Tag: Infantry

Yet another example of when life imitates the Duffel Blog:

A company first sergeant began an affair with one of the first women to graduate from infantry basic training shortly after she reported to his newly integrated unit late last year. Both have been punished for it.

Sgt. 1st Class Chase Usher, who had been serving as the top noncommissioned officer of B Company, 2nd Battalion, 505th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, has been removed from his position leading soldiers and is serving in a staff role, an 82nd Airborne spokesman told Army Times on Tuesday.

I have been a supporter of women in the infantry with the caveat they should be held to the same standard as male troops.  However, this article claims through anonymous sources they were not:

America’s first female Army Infantrymen are here, but not all of them made it through.

In fact, only eighteen of the thirty-two female infantry recruits made it through the One Station Unit Training (OSUT) program at Fort Benning, Georgia.

While the attrition rate doesn’t seem all that alarming, it strikes a more concerning tone when factoring in that the females needed only to meet the much-lower female standards for physical fitness that separate them from their previously all-male counterparts.

That said, there were some women who certainly gave their male colleagues a run for their money.

“There was even one female that did better than 90 percent of the males on the PT test,” said one 22-year-old male trainee, who reportedly had high PT scores. “Speaking as the person who had the second-highest PT score- she had me looking over my soldier the whole cycle. It was something that definitely made me better, and maybe kept me up nights a few times. But certainly by the end of the cycle, I was doing more push-ups, because I had her chasing me.”

However, some sources who graduated from within the unit -whom requested concealed identities to protect their new careers- claimed a clear double-standard between males and females in their training cycle, including lighter rucksacks and lower expectations.

“No way,” one soldier told Popular Military when asked if women were held to the same standards. “Lighter rucks, things like that.”  [Popular Military]

You can read more at the link, but the Army has said the same standards were used so who knows what the truth is.

Does anyone think two weeks is enough training to make either a male or a female an infantryman?:

A sergeant in the Wyoming National Guard has become the Army’s first female enlisted infantry soldier.

Sgt. Shelby Atkins on Thursday graduated alongside 32 male soldiers from a two-week infantry qualification and transition course at Camp Guernsey Joint Training Center in Wyoming. The course was designed to train soldiers for the Wyoming Guard’s first infantry unit in more than 100 years.

“She’s the first female Army [noncommissioned officer] in the total Army to be granted the infantry [military occupational specialty],” said Jack Harrison, a spokesman for the National Guard Bureau.  [Army Times]

You can read more at the link.

You would think the Army would have waited to promote a story like this until after she had completed the basic infantry course.  You would think the PAO types would have learned this lesson after the embarrassment of the first female combat engineer enlistee who went AWOL:

A Louisiana woman is seeking to make history, enlisting to be the first female infantryman in the United States Army.

25-year-old Tammy Barnett raised her right hand in Shreveport, Louisiana, opting to join the US Army Infantry, a deviation from her original plans when she found out she could be first.

“I was going to go military police, but infantry is similar, and they are more on the front lines, like law enforcement here and I said that’s what I want to do,” said Barnett, a former police officer.

Barnett hopes to make history and lead the way for more women who want to go into the infantry.

“They told me that I would be the first female in history to go infantry in the military,” said Barnett.

“I hope that I give them the courage, because I’m a small female, if I can do it, they can do it too, this could give them the courage to step out of their comfort zone,” explained Barnett.  [Popular Military]

You can read more at the link, but she is going to be in for a rude awakening when she finds out that the infantry is nothing like being a policeman other than they are both proficient with shooting weapons.  Just for the record I continue to support women in combat arms roles as long as they meet the same standards as men.  For example I wonder if Ms. Barnett will have to pass the same physical fitness test and other physical requirements as her male infantry recruits?

Here is an interesting article about two ROK female infantry NCOs that were awarded the US Expert Infantryman Badge:

Two women have earned the U.S. Army’s coveted Expert Infantryman Badge — and they’re members of the South Korean army.

Staff Sgts. Kim Min Kyoung and Kwon Min Zy are the first women, Korean or American, to earn the special-skills badge created in 1943.

“There were 21 soldiers from the (South Korean army’s) 21st Infantry Division that competed with them, pushing and pulling each other, helping each other out,” Kwon, 21, said through a translator.  [USA Today]

You can read more at the link, but the article is a bit misleading by making it appear these are the first women to pass the EIB test.  The US Army has for years allowed women to take the test:

Two Soldiers received special honors Friday during a ceremony at the Hilton Field Softball Complex recognizing those Soldiers who recently completed a week of tasks to earn the Expert Infantryman Badge.

