Here's an 11-minute segment that was on NPR this morning. These people have been in combat and don't share your opinion. And I don't believe their opinions have less value than yours.
Ending Combat Ban More Change in Thinking than in Reality
Everything mentioned in that interview speaks to my concern as being valid.
Most of the interview is conjecture on what the individual being interviewed might think, the rest dodged the real questions and concerns without explanation. The details and institutional procedures are where the risks and dangers are born, and on the battlefield is where they become proven.
The General was asked what her concerns were about opening up infantry to females were. Her immediate response was the physical concerns. She was asked what changed her mind just in the past few years of why these combat jobs of infantry and armor COULD be done by females. Her answer as not to explain how in the world her concerns about the physical capability have been addressed, it was just to say that her concerns have now changed BECAUSE the positions are now open. This is illogical and dodged the question fully.
When asked about the standards, she said that the standards would be changed, but that wouldnt mean they would be lowered in order to jive with what the Chairman had said in his interview (and of which i posted), that the standards needed to be studied to determine if modification was necessary. When asked if that was in a sense lowering the standards, through her excitement she waffled again and just said that standards would change... with no explanation.
The medic in his part of the interview talked about FET teams. (Female Engagement Teams). I guess I should explain to you what they are and why they exist. The islamic culture as you know has many restrictions of the ability of women, married or not, in communicating with males. Just as example, while we were outside the wire, if we looked at or communicated directly with a female, SHE could be punished by her husband or father. The only solution was to imbed females with the infantry unit so that they could communicate or "engage" with indigenous women. They could address medical concerns, they could talk about what the women of those villages needed.
The females tasked with being on the teams came from every MOS's specialty. They may have been admin, comm, supply, etc.. it didnt matter. They did receive special training, but that training concerned cultural training and some basic ROE training. The FET's purpose was not for combat related missions. They have and had no type of infantry combat training. They would be "taken" in by an infantry squad providing security for them as long as the area had been deemed safe. They would not be doing any infantry related responsibilities... that was for the infantryman to do, as they had been trained in HOW TO DO THAT.
Its the exact same as having a reporter embedded with an infantry unit. The reporter is there... with the infantry.. but just because they are there does not mean they are now infantryman.
The mission of the FET team inside the village would be accomplished, they may offer to do medical services for the women, talk about the current quality of life, ask about their children and what they may need, and then the unit would leave.
Dont get me wrong, this mission was and is vital. Having communicative abilities with the females in any location is necessary. Providing female medical attention is necessary to our counter insurgency doctrine. This service by these females was and is important. There is no doubt. However, if the village was ambushed and/or a fire fight has broken out, these females in uniform would be the responsibility of the infantry unit and its assets to get to safety. Their responsibility would not be a sector of fire in the operations of any squad or company movement. They would have had no idea of how to make that work, not because they are females, but because they had not undergone months and months of infantry training.
Nothing that I just said was in conflict with anything that was said in the NPR interview. All i did was give you the actual details of the mission and the detailed role of the individuals involved.
This is not complicated to understand. Were and are there women with these line units in the field undertaking missions? Yes, and both my comments and those in the interview are in perfect harmony with that reality.
Does this mean that those women were doing the same job as their male counterparts? No, and both my comments and those in the interview are still in perfect harmony.
Is the training the same for both the women and the men in order to accomplish this mission? No, and yet still, this does not cause any contradictions in what I have said, nor those in the interview.
As i have mentioned several times, the situational reality is not a qualifier for an institutional policy implementation.
The question that should have been asked to the female General is this:
Do you think females can integrate into the infantry in sufficient numbers without dropping the current physical standards?
The answer to this is suggested to be no, not only by the General but also by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs... and the only reason why it is suggested to be no is because there was a lot of attention paid to modifying the standards. What i heard the female General say was that she was not in support of keeping the standards, only because she never thought that females would be allowed to try. Now that they are, she is in support of "changing them". My inference from these comments is that she understands that with current standards success is not going to come... it will be necessary to lower those standards so that females will be able to qualify and sustain holding billets for career advancement.
That to me is a problem. It really should be a concern to you as well. It most likely is not because you dont have any appreciation for what it takes and consequences of lowering those standards.
