15 ms·

I was referring to the Integrated Task Force study (which the Corps has yet to release in toto). Though I don't want to litigate the women-in-combat issue here,

by HillRat 11y ago

I was referring to the Integrated Task Force study (which the Corps has yet to release in toto). Though I don't want to litigate the women-in-combat issue here, I'll note that plenty of female Marines (and soldiers) have over the past decade and a half of war operated effectively as light infantry in high OPTEMPO environments; the enemy doesn't care if you're an officer leading an infantry platoon or a logistics convoy. That doesn't means that combat MOSes should become open as a rule, but I'd like to see an analysis of the field effectiveness of units in combat as well as training. Pregnancy is a stickier issue, and for the Corps is more problematic because they historically have had much higher undeployable numbers than the other services. Unplanned pregnancies are lower than the civilian population for officers and senior noncoms, but are roughly average for junior enlisted when adjusted for socioeconomic factors. Military policies forbidding any access to abortion procedures on-base also makes it harder to terminate unplanned pregnancies and, often when deployed overseas, impossible, which could account for some of the statistical correlation you cite. Actually, if you happen to dig up a citation to that study, I'd love to read it!

woodman 11y ago
Sorry, I've dug through a couple of boxes (like I said, several years ago) and can't find it. I'm pretty sure the pregnancy issue was also covered in a RAND paper, but there were some interesting complications with that specific paper: the study was only included in an early draft... pretty politically charged issue. If you want to look for it, I believe it was written in the mid to late 90s and the final draft was prepared for something going on in Congress. > ...but I'd like to see an analysis of the field effectiveness of units in combat as well as training. That would only be an effective analysis if a long term trial were to be conducted, 10 years might be enough. The context of this conversation is kind of funny, because the USMC's success is rooted solidly in homogeneity - the long term impact is the real point of concern. > ...I'll note that plenty of female Marines (and soldiers) have over the past decade and a half of war operated effectively as light infantry in high OPTEMPO environments... Not really. I can't really say it without sounding like an asshole, so I won't try :) The infantry experience is very different, and comprised of much more than simply being in a non-permissive environment - not comparable. > ...the enemy doesn't care if you're an officer leading an infantry platoon or a logistics convoy. Oh yes they do, it would be totally insane to conduct an attack on an infantry platoon in the same way you would attack a logistics convoy. In 2006 my unit took over a formerly national guard AO, they got direct fire pretty regularly - and so did we for the first few days. After the locals figured out that we weren't national guard, we experienced no more direct fire - just IEDs and mortars. I don't think it is a stretch to say that females would likely be treated differently by the enemy. > Unplanned pregnancies... I guess I was too subtle, I wasn't talking about unplanned pregnancy. This sort of behavior is not limited to females of course, I once saw a guy shoot himself in the foot, but the pattern of predeployment medical issues is much clearer with the females.

by HillRat 11y ago

woodman 11y ago

Sorry, I've dug through a couple of boxes (like I said, several years ago) and can't find it. I'm pretty sure the pregnancy issue was also covered in a RAND paper, but there were some interesting complications with that specific paper: the study was only included in an early draft... pretty politically charged issue. If you want to look for it, I believe it was written in the mid to late 90s and the final draft was prepared for something going on in Congress. > ...but I'd like to see an analysis of the field effectiveness of units in combat as well as training. That would only be an effective analysis if a long term trial were to be conducted, 10 years might be enough. The context of this conversation is kind of funny, because the USMC's success is rooted solidly in homogeneity - the long term impact is the real point of concern. > ...I'll note that plenty of female Marines (and soldiers) have over the past decade and a half of war operated effectively as light infantry in high OPTEMPO environments... Not really. I can't really say it without sounding like an asshole, so I won't try :) The infantry experience is very different, and comprised of much more than simply being in a non-permissive environment - not comparable. > ...the enemy doesn't care if you're an officer leading an infantry platoon or a logistics convoy. Oh yes they do, it would be totally insane to conduct an attack on an infantry platoon in the same way you would attack a logistics convoy. In 2006 my unit took over a formerly national guard AO, they got direct fire pretty regularly - and so did we for the first few days. After the locals figured out that we weren't national guard, we experienced no more direct fire - just IEDs and mortars. I don't think it is a stretch to say that females would likely be treated differently by the enemy. > Unplanned pregnancies... I guess I was too subtle, I wasn't talking about unplanned pregnancy. This sort of behavior is not limited to females of course, I once saw a guy shoot himself in the foot, but the pattern of predeployment medical issues is much clearer with the females.