Article

2004-03-10 Iraq-Jordan

Women distinguish themselves as officers in Iraq

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by rkb 2004-03-10 1:42:33 PM|| || Front Page|| [4 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 chicks with stones - secret weapon #23

Posted by Frank G 2004-3-10 3:17:00 PM|| 2004-3-10 3:17:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 Sounds like BS to me. A little truth interwoven with a lot of puffery, hallmarks of advocates of women in uniform, in combat.

Females in the US are not raised from childhood to be soldiers; even the daughters of military personnel receive very mixed messages about their role in society. Barbie doll or Chyna?
Therefore, *what* do you expect when such women are slapped into a uniform and told to perform (below par, granted), against males?
It's not just physical fitness, willingness, or intelligence. It is a lifetime of hierarchy, schoolyard leadership and John Wayne movies.

A very few females, most of whom were raised in male-dominated households, are able to perform on a par or better than the average male. The vast majority are sub-par or just interfere with mission accomplishment. DESPITE the insistence that they MUST perform, because they philosophically HAVE to perform. BECAUSE.

The military, for its part, has in peacetime been forced to kowtow before this experiment, despite vast amounts of evidence showing that most of it is a bad joke. It is the secret that everyone knows. Even JAG episodes hold it up for ridicule.

Are there females who perform? Absolutely. But it's a numbers game. How many losers must get in the way, not just of the enlisted ranks, but among officers, before missions get jeophardized? 40%? 70%? 90%?

Of the females, enlisted and officer, I ever met, perhaps one in ten could perform. The rest only suffice to draw fire or clear minefields.

Posted by Anonymous 2004-3-10 6:11:56 PM|| 2004-3-10 6:11:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 Well, Anonymous, *I teach at West Point* and I see how the women cadets match up against their male counterparts.

I'm quite confident that a good portion of them will perform well under fire if & when they are shot at.

Some do come from military families and they aren't Barbies or Chynas at all. One woman I taught and continue to sponsor will be a kick ass Army pilot in a year - her retired Special Ops dad thinks so, too - and she was picked to teach hand to hand combat to plebes last summer, in part because she holds a martial arts black belt & in part because she can and does hold her own with her male counterparts in all aspects as a cadet, including in hand to hand combat. She's a pretty damn good shot too, both handgun and rifle.

Sorry you've met some who don't make the grade, but I teach and am around a whole lot of female West Point cadets who can and do.

Posted by rkb 2004-3-10 6:36:12 PM|| 2004-3-10 6:36:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 Well, rkb, I didn't want to say so before, but the military academies' reputation for ruining good officers is legend. Those great machines ruin initiative, see the US Civil War as the end-all, be-all of tactics, and produce officers loathed and derided throughout the active forces.

The few who survive on active duty hide their class rings. The remainder are blackballed by their ROTC and OCS brethren with good cause--generally for misbehavior, offensiveness or mistreatment of subordinates.

"West Point" has almost become an invective. Twice I even observed enlisted men being reproved for saving the lives of West Point officers, whose lives had been endagered each by their own arrogant incompetence.

Last but not least you suggested a single example--I could cite many, and in a training environment at that. I still contend that the military cannot suffer 90% failure for the 10% or less who succeed. AND, I might add, because the military isn't willing to invest the double or triple training needed to raise the success of females in the ranks to at least 50%.

Posted by Anonymous 2004-3-10 7:03:59 PM|| 2004-3-10 7:03:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 Where the military has been forced to swallow a PR-PC approach, the blame lies squarely on the Rainbow Mentality - from the Church Committee to the Challenger disaster to the decimation of the Military's ranks, PC sabotage has, at times, been in vogue.

Clinton, Carter, et al, tried very very hard to gut this country's defenses and turn us into a European-style state, toothless and toeing the multilateralists' UN / Socialist Line. They did major damage, but the Military's professionals, busy correcting the glaring flaws (top-to-middle level mismanagement and politicization of the military during the Vietnam Era), maintained their composure and kept their eyes on-target. We owe them much for their steadfastness and gutsy dedication and honor. Our current Military's obvious professionalism and awesome effectiveness is proof that they succeeded spectacularly.

Not everyone in the Military is a line combat soldier. Obviously, everyone must have something more than cursory combat skills, but the examples often pointed out as failures are the exceptions - that's why they stand out. The mission is evolving fast - if allowed the time to do so - such as another term for Dubya, I have no doubt that Rumsfeld, et al, will design a system that will address not only the shortcomings created by moron civilian authorities of the past, but build a force structure and training system that will allow us to respond appropriately to the missions of the present and future.

