Category: U.S. Marines

There was a pretty devastating article published in the Washington Post where Marines to include females that took part in the recent integrated combat arms experiment took shots at Navy Secretary Ray Mabus for his criticisms of their performance:

Marines involved in a controversial experiment evaluating a gender-integrated infantry unit say they feel betrayed by Navy Secretary Ray Mabus after he criticized the results of a nine-month study that found women are injured more frequently and shoot less accurately in simulated combat conditions.

“Our secretary of the Navy completely rolled the Marine Corps and the entire staff that was involved in putting this [experiment] in place under the bus,” said Sgt. Danielle Beck, a female anti-armor gunner with the task force.

Mabus questioned the findings of the research after a four-page summary of the results was released Thursday, saying he still thinks all jobs in the Marine Corps should be opened to women. He said results that found women were more than twice as likely to be injured and ultimately compromise a unit’s combat effectiveness were an “extrapolation based on injury rates, and I’m not sure that’s right,” he told NPR.  [Washington Post]

Here is something I find interesting because critics of the study were claiming the female volunteers were not properly trained when in fact they received five months of training before conducting the experiment:

“If you were to look at our training plan and how we progressed from October to February, you’re not going to find any evidence of institutional bias or some way we built this for females to fail,” said one Marine officer who participated in the experiment.

The officer, who asked to remain anonymous because of his active-duty status, explained that for the first five months of the experiment the Marines of the task force trained as a unit in North Carolina to prepare for the testing phase in California. This phase of training is known as “the work-up,” with the second phase in California — where the trials would be held — acting as the deployment.

Additionally if you read the rest of the article the women who participated in the experiment were high performers on their physical fitness test.  So basically you have motivated females that volunteered for the experiment, that were fit, and received five months of combat arms training that went and did the experiment with their male counterparts.

What gets me more than anything about this whole issue is that if Secretary Mabus had his mind made up beforehand why bother with the experiment in the first place?

A US Marine officer who recently served in South Korea has earned the scorn of Deadspin.com for what was basically a publicity stunt reunion during a St. Louis Rams preseason game:

During last weekend’s preseason St. Louis Rams game, a familiar ritual played out: With a stadium full of fans and a television audience watching, Rams cheerleader Candace Ruocco Valentine was surprised by the arrival of her husband August Valentine, a Marine Corps first lieutenant, who had just returned home from service abroad.

As a series of visuals, shown in the video below, it was a sterling example of the genre. The All-American cheerleader literally drops her pom-poms to run toward her husband, relief written across her face as she does; the happy young couple embraces; and Rampage, an anthropomorphic ram, looks on approvingly at their release from anxiety and fear.

As a set of facts, though, the heartwarming moment was basically bullshit, despite which the viral glurge machine went ahead and ran with the story of a joint triumph for the Valentines, the St. Louis Rams, the NFL, and the Pentagon. [Deadspin]

You can read the rest at the link, but 1st Lieutenant August Valentine is part of the Busch family of Anheuser-Busch beer fame and his wife’s first game as a cheerleader just happened to be when he makes his surprise arrival back from Korea.  Anyone think this was just coincidence?  According to this Fox News interview his wife knew her husband’s unit recently came back from South Korea which made me think he may have just been over there for UFG and not even on a long deployment like most other servicemembers.  Also of interest is that Mrs. Valentine’s mother is running for an Illinois State Representative seat and using the publicity of this reunion to help her campaign.  I am willing to bet this was all setup by Busch family connections to be the publicity stunt that it became.

Despite all this what gets me is that Mrs. Valentine is also a Marine officer.  You would think that with all the sexual harassment and assault criticism that the military has received that cheerleading which sexually objectifies women would be frowned upon.  Then again with all the issues of alcohol abuse in the ranks, the military allowed itself to be used to sell beer during the Super Bowl.  Guess who was also involved in that controversy, you guessed it Anheuser-Busch.

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.

With the continued acquittals of the US Marines involved in the supposed "Haditha Massacre" that the media has been trumpeting for nearly two years now, I do not find this surprising at all:

Buried in the mountain of exhibits attached to the once secret Haditha, Iraq murder inquiry prepared by US Army Maj. Gen. Eldon A. Bargewell is an obscure Marine Corps intelligence summary (see pdf) that says the deadly encounter was an intentional propaganda ploy planned and paid for by Al Qaeda foreign fighters. 

Veteran military defense attorney Gary Meyers said he never understood why the Naval Criminal Investigative Service special agents leading the Haditha criminal investigation didn’t “examine the linkage” between Al Qaeda, the local insurgency and the events at Haditha. Meyers was an attorney on the defense team that successfully defended Justin Sharratt, a Marine infantryman accused of multiple murders at Haditha.