Sgt. 1st Class Scott Wilkie, a drill sergeant with Company E, 3rd Battalion, 34th Infantry Regiment, was the only Soldier who received the “true blue” designation, meaning that he completed all the tasks without making any mistakes. Capt. Michelle Roberts, commander of Company F, 2nd Battalion, 60th Infantry Regiment, was the only female Soldier who passed the test.

Wilkie and Roberts were two of 42 Soldiers who passed from a field of 97 who began the testing.

“This is the first year that (I’ve seen) a (woman) compete in the 27 years I’ve been in the Army,” said Sgt. Maj. Michael Love, the noncommissioned officer in charge of the Expert Infantryman Badge, or EIB, testing. “I think it’s great.”

Roberts, an activated National Guard Soldier, said she believes it is her duty to be trained as well as possible in Soldiering skills, which is why she did not want to pass up the opportunity to go through the test and the two-week training in preparation for the EIB.  [Army.mil]

The problem that females that pass the EIB test have is that they are not in an infantry MOS, so they cannot wear the badge, but they receive the training certificate.  This is the same for non-infantry MOS males as well.  People have complained about this for years that the infantry branch are being badge protectors by not allowing other branches to wear the badge.  Since the ROK NCOs are in the infantry branch they get to wear the badge on their uniforms.  This seems very unfair to everyone else that has passed the testing that they cannot wear the badge, but foreign military personnel can.

This whole EIB testing gets back to my whole point of view on this that women should not be barred from any MOS or training as long as they meet the same established standards.  So did the ROK soldiers meet the same established standards as the US soldiers? According to this comment left on Facebook by an NCO claiming to have graded the testing, they did not:

If this claim is true and the ROK soldiers did not have to meet the same standards as US soldiers than this was nothing more than a PR stunt by 2ID.  The statistics may also give some indication that different standards were used.  According to the article only 18% of 2ID soldiers passed, but 18 of 21 (85%) of ROK soldiers passed the testing.  That is a big difference in percentages though the ROK Army likely sent 21 of their best soldiers.  Even if it was their best soldiers should the percentages be that skewed?  Anyway I would be interested to hear what others who may have been part of the EIB testing have to say about this issue.

Three more female Marines were dropped out of the Infantry Officer Course for failing a road march:

Just weeks after three women passed a rigorous day-long test qualifying them to potentially lead US Marine infantrymen for the first time in history, news came that all three women have been asked to leave the course.

They were physically disqualified from the training last week for falling behind in hikes while carrying loads of upwards of 100 pounds, says Maj. George Flynn, director of the Infantry Officers Course (IOC) at Quantico, Va.  [Christian Science Monitor]

It should also be noted that three men also were dropped from the course for failing the road march.

Instead of activist groups thanking the Marine Corps for treating the women trainees the same as men they instead are demanding standards be dropped for them:

Retired Army Col. Ellen Haring, an advocate for women in combat, says that although the entire formation was supposed to complete the hike in three hours, it took most of the group closer to four hours.

“Despite the fact that none of them could keep the pace that was set that day, they were considered failures. But the whole unit failed to meet those parameters, not just those six people,” she says. “Who maintains the rate of the march?”

The Marines haven’t always been clear about the parameters for the course, says Greg Jacob, policy director for the Service Women’s Action Network.

At the enlisted training school, Mr. Jacobs, who served as a Marine, recalls that students were told they could walk no faster than three miles an hour, and every hour they had to take a 10-minute break.

In the IOC, “it’s up to the person in front to set the speed of the hike,” he says. “There doesn’t seem to be a standard around these movements.”

As a result, he adds, “it seems like the goal posts just keep moving.”

If there is any goal post moving it is to make the course easier for female trainees to pass. Due to the political pressure the female trainees were probably given every benefit of the doubt before they were removed from the course. It was a 7.5 mile road march and an attendee had to fall 75-100 meters behind before being dropped.  This is not that far of a movement and giving a leeway of up to a 100 meters is a very far distance to fall behind the rest of your unit. Every trainee was briefed on the standard before the road march and six did not meet it, end of story.

