A new report on a U.S. Marines plan to put women in “tip of the spear” combat positions argues females are not “equal” when it comes to hand-to-hand combat.
“Mandatory ‘diversity’ taken to extremes is all about elitist attitudes, ideological groupthink, and Amazon Warrior myths that disregard inconvenient facts,” the report says. “Ancient Greeks and Romans believed in mythical Amazon women, but today’s theorists seem to believe in popular culture depicting super-female warriors on television and in feature films.”
The report warns that as “1984” author George Orwell “recognized decades ago, false beliefs are likely to ‘bump up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield.'”
CMR founder Elaine Donnelly points out in a Washington Times commentary about her group’s new report that female officers were invited last September to participate in the grueling 13-week Marine Infantry Officer Course at Quantico, Va.
“Of the two women who volunteered, one left on the first day, and the second dropped out (along with 27 of 109 men) several days later,” she writes.
“Professional football entertains fans with non-lethal combat on the gridiron, but the National Football League does not ‘diversify’ its teams with female players,” she argues. “Military teams that engage in lethal combat, however, are supposed to deploy significant numbers of women, willing or not, to achieve gender-based ‘diversity metrics’ on the battlefield.”
The report cites 30 years of studies in the U.S. and allied countries showing that “in a direct ground combat environment, women do not have an equal opportunity to survive or to help fellow soldiers survive,” Donnelly says.
The CMR report presents previously unpublished information on factors that may determine the outcome of the Marines’ research project on diversity, Donnelly writes.
It also analyzes the February 2012 Pentagon news conference in which Obama administration officials endorsed recommendations of the 2011 Military Leadership Diversity Commission, the MLDC.
“The largely civilian MLDC called for repeal of all military women’s exemptions from direct ground combat, in order to achieve gender-based ‘diversity metrics’ for a few female officers aspiring to three- or four-star rank,” she writes. “None of this is necessary, since Pentagon reports repeatedly have confirmed that military women are promoted at rates equal to or faster than men.”
She says such decisions should be left to Congress, which is supposed to represent the nation.
As is stands now, Donnelly writes, an “incremental Defense Department campaign” that is trying to “impose unsupported feminist theories on ‘tip of the spear’ infantry battalions effectively precludes congressional oversight of far-reaching decisions with a direct impact on the readiness and culture of our military, on which our national security depends.”
The executive summary of the report explains Marine Commandant Gen. James Amos is running a multi-phased research effort to test the “consequences of assigning women to ground combat element units.”
But the results “could be disregarded or misinterpreted,” Donnelly warns.
“We are watching Pentagon-based ideologues using ‘perception management’ techniques to achieve predetermined results; i.e., implementation of the MLDC agenda and affirmation of beliefs that should be called Amazon Warrior Myths,” she writes.
The report notes Obama last year started accelerating an effort to force gender-based “diversity” on the military, a move that would force women into infantry battalions.
But the entire process ignores that diversity in hand-to-hand combat with terrorists isn’t quite the same as diversity of a congressional committee.
“Non-remedial gender-consciousness threatens to become a corrosive, demoralizing force in all branches of the service, but especially in direct ground combat communities such as the infantry and Special Operations Forces,” the report says.
“There is no question that female Marines, soldiers, airmen and sailors have served our country with courage and dedication in the wars since the 9/11 attacks on American and before. Some are still deployed,” says the report.
“The current debate is not about women serving ‘in harm’s way’ in war zones. It is whether women should be assigned to direct ground combat – ‘tip of the spear’ battalions that attack the enemy with deliberate offensive action under fire.”
CMR says that if women “were ordered into infantry battalions, expenses related to ‘facilities ‘would be among the least significant.”
“Far more costly would be potential manpower losses due to personnel issues and conflicts that are common in the military: personal misconduct, pregnancy and nondeployability, injuries, attrition related to family choices, etc.”
The military’s assessment also is based on a faulty survey, the report asserts.
“Some questions are almost exclusively focused on self-interest and personal feelings, not combat realities or missions. For example, one set of questions … asks about ‘career opportunities,’ then ‘promotion opportunities,’ then being ‘treated equally,’ and ‘being closer to the action.’ The careerist focus and civilian vocabulary are inconsistent with the combat mission of the Marine Corps.”
The report explains the military has reduced or dropped requirements for women in skills tests, but the physical demands still are severe. The report cites injuries to women from trying to hoist a 70-plus pound weapon while carrying a 70-pound load.
Likewise, digging a foxhole for a machine gun, tripod and crew members is “laborious.”
“Lives and the success of land combat missions depend on individual movements in battle zones, marches under heavy loads, the digging of fighting positions, lifting and mountain machine guns, lugging cans of ammunition rounds, and throwing grenades,” the report says.
“The only way to achieve ‘equality’ for women in tough training is to use gender-normed (adjusted) scoring systems that measure ‘equal effort,’ not equal results.”
The report says Pentagon appointees, politicians, academics “and ideologues have created this dilemma, ordering military leaders to disregard serious conflicts between sound military values and a controversial social experiment.”
“The solution won’t be easy, but it might be found in adherence to core values: Honor, Courage, and Commitment,” the report says.
“There is no need to apologize for basing personnel policies on sound principles that advance combat effectiveness, not ideological beliefs, while protecting the unique culture of the corps.”