Defense Secretary to Open All Combat Jobs to Women

[frostfire]

Originally Posted by PedOncoDoc

Only if the rest of the team joined in...

OFF YOU GO TO EO/SHARP REEDUCATION CAMP! Oh wait....

sigh...

Having personally witnessed the devastation that infidelity causes to the betrayed spouse AND the children, I weep for the future broken families and relationships.

You may criticize the regime, but the Chinese (and Dionysus) got one thing right. A person's harmony to the family --> city harmony --> nation harmony

[Last hard class]

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...jxJJHlWTchzYkA


And the slow flush downward continues:


"While the tests coincide with the campaign to bring women into combat fields, military officials note that setting specific physical standards for all jobs may prevent some men from getting into certain infantry or armor posts if they don't qualify."

That's called a reverse sale where I come from.



LHC

[PedOncoDoc]

Originally Posted by Last hard class

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...jxJJHlWTchzYkA


And the slow flush downward continues:


"While the tests coincide with the campaign to bring women into combat fields, military officials note that setting specific physical standards for all jobs may prevent some men from getting into certain infantry or armor posts if they don't qualify."

That's called a reverse sale where I come from.



LHC

That's called standards in my book - if those guys don't qualify, that's on them.

[Last hard class]

Originally Posted by PedOncoDoc

That's called standards in my book - if those guys don't qualify, that's on them.

Once again, my inability to properly communicate has come back to bite me. My apologies. I assure you I'm not the least bit concerned about some doughboys who can't pass certain physical standards required for their MOS.


LHC

[Razor]

Originally Posted by PedOncoDoc

That's called standards in my book - if those guys don't qualify, that's on them.

The difference is that in many cases the men that don't physically qualify right off the street can be trained and conditioned into qualifying shape. Seen it and supervised it in infantry units.

[Box]

The difference is that in many cases the men that don't physically qualify right off the street can be trained and conditioned into qualifying shape.

Indeed...
...and according to current guidance, if these new infantry types are NOT successful after further training and conditioning, then it is a small unit leader failure.
It's "your" fault.... not hers



The beatings will continue until morale improves

[WarriorDiplomat]

Originally Posted by Billy L-bach

Indeed...
...and according to current guidance, if these new infantry types are NOT successful after further training and conditioning, then it is a small unit leader failure.
It's "your" fault.... not hers

Well we have been systematically eliminating personal responsibility from the ranks for quite a while this is the next step. The privates will have the power to ruin his leaders by refusing to follow.

All I can say is keep your combat skills sharp our citizens will need its warrior elite when its P.C. military unable to fight and its lib soldiers by job title only lack the stomach and will to close with and destroy the enemy. I hate to discourage people from serving but until this mess is worked out I would run from recruiters or go down with our woefully incapable military.

Our next POTUS is not going to have a strong, powerful and respected military behind his negotiations. I can hear China, N. Korea and Russia at the tables saying "Your military used to be great, powerful and feared but today it is weak yes we saw the Iranians capture your superior navy boat and its crew with the fear in their faces we are aware of your weakness so I dare your military to stop us as we retake the former USSR and since you can't back the EU we will pull them in as well they are socialist anyway we will own all the trade out of the ME and Africa?? we will let our Chinese comrades have since they practically have it anyway"

[sinjefe]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...en-rep/?page=2

And this little "shocker" from Votel:

"One challenge will be indoctrination programs to make sure skeptical male commandos accept them."

WTF? I guess they think a bunch of SHARP type briefings will change everyone's mind. Or they plan on waterboarding everyone into submission.

And this from Elaine Donnelly:

“Men in special operations forces do indeed have another reason to feel stressed, for reasons worse than budget cuts and stepped-up deployments,” she said. “Vertical cohesion, meaning mutual trust up and down the chain of command, has been shattered by USSOCOM leaders who are failing to defend their interests at a time when Pentagon authorities are imposing social experiments that will cost lives and missions in special operations forces.”

Maybe she should be in charge of SOCOM.

[WarriorDiplomat]

Originally Posted by sinjefe

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...en-rep/?page=2

And this little "shocker" from Votel:

"One challenge will be indoctrination programs to make sure skeptical male commandos accept them."

WTF? I guess they think a bunch of SHARP type briefings will change everyone's mind. Or they plan on waterboarding everyone into submission.

And this from Elaine Donnelly:

“Men in special operations forces do indeed have another reason to feel stressed, for reasons worse than budget cuts and stepped-up deployments,” she said. “Vertical cohesion, meaning mutual trust up and down the chain of command, has been shattered by USSOCOM leaders who are failing to defend their interests at a time when Pentagon authorities are imposing social experiments that will cost lives and missions in special operations forces.”

