But it might help erode some engrained gender constructs.

"It is the ultimate crucible of human physical and emotional endurance, which only the most capable people should apply."

And some women can be in that "most capable" group should you allow them to prove themselves.

"Plain and simple, that standards are dropped to allow 'social progress.'"

No one is advising that standards be dropped. They are advising that women should be allowed the opportunity to meet those standards.

"Furthermore, if you look at American culture, the 'beta' male has become the norm, or even the social ideal. While James Dean, or John Wayne used to be the 'ideal' American male, we now have Justin Bieber and Justin Timberlake. Gone is the man's man."

...the ignorance. I just can't even reason with the logic of someone who doesn't understand gender constructs.

"If and when this does happen, you will see the wholesale destruction of more than 200 years of tradition which has separated our Armed Forces from those of the rest of the World."

Doomsday prophecy point! Because change always results in the worst scenario. Tradition is always better. /sarcasm

This person is arguing about the culture of the infantry primarily, which can and has been changed. Accepting women does not have to, nor will it, lessen the effectiveness of the infantry in anyway. If capable women want the chance to serve in the infantry, they should be given that opportunity.

I have served in the Infantry of this great country. I have also served as a commander of a mixed sex combat support unit. . The OP is spot on. Women have no business in the Infantry. As much as we may all want to prretned it would change and everything would be fine it would not. Your average woman is not going to strap on a 60lb ruck with mortor base plate on her back and hump 20 miles thru the FT. Benning bonnies. Are there some that may could.Probably.

Let's face it men and women are different. As much as it may pain some of you libs to admit it. Men and women are not meant to be the same. Women as a rule of thumb can not do everything a man can do and men are not good at strengths that women have. It's fact no matter how much you may not want it to be.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Please, do not imply or question my mental ability just for voicing a different opinion and perspective from your own. Thank you.

Have you received your CABA membership package yet?

[decocker 7,198]

oh snap!