As I have always said I support women being able to compete for Infantry positions, but they should be expected to meet the same standards as men.  In this case they didn’t and were dropped. So instead of cheapening the accomplishment by lowering standards keep the standards the same and there will eventually be a female Marine that will meet it.  The Marines shouldn’t care about this happening on the political timetable that the activists want.

Very interesting read by a female Marine about why women should not serve in the Infantry:

While reading the February issue of the Marine Corps Gazette, I skimmed past the “Be Bold” advertisement calling for readers to submit articles that challenge a Marine Corps policy or way of doing business. Immediately a current “hot topic” came to mind, but as usual I quickly discarded it because I have purposely avoided publicly disagreeing with the passionate opinions of many of my female peers and friends. After weeks of contemplation and debate, I am “being bold” and coming clean: I am a female Marine officer and I do not believe women should serve in the infantry. I recognize that this is a strong statement that will be vehemently challenged by many. I have not come to this opinion lightly and I do not take joy in taking a stance that does not support equal opportunity for all. I have spent countless hours discussing this topic with many civilians and Marines and have discovered that a large number of people agree with the arguments in this article but do not wish to get involved in the public discussion. Interestingly, most of the people who want to incorporate women into infantry are civilians or young, inexperienced Marines. Most of the more seasoned Marines with whom I have spoken tend to oppose the idea of women in infantry—perhaps this is failure to adapt or perhaps it is experienced-based reasoning. National Public Radio’s recent segment, “Looking for a Few Good (Combat-Ready) Women,” stated, “Col Weinberg admits there’s anecdotal evidence that female Marines, who make up 7 percent of the force, aren’t rushing to serve in ground combat.”¹ If the infantry had opened to women while I was still a midshipman or second lieutenant I probably would have jumped at the opportunity because of the novelty, excitement, and challenge; but, to my own disappointment, my views have drastically changd with experience and knowledge. Acknowledging that women are different (not just physically) than men is a hard truth that plays an enormous role in this discussion. This article addresses many issues regarding incorporating women into the infantry that have yet to be discussed in much of the current discourse that has focused primarily on the physical standards.

Before you disagree, remember that war is not a fair business. Adversaries attempt to gain an advantage over their enemies by any means possible. Enemies do not necessarily abide by their adversary’s moral standards or rules of engagement. Although in today’s world many gory, violent war tactics are considered immoral, archaic, and banned by international law or the Geneva Conventions, adversaries still must give themselves the greatest advantage possible in order to ensure success. For the Marine Corps, this means ensuring that the infantry grunt (03XX) units are the strongest, most powerful, best trained, and most prepared physically and mentally to fight and win. Although perhaps advantageous to individuals and the national movement for complete gender equality, incorporating women into infantry units is not in the best interest of the Marine Corps or U.S. national security.  [Marine Corps Gazette via a reader tip]

I highly recommend reading the whole article at the link, but what I find most interesting about this is that if a male Marine had written this same exact article he would be called a sexist bigot by the special interests in order to drown out honest debate on this topic.  The male Marine would likely have his career blackballed as well if he was of higher rank.  It is a bit harder for the special interests to shout down a female Marine Captain though.

With that all said there are a few things I disagree with the author Captain Lauren Serrano on.  I think if the physical standards are kept high then only someone who is an extremely high-speed individual would be able to meet them.  Due to this fact the drama that Captain Serrano worries about will be largely absent. I have known only one female in the Army during my career that I think could have physically met the Infantry standards.  Her husband was in the 75th Ranger Regiment and they used to work out together all the time.  She was so high-speed that I would be shocked if she became the source of any drama.  By the way I had asked her if she would join the Infantry if she could and she said no way, it was not something she ever wanted to do. That is something else the special interests do not consider, there may be extremely fit people who could meet Infantry standards, but they choose not to because it takes a certain mentality to want to be in the Infantry.

The other issue Serrano brought up, injuries over the course of a career is hard to know, but once again if standards are kept high the women who are able to make it will be extremely fit and should help prevent injuries.  I only see the issues that Captain Serrrano is worried about coming into play if the standards are dropped in order to allow more females into the Infantry.  It is important to remember that if standards are dropped that not only will it allow more females in the Infantry that shouldn’t be there, but males as well.  Infantry is hard work and takes great physical fitness and a certain mentality to do it that the current training standards help to weed those out that shouldn’t be there.