SR_
Junior Member
I can see that maybe the length of explanation might be too much for some to track so ill simplify it down. After reading the long version the short version will make more sense.
Scenario 1:
Male 2nd Lt graduates the Infantry Officer Course and is assigned to an infantry platoon.
He gets promoted to 1st Lt and picks up more responsibility within the infantry company.
He gets promoted to Captain and is assigned as a company commander within an infantry battalion.
He gets promoted to Major and picks up more responsibility within the infantry battalion.
He gets promoted to Lt. Colonel and is assigned as a battalion commander within an infantry regiment.
He gets promoted to Colonel and is assigned a command with an infantry regiment.
He gets promoted to General and is assigned a command of a division.
and so on and so forth.
SINCE he was in the infantry his odds of being in combat are increased because the infantry is a combat arms unit. During war its highly likely that as a lowly platoon commander of an infantry unit his odds of being in combat are dramatically increased over the odds of a logistics officer. His promotion within the infantry however is not tied to necessarily "being in combat", his promotion path has more to do with the fact that his entire career has been infantry.
Scenario 2:
A female 2nd Lt graduates from The Basic School and goes to her specific MOS training that is NOT in combat arms as she is excluded from that path. She is in supply and logistics.
She does her job well and is promoted to 1st Lt within the logistics MOS path. As a logistics platoon leader.
She again performs well and is promoted to captain and takes over a logistics company.
She again performs well and is promoted to Major and takes over more responsibility within the logistics element battalion.
She again performs well and is promoted to a Lt. Colonel and take command of a logistics battalion.
She again performs well and is promoted to a Colonel taking over a logistics regiment.
She again performs well and is promoted to General and takes over a Logistics Group.
Maybe as a 1st Lt she was supervising a convoy in AFG and experiences combat. This experience is not really tied to her advancement within the logistics field. Logistics are not tasked with closing with and eliminating the enemy. So again, this combat experience doesnt necessarily help or hurt her career. Her promotion mobility is tied to her advancement through the logistics path.
There seems to be a misconception that BECAUSE the female experienced combat then she qualifies is being DENIED the command roles in the infantry that she would normally have. This is not the case. Even with the new policy she would not go from the logistics field to the infantry, it has nothing to do with combat experience its that she has years and on the ground experience and wisdom in the field of logistics.. her career path will be within that realm. This is the same for any man. No logistics male officer is going to be put into an infantry command billet just because he experienced combat on a convoy.
So even though both experienced combat at 1st Lt's, one is not qualified to be promoted through an infantry path, and the same is true for the male, he is not qualified to be promoted through the logistical path... Each person has been trained to do a job and its only logical to build strength in command by having experience within a field. It has nothing to do with combat for individual promotion within a field.
The new policy only opens up the possibility, no guarantee, but the possibility that a female could enter the infantry path... she may still not make it past captain.. but the additional billets will be open to her. She may or may not experience combat. That really doesnt matter.
My question is at what cost is this worth it? How can anyone justify putting lives at risk so that a gender based focus is made on the possibility of career advancement?
Scenario 1:
Male 2nd Lt graduates the Infantry Officer Course and is assigned to an infantry platoon.
He gets promoted to 1st Lt and picks up more responsibility within the infantry company.
He gets promoted to Captain and is assigned as a company commander within an infantry battalion.
He gets promoted to Major and picks up more responsibility within the infantry battalion.
He gets promoted to Lt. Colonel and is assigned as a battalion commander within an infantry regiment.
He gets promoted to Colonel and is assigned a command with an infantry regiment.
He gets promoted to General and is assigned a command of a division.
and so on and so forth.
SINCE he was in the infantry his odds of being in combat are increased because the infantry is a combat arms unit. During war its highly likely that as a lowly platoon commander of an infantry unit his odds of being in combat are dramatically increased over the odds of a logistics officer. His promotion within the infantry however is not tied to necessarily "being in combat", his promotion path has more to do with the fact that his entire career has been infantry.
Scenario 2:
A female 2nd Lt graduates from The Basic School and goes to her specific MOS training that is NOT in combat arms as she is excluded from that path. She is in supply and logistics.
She does her job well and is promoted to 1st Lt within the logistics MOS path. As a logistics platoon leader.
She again performs well and is promoted to captain and takes over a logistics company.
She again performs well and is promoted to Major and takes over more responsibility within the logistics element battalion.
She again performs well and is promoted to a Lt. Colonel and take command of a logistics battalion.
She again performs well and is promoted to a Colonel taking over a logistics regiment.
She again performs well and is promoted to General and takes over a Logistics Group.
Maybe as a 1st Lt she was supervising a convoy in AFG and experiences combat. This experience is not really tied to her advancement within the logistics field. Logistics are not tasked with closing with and eliminating the enemy. So again, this combat experience doesnt necessarily help or hurt her career. Her promotion mobility is tied to her advancement through the logistics path.
There seems to be a misconception that BECAUSE the female experienced combat then she qualifies is being DENIED the command roles in the infantry that she would normally have. This is not the case. Even with the new policy she would not go from the logistics field to the infantry, it has nothing to do with combat experience its that she has years and on the ground experience and wisdom in the field of logistics.. her career path will be within that realm. This is the same for any man. No logistics male officer is going to be put into an infantry command billet just because he experienced combat on a convoy.
So even though both experienced combat at 1st Lt's, one is not qualified to be promoted through an infantry path, and the same is true for the male, he is not qualified to be promoted through the logistical path... Each person has been trained to do a job and its only logical to build strength in command by having experience within a field. It has nothing to do with combat for individual promotion within a field.
The new policy only opens up the possibility, no guarantee, but the possibility that a female could enter the infantry path... she may still not make it past captain.. but the additional billets will be open to her. She may or may not experience combat. That really doesnt matter.
My question is at what cost is this worth it? How can anyone justify putting lives at risk so that a gender based focus is made on the possibility of career advancement?
