Quantcast

Inconvenient Fact: Combat Teams With Women Are Less Effective

Photo credit: U.S. Marine Corps (Creative Commons)
Photo credit: U.S. Marine Corps (Creative Commons)

War is nasty, brutal and costly. In our latest wars, many of the casualties suffered by American troops are a direct result of their having to obey rules of engagement created by politicians who have never set foot on — or even seen — a battlefield. Today’s battlefield commanders must be alert to the media and do-gooders who are all too ready to demonize troops involved in a battle that produces noncombatant deaths, so-called collateral damage.

According to a Western Journalism article by Leigh H Bravo, “Insanity: The Rules of Engagement” (http://tinyurl.com/p59nlqs), our troops fighting in Afghanistan cannot do night or surprise searches. Also, villagers must be warned prior to searches. Troops may not fire at the enemy unless fired upon. U.S. forces cannot engage the enemy if civilians are present. And only women can search women. Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney said: “We handcuffed our troops in combat needlessly. This was very harmful to our men and has never been done in U.S combat operations that I know of.” Collateral damage and the unintentional killing of civilians are a consequence of war. But the question we should ask is: Are our troops’ lives less important than the inevitable collateral damage?

The unnecessary loss of life and casualties that result from politically correct rules of engagement are about to be magnified in future conflicts by mindless efforts to put women in combat units. In 2013, then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta officially lifted the ban on women serving in ground combat roles. On Jan. 1, 2016, all branches of the military must either open all positions to women or request exceptions. That boils down to having women serve in combat roles, because any commander requesting exceptions would risk having his career terminated in the wake of the screeching and accusations of sexism that would surely ensue.

The U.S. Army has announced that for the first time, two female officers graduated from the exceptionally tough three-phase Ranger course.

Their “success” will serve as grist for the mills of those who argue for women in combat. Unlike most of their fellow soldiers, these two women had to recycle because they had failed certain phases of the course.

A recent Marine Corps force integration study concluded that combat teams were less effective when they included women. Overall, the report says, all-male teams and crews outperformed mixed-gender ones on 93 out of 134 tasks evaluated. All-male teams were universally faster “in each tactical movement.” The report also says that female Marines had higher rates of injury throughout the experiment.

Should anyone be surprised by the findings of male combat superiority? Young men are overloaded with testosterone, which produces hostility, aggression and competitiveness. Such a physical characteristic produces sometimes-poor behavior in civilian society, occasionally leading to imprisonment, but the same characteristics are ideal for ground combat situations.

You may bet the rent money that the current effort to integrate combat jobs will not end with simply a few extraordinary women. Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus told the Navy Times