PDA

View Full Version : Women to be allowed in Seals by 2016 as part of getting more into combat roles



garhkal
06-18-2013, 05:07 AM
So who here thinks its a good idea to expand the "getting more women into combat roles" to including them in the Seals (and more than likely it will be pushed to the other special forces groups)?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/military-has-schedule-for-women-to-move-into-combat-jobs-including-seals-other-commandos/2013/06/17/a0aba4da-d778-11e2-b418-9dfa095e125d_story.html

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/jun/17/Pentagon-women-combat-seals-riverine/

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/02/02/debate-swirls-over-female-navy-seals.html

Greg
06-18-2013, 11:27 AM
"From Admiral (SEAL) Eric Olson
'In response to recent reporting in which I was misquoted about females in the Teams (my actual comments at Aspen about women in SOF are at 1:01:25 in the YouTube video link below)…
… I am in favor of greater utilization of 'female operators' in increasingly sophisticated roles within SOF. This is not new
SOF have had great success with women in Civil Affairs, Military Information Support Operations and Cultural Support Teams over the last few years, especially. When properly equipped and prepared, they have often proven to be outstanding — and many have earned the full respect of their male counterparts. In certain foreign cultures, they have been uniquely successful in learning or finding things of real operational value. In some specific cases, they have been key to mission success.
I believe that NSW and SOF ought to continue to seek ways to expand and enhance womens’ mission roles, and develop selection, training, and equipping methods that will optimize their ability to contribute in challenging operational situations.

I do not support the concept of females going through BUD/S, the SF Q-course or any of our other pipeline training courses designed to prepare men for intense combat. I favor separate selection and training, tailored to the operational roles that females will actually be expected to perform. This is not about creating 'female SEALs,'but about finding new ways to operationally employ women in order to enhance SOF’s overall capabilities. To be sure, the women who “operate” with SOF will need to be physically fit, intellectually agile, determined and courageous. SOF have a number of such women already serving in highly demanding assignments. What is needed now is a more structured way to identify and screen them, prepare them for their unique operational roles and manage their careers."

http://sofrep.com/8123/women-in-the-navy-seal-teams-admiral-seal-olson-discussion/

Pullinteeth
06-18-2013, 02:10 PM
Doesn't matter what the Admiral WANTS...if Congress says to do it...it will get done.

garhkal
06-18-2013, 06:42 PM
"From Admiral (SEAL) Eric Olson
I do not support the concept of females going through BUD/S, the SF Q-course or any of our other pipeline training courses designed to prepare men for intense combat. I favor separate selection and training, tailored to the operational roles that females will actually be expected to perform.

So by that, does Adm olson seem to want to have a different 'level of qualification' for women than men?

Pullinteeth
06-18-2013, 06:47 PM
So by that, does Adm olson seem to want to have a different 'level of qualification' for women than men?

Separate but Equal?

MAquino
06-18-2013, 08:09 PM
I think we all knew this was going to happen sooner or later after the 1997 Hollywood G.I. Jane movie about Demi Moore becoming the first Navy SEAL. Of course the DVD's cover photo (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119173/) is of a shaven-headed Moore looking appropriately ferocious ... in a wet T-shirt. Is this a great country or what? :popcorn

I've never had any but the greatest respect for our servicewomen, but I am antiquated enough to still think that they should not be subjected to direct, physical, personal combat [as in Army Infantry/Rangers/SF, Navy SEALs, etc.]. Even when in top physical condition their bodies are too vulnerable to damage and pain, and have physiological requirements significantly beyond those of males.

Beyond this, there are cultural and psychological issues involved. Many of the areas of the world subject to intense personal combat are also those in which women are, to put it delicately, not regarded with the same respect as men. An American female combat soldier captured in such an environment could very well be raped to death for her "arrogance". Moreover, and I don't care how much it's fashionable to deny this these days, American male soldiers are going to be protective of any females with them, period - even if to do so compromises the mission. It's hardwired into us.

I have no objection to women in indirect/non-contact combat, such as artillery, fighter pilots, USN fighting ships. I have no problem seeing any woman with 4 stars on her shoulders. But let's leave "G.I. Jane" to Hollywood fantasy.