The weeding process is always subject to some measure of political gamesmanship. I would much rather have all of our population included in the pool of talent - than lose half of them en masse. The answer isn't to shoot all the dogs because a few have fleas - it's to put sufficient checks and balances in the system while intelligent people are in charge so that we can weather the times when the morons are in charge.

My thanks go to people like rkb who've turned this topic's particular challenge on its head and made it an opportunity to add qualified females to the ranks. I'm certain that the bogus-promotion game gets regularly derailed by such people. And the opposite is also highly likely - the good people get due recognition for their abilities, skills, and dedication to the job.

Just my opinion and observations. Thx.

Posted by .com 2004-3-10 7:32:04 PM|| 2004-3-10 7:32:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 Sure I cited one example - I could list a lot more.

I'm well aware of the ring knocker stereotype. Some of it is deserved, some is not IMO. But since my retired husband was NOT commissioned via the academy, I know full well your suggestion that *most* academy grads are blackballed by ROTC / OCS grads is BS.

I've also had the chance to meet and talk with several real heroes , who came back to the Point from combat in Iraq and Afghanistan to talk about lessons learned re: the use of new equipment and tactics. So I know your Civil War charge is BS too.

The piece I posted is mostly a feel-good look at a few women. Interesting though that it bought out the huge chip on your shoulder - and a 19th century idea of what leadership and fitness to serve consists of.

Posted by rkb 2004-3-10 7:34:50 PM|| 2004-3-10 7:34:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 As is probably obvious, my comment in #6 was a response to Anonymous.

I'm not disregarding the concerns about women as officers and in particular, women in combat arenas. It's something my uniformed friends take seriously. But the wholesale discounting of USMA grads or of women isn't credible with me when I think about the officers I work with daily ... the female Lt Colonel MP who has been under fire in several conflicts in the last 15 years, say, or the Special Ops guy with the Pathfinder badge who came back to the Point to teach and mentor for a short tour. Any organization as big as the Army will have its mediocre members, but there are some outstanding officers that leave USMA every May. A few of them met with me today as they finish out their studies in preparation for graduation in May and probably assignment to places like Iraq a few months later.

Posted by rkb 2004-3-10 7:42:09 PM|| 2004-3-10 7:42:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 Interesting to see that the percentage of women officers is right about the same as the percentage of women with PhD's in Physics. I know this because I have one of those PhD's. The comments in post #2 sound remarkably similar to the arguments used to try to prevent women from getting degrees in math, physics, or basically anything that wasn't home economics. I agree we should not endanger soldiers in the name of PC stupidity. Here's an idea; why don't we just not have double standards? Decide what a competent soldier/officer/whatever needs to be able to do. If he or she can do the job, they are in. I honestly think we really don't know what women are physically capable of. I do know that in sports and in other areas, they seem to be doing a lot more every year. Now, either our Secret Genetic Modification Laboratories are doing an excellent job with the DNA upgrade kits, or maybe, just maybe, we haven't found our limits yet. So, as CPT Knight might say, get the hell out of my way.

Posted by Joy 2004-3-10 8:23:02 PM|| 2004-3-10 8:23:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 I've seen some damn good female officers. I've seen some worthless ones. Generally, the quality has risen over the past ten years or so, as woman officers have risen through the ranks and have started coming down hard on the ones who take advantage of their gender to work the system. I'll take a female Gudrun (read the Icelandic sagas) over a male Courtney Massengale any day.

Posted by 11A5S 2004-3-10 9:24:41 PM|| 2004-3-10 9:24:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 A a family funeral in NH two weeks ago, I compared notes with a couple of men who graduated from West Point around 1960 - one was my uncle. I graduated from USNA in the late 80's. I was curious about the efect of the changes that Gen Abisaid (sp?) made during his tour. We shared to opinion that his program of replacing hazing and training Plebes to be POW's was brilliant. I don't know whether Navy has followed suit, but from reading the papers I can tell that the Air Force Acedemy has made no changes.
I believe that the initiative and creativity quashing at West Point are a thing of the past.

If my ten year old daughter, a tiger, is interested in a serice academy down the road I will encourage her to look at all three, but I will recommend that she attends West Point if the other two schools are still locked in aberant 50's behavior.

My sister-in-law's father is a Navy grad from the early 50's and wants paddling to be re-implemented at USNA. I think it's too hard on the senior enlisted to have to retrain paddle-boys what leadership is after they get to the fleet.