Maybe she should be in charge of SOCOM.

She gets it but GEN "sell his troops out for a MACOM" Votel wants to indoctrinate the over 80%

[Box]

You guys are all just mad because women are going to use the new and improved standards to prove they are better than you.

[bailaviborita]

They just don't understand all the privileges they enjoy. If they had a degree from the "right" kind f school they'd realize they most likely enjoy male privilege, passing privilege, ableist privilege, gender privilege, religious privilege, and many others like: language (the ability to talk using correct English), non-identity (the freedom to not be obsessed with the various identity groups the Left says you should be), and law-abiding (the ability to avoid criminal behavior). There are many others yet to be discovered - please feel free while you're sitting in a boring briefing about us winning in Iraq or a Sharps briefing- try to come up with some more. It's the game the whole family should play- especially since if you have kids they'll surely get mandatory classes on this stuff...

[Mills]

Originally Posted by sinjefe

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...en-rep/?page=2

And this little "shocker" from Votel:

"One challenge will be indoctrination programs to make sure skeptical male commandos accept them."

WTF? I guess they think a bunch of SHARP type briefings will change everyone's mind. Or they plan on waterboarding everyone into submission.

And this from Elaine Donnelly:

“Men in special operations forces do indeed have another reason to feel stressed, for reasons worse than budget cuts and stepped-up deployments,” she said. “Vertical cohesion, meaning mutual trust up and down the chain of command, has been shattered by USSOCOM leaders who are failing to defend their interests at a time when Pentagon authorities are imposing social experiments that will cost lives and missions in special operations forces.”

Maybe she should be in charge of SOCOM.

On top of that little gem, im sure most of you saw the new guidance on tax free re-enlistments, and the regulations for traveling to areas in which said SM could benefit from a tax free re-enlistment for a limited period of time. The new buzz phrase is that "pallet riding is NOT a valid reason".

So now we have to coordinate for 45 days in order to Re-enlist tax free?

Im guessing that someone has expressed concern that we aren't paying our "fair share".

Or maybe they are feeling the "bern".

Just another great example of how our leadership really has the best "interest" of its force in mind.

The lack thereof trust that most of us have for our senior leaders is borderline historic. Its pretty sad that the agenda of the administration has trickled all the way down to the team room level and has more of a negative effect on morale than anything I have ever seen.

At least during the Clinton years, when we didn't have money.........we didn't have computers either. Now we don't have any money, yet have to act as administrative specialists 80% of the time taking numerous CYA classes that are mandated and time out several times before actually spitting out a worthless certificate that sits in a file cabinet in Battalion awaiting inspection by someone who's employment is justified by placing an overemphasis on administrative tasks.

[WarriorDiplomat]

Originally Posted by bailaviborita

They just don't understand all the privileges they enjoy. If they had a degree from the "right" kind f school they'd realize they most likely enjoy male privilege, passing privilege, ableist privilege, gender privilege, religious privilege, and many others like: language (the ability to talk using correct English), non-identity (the freedom to not be obsessed with the various identity groups the Left says you should be), and law-abiding (the ability to avoid criminal behavior). There are many others yet to be discovered - please feel free while you're sitting in a boring briefing about us winning in Iraq or a Sharps briefing- try to come up with some more. It's the game the whole family should play- especially since if you have kids they'll surely get mandatory classes on this stuff...

So much choice today that they have no room for science, common sense or altruism.

[Cuba]

I am actually writing a research paper on this exact same topic. The professor has allowed for expert opinions to be used as citations in the research paper. If any of the QPs would like to give an expert opinion on why allowing women in combat jobs would be detrimental to small-unit cohesion, physiological differences between men and women, the actual standards for a woman trying out for a SF job, getting through SFAS, SFQC, etc. (Real names will not be used in the paper, I will just use rank, unit and occupation. I explained to the professor that SF soldiers are still out in the field in danger and conducting secretive missions for the U.S.)

I would love some help if anyone is interested because it has been hard to cite sources for this paper due to the fact 95% of the articles I find are pro-women in combat jobs (liberal media ) I would really appreciate the help.

P.S. Great chance to really piss off all the liberal pro-Bernie Sanders kids in the class.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Cuba

...The professor has allowed for expert opinions to be used as citations in the research paper. If any of the QPs would like to give an expert opinion .....

Why, if women were truly the equal of men when the going gets tough - how come women aren't integrated into the service academy's football squads?

Shouldn't integration and team building start there?