Banned
06-18-2013, 11:32 PM
Just a guess, but I suspect that the SEALs might have less of a problem with sexual assault as the overall military - since a team would all have gone through years of training and selection... not just random douchebag felons who got into the military on a waiver.

But I could be wrong, the Air Force with all their degrees, high ASVAB scores, etc - seems to have a sexual assault problem just as enormous as everyone else.

Pullinteeth
06-19-2013, 04:29 PM
Just a guess, but I suspect that the SEALs might have less of a problem with sexual assault as the overall military - since a team would all have gone through years of training and selection... not just random douchebag felons who got into the military on a waiver.

But I could be wrong, the Air Force with all their degrees, high ASVAB scores, etc - seems to have a sexual assault problem just as enormous as everyone else.

Sometimes douchebags are just douchebags no matter what uniform they wear... Navy has three midshipmen facing charges, LA ARNG fired their Command Sgt Maj while they are investigating him,....

Measure Man
06-19-2013, 04:47 PM
Time to mandate women register with Selective Service.

wildman
06-19-2013, 07:07 PM
Is this political correctness gone over the edge? I don't know. They say no special exemptions of physical fitness standards will be made. Why is it that I can see that erode 15 to 20 years down the road? Does anyone still believe there is a difference between the sexes? No I am not saying this is a bad thing just a biological reality that IMO to many do not want to acknowledge. Women have a place in the military and I consider them my sisters in arms but I wonder if this is taking it into areas where perhaps it should not go. Call me a chauvinist if you will but I believe there are functions better done by men and functions better done by women special forces like navy seals, green berets and delta force are better left to men IMO.

Always,
Wildman

CYBERFX1024
06-19-2013, 07:20 PM
Is this political correctness gone over the edge? I don't know. They say no special exemptions of physical fitness standards will be made. Why is it that I can see that erode 15 to 20 years down the road? Does anyone still believe there is a difference between the sexes? No I am not saying this is a bad thing just a biological reality that IMO to many do not want to acknowledge. Women have a place in the military and I consider them my sisters in arms but I wonder if this is taking it into areas where perhaps it should not go. Call me a chauvinist if you will but I believe there are functions better done by men and functions better done by women special forces like navy seals, green berets and delta force are better left to men IMO.
Always,
Wildman

I agree with you to a extent. I believe that it won't be 15-20 years, I think it will be 15-20 months. I believe that women CAN do it. But the standards should not ever be lowered.

garhkal
06-19-2013, 09:39 PM
Time to mandate women register with Selective Service.

If i had a vote on the subject, that is one thing i would require to be put into the bill, before it got my yes vote.

E4RUMOR
06-23-2013, 06:01 AM
We're slowly but surely turning into a Starship Troopers kind of Military. If the standards do not change, and a woman candidate can hack it, then by all means let her go for it. I think this is simply an equal opportunity thing. I don't know alot of women who join the military looking to become Navy Seals. However, I imagine it's a little irritating to be told that you can't do a certain job because you don't have a c*&k and balls. So I guess there's just the argument that the equal opportunity needs to be there.

On the flipside, there are prerequisites that have to be met in order to be in the Military in the first place - Certain jobs in the military require you to be a certain height, or be able to lift a certain amount of weight... are we being prejudicial by not allowing people who do not meet those qualifications to have those jobs?
They should be given the same opportunity, correct?

Or maybe that's just the way the military runs. You either agree to the standards and requirements, or you don't join / or you get out.

garhkal
06-23-2013, 07:23 PM
True, if we are "Discriminating cause we don't allow women" into those jobs are we also discriminating cause we 'set the bar' to high for others?

RobotChicken
06-23-2013, 07:33 PM
"The bar was set in stone by people that had been there; done IT and the practice worked for future members of the special units, tried and proven! Now 65+ years of experience down the $h*tter for a few 'PC' votes and promotions is questionable at best, in practice a disaster unfolding as we type! I remember years ago the failure rate was so high they threatened to turn the training over to non-qual instructors to get the numbers up. So they notched up the requirements and bingo! Better recruiting efforts, etc, what is was all about improved the program."