Posted by Super Hose 2004-3-10 10:53:14 PM|| 2004-3-10 10:53:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 Unfortunately SH, the new comm at West Point, Brooks, has brought back hazing. I liked you're comment about paddle boys. I never understood the logic about taking some of the best young leaders in the nation and treating them like five-year-olds. After four years, you let them out into the military and everyone is shocked that they act like a bunch of twelve year olds. There are a lot of ways of putting people under stress and pressure. Most of them require a lot of hard work and thought from the trainers. Hazing is a cop out. It's mindless and does little to develop leaders.

Posted by 11A5S 2004-3-11 12:03:38 AM|| 2004-3-11 12:03:38 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 The new comm has tightened rules but I haven't heard from my cadets that hazing has returned. I'll check it out - there are a few cadets who trust me and will give me straight info.

Posted by rkb 2004-3-11 5:59:57 AM|| 2004-3-11 5:59:57 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 Hi rkb, I'm basing my comments on a speach I actually heard the comm make to the Beast Barracks first detail. Lot of four letter words and threats... I was not impressed. Don't ask how I happened to be there. I am not stationed at USMA.

Posted by 11A5S 2004-3-11 12:56:36 PM|| 2004-3-11 12:56:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Wanted to comment on the changes to USMA that GEN Abizaid made. I think the change from the 4th class to four class system was the best thing to happen to USMA in the last 100 years. There is a distinct difference in the way pre-2000 grads and the newer ones treat soldiers and NCOs. The earlier grads from the 4th class system have a do it OR ELSE mentality while the newer grads have learned that you need to earn their respect and motivate them to get results. I see that occurrence daily. Although every class will have it's retards, on the whole, I think that the change in systems resulted in a change from transaction leaders to more transformational officers. The reason I found this site because I was looking for a copy of the article above. I am a 2002 grad and my commander in that article is a 1998 grad. I know it is just one example, but I think it shows the contrast.

Posted by Alexis Marks 2004-07-09 9:04:21 PM|| 2004-07-09 9:04:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 welcome Alexis!

Posted by Frank G 2004-07-09 9:05:37 PM|| 2004-07-09 9:05:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 Lt. Alexis,

Thank you for your service! Good to hear from you, and God bless you.

Posted by cingold 2004-07-09 9:14:33 PM|| 2004-07-09 9:14:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 This is a sore subject w/me. I'm a non service academy officer. USNA guys only make up 10% of our officer ranks and that's prolly a good thing. No offense SH, but they don't even go to our OCS since the Corps accepts the USNA training as enough to be a 2ndLT in the USMC. Prolly to the detriment of the Naval grad concerned.

I've Spent 4 yrs w/Marine infantry and 3 yrs at Parris Island training young men to be Marines. I'm back doing logistics and prolly deploying next year. I take what I do deadly f#cking serious. Anywho my $.02 - The military is not a social experiment, it does not need to reflect society in order to give politicians or advocates a warm/fuzzy nor should it lower its standards in order to recruit for diversity - that's all pc bull that will imo, waste your tax money and get good mofo's killed. I don't care whose on my flanks or giving me orders so long as "we've fielded the best team possible."

There are good and bad of either sex, that's a moot point. The irrefutable is that we've lowered standards in order to recruit some people in the mil that have no business being there. Whether they be black, female, hispanic or whatever flavor of the month doesn't matter to me. (I've had foreign recruits who could even speak the language.) The fact that we do it in the first place tells me we're not serious about making warriors. Why doesn't the New England Pat's have any 5'7" 160 lb caucasion linemen playing for them? How come the Pistons don't recruit any talented 5'4" Asian female point guards? Is it because they're a bunch of racists? I should sue the Raiders because they don't want to give short slow white dudes a chance playing LB for them, is it because they need a pc policy and sensitivity training? NO - its because they want to win. They want to put the best folks on the field & beat the piss out of the other schmos. Obviously, our country is more serious about its sports then its warfighting capability. I've seen overqualified white guys/and gals get put on hold for OCS and the service academies in order to put less qualified minority males and females in because we needed the diversity. I've seen male recruits average 91% first time qual rates out on the rifle range while their female counterparts are lucky to break 56%. I could go on and on about lax phsical standards and how if I was a woman I'd have a perfect run score for what they're required to do (3miles in 21 mins), but as a guy it's only a 94% (3miles in 19) which is better then what they need for 100% - why should I have to run faster to earn the same score? A bullet knows no difference. I could tell you stories of the ridiculous & insane but will save it as I've already killed Fred's bandwidth.