The report – apparently overlooked by a Washington press corps awash in leaked Bargewell documents and secret Naval Criminal Investigative Service reports – shows that Marine Corps intelligence operatives were advised of the scheme to demonize the Marines by an informant named Muhannad Hassan Hamadi. The informant was snared by 3/1 Marines on December 11 2005 and decided to cooperate.  [Defend Our Marines]

Make sure to read the entire posting because it is very insightful about the Al Qaeda propaganda campaign that was launched then and continues to be launched now by America’s enemies not only in Iraq but in Afghanistan as well.  It is unfortunate how the US media and even some politicians continue to fall for it. 

The best way to simply explain Haditha is that the Marines involved had two choices when attacked by what we now know were Al Qaeda fighters mixed with Sunni insurgents.  The Marines could have took the easy way when they were fired upon from the houses and simply bombed them with air strikes and no one would have said a word but they instead chose to run towards the gun fire from house and assault it in order to reduce collateral damage from an air strike.  During the fight to clear the houses is when the civilians died in the crossfire.  That is why the Marines are being acquitted one by one and really the only charges I see sticking to anybody would be for not properly investigating what happened. 

What I find interesting about the whole Haditha story is how the media doesn’t bother following up with events in Haditha today.  The people of Haditha are less concerned about what happened that day than the people in Washington, DC are:

When average Americans hear the word “Haditha,” they are likely to think of the much-publicized 2005 incident involving Marines allegedly murdering 24 Iraqi civilians.

For locals in Haditha, the incident is memorable but not the hot-button issue it is in America, Marines deployed here said. “We’ve asked some of the local nationals who come in here on a daily basis about it,” said Staff Sgt. Andres Quiniones, who works at the Haditha Civil Military Operations Center. “Everyone still remembers it, but we’ve never had anybody come in and start complaining about it. I guarantee it’s talked about more in the States than it is here.”   [Stars & Stripes]

People from Haditha may not focus on the incident with the Marines, but they do focus on the massacre perpetuated by Al Qaeda:

When Iraqis in Haditha think of a horrible massacre in their city, they think not of the 2005 episode but rather of 2004 public executions of Iraqi policemen by insurgents, Marines said. In April and November 2004, Marines in Haditha were sent to Fallujah to participate in the now well-known battle. Haditha insurgents waged a killing spree in the Marines’ absence. Insurgents in Haditha murdered local officials and publicly executed several policemen at a soccer field.  [Stars & Stripes]

If one needs an idea how the false accusations and media feeding frenzy from Haditha has effected the Marine Corps than get a load this:

As for the Marines on Haditha’s streets, some have taken the extreme measure of wearing helmet video cameras in case they need indisputable proof if their actions are questioned. “I’ve seen squad leaders and Marines with that,” Donnellan said. “It’s disheartening because you feel like they’ve lost their confidence that we’re going to take care of them. When the whole story comes out, they will realize that what’s happening to them and the firefights they’re engaged in are nowhere near any of these kind of accusations.”  [Stars & Stripes]

This is what happens when the media and politicians decide to politicize the actions of servicemembers on the ground.  The media and their political allies were desperate for an "Iraqi My Lai" in order to bash President Bush with and they thought Haditha was it.  Instead it was just a well planned information operations by Al Qaeda to feed the willing American media with what they so desperately wanted to hear.  At the end of the day no one in the media or the politicians that falsely condemned the Marines are held accountable while for the Marines careers are ruined, faith in the Corps has been degraded, and servicemembers are left wearing video cameras on their helmets to protect themselves not from Al Qaeda but our own media and politicians.  Servicemembers face many dangerous enemies in Iraq, but they shouldn’t be facing dangerous enemies in America either.

HT: Michelle Malkin

Do you wanted to read something that will get you motivated for the weekend? Via Blackfive, then read what Marine Major General (Sel) John Kelly told a group of people that belong to the San Diego Military Advisory Council:

(more…)

Remember the politicization of the body armor issue a couple of months ago that turned out to be a total fraud?  Well, if the Marines have their way soon many of them won’t be wearing body armor anyway:

The commander of a U.S. Marine Corps unit in Iraq wants to have his Marines begin patrolling without helmets and with less body armor.

But the Marines would have the gear at their local patrol bases and could resume wearing it whenever needed, said Lt. Col. Kelly Alexander, commanding officer of Task Force Highlander, part of Regimental Combat Team-2, which operates in western Anbar province.

The proposed changes apply to what is called PPE, or personal protective equipment.

Alexander said a change to a “soft posture” can now be considered because the security situation has improved significantly in recent months. That is especially so in local cities where the Marines work closely with an ever-growing Iraqi police force and where residents have shown a newfound willingness to tip the police to insurgent activity.

“In my opinion … things are good enough now that we can begin to institute a reduction in the PPE” in the task force’s area of operation, Alexander said in an interview this week.

This will be quite a development and a definite sign of progress in Anbar province if the Marines do shed their body armor and helmets to go on patrol.  Now if they could only take Harry Reid on patrol with them and show him this progress.