RKB> this a flowery stars & stripers type of article and I do not doubt these Soldiers did their job w/great zeal. I work w/female Marines and know they are very earnest. One of my best enlisted devil dogs is female, highly articulate, mature and smart. I'm a 200 proof stone cold professional, I would take a battalion of females to war if I thought they were honestly that good - I have nothing personal whatsoever against women. The problem is (I can't speak for the army or USMA) the mil I've seen is really not set up for them. Here is the darkside of it: your article is nice, but how many women never deployed because they came up pregnant or w/an std? You won't hear that stat which I get to see at my level. That happens all the time and some guy is stuck filling their billet or even worse, doing back to back deployments. How many sexual harrasment suits or fraternization cases waste a whole chain of command's time because some guy (or gal) couldn't remember their role? - again not always the girl's fault but another example of why the mil is not set up for them. Please don't even get me started on Army training, I've never been to USMA though my dad who is prior 101st and not a grad of the point did some instructing there- also the reason why he left the army after he saw how sh*t ran there in the 60s - nepotism, elitism, arrogance, & stupidity in his words a good officer thus not make. I think things changed since his time. Also, there was a glass ceiling for non point grads. I've met a lot of USAF/USNA grads who tell me about when they graduated from the academy blah, blah, blah like it's supposed to impress me. I say good for you, you got through college in 4 yrs so you beat me - but are you any good at doing your job are you passionate about your profession? If so great, but either way, I don't give a f*ck where you went to school or what colonel or general you know. I've also observed army boot camp w/the integrated male-female training *one word* - joke. I even had a debrief w/a commander there who couldn't get over why Marines feel colleged age men and women should train separately for their initial 12 weeks in the mil. I can only imagine what they're like out in the field. My bottom line is this - there are places where females do outstanding jobs in the mil - no doubt about it. However, keep them out of combat zones and away from the grunts for their own good. Also, we need to get rid of the lowered physical requirements for them to compete w/the males - either hack it or pack it. With equal rights comes equal responsibility - if I have to do 20 pullups for 100% on my test so should she or let me do the stupid flexed arm hang for 70 seconds either way, I don't care but make it the same. Last, The sexual dynamic always comes into play and is a distraction, your article even a gave a hint of that - we will never get past it as long as people feel the urge to copulate.

Posted by Jarhead 2004-07-09 10:39:23 PM|| 2004-07-09 10:39:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 the urge to copulate seems to be effectively dulled by marriage, it seems. Maybe we should deploy married couples? ;-)

Posted by Frank G 2004-07-09 10:43:16 PM|| 2004-07-09 10:43:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 hard to say Frank, though maybe combat efficiency would go up as I know a lot of guys would be more pissed at the enemy if they had to deal w/a nagging wife the night before :)

Just kidding honey, yes I put the toilet seat down, took out the trash, made the bed, soup sounds good for dinner, how wuz your day.........

Posted by Jarhead 2004-07-09 10:51:22 PM|| 2004-07-09 10:51:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 LOL

Posted by Frank G 2004-07-09 11:12:21 PM|| 2004-07-09 11:12:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 Yep, what Jarhead sez! I remember having a female TI in 74, partime. It wasn't cool. She didn't like it much either. She was old school enough to know that the guys didn't like it.

I remember coed barracks, with married women climbing through bottom floor windows to have a fling with married guys on the second floor. Very cool, Aces high.

But what has me down on the whole PC/ "I can do anything you can do but BETTER" thing is the waste of money. MONEY! But hey, it's money from tax payers, so what the hell, lets do it!

BTW, The highest payroll doesn't always win the championship, but tough teams do. Fix the PC mil.

Posted by Lucky 2004-07-09 11:52:32 PM|| 2004-07-09 11:52:32 PM|| Front Page Top

23:57 Lucky
23:52 Lucky
23:12 Frank G
22:51 Jarhead
22:43 Frank G
22:39 Jarhead
21:14 cingold
21:05 Frank G
21:04 Alexis Marks
16:34 Sandline
23:12 Aakash
19:19 Aris Katsaris
12:56 11A5S
09:14 Raptor
07:28 Super Hose
05:59 rkb
04:34 .com
02:24 someone
01:31 Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo)
00:37 .com
00:33 .com
00:21 .com
00:17 Mr. Davis
00:16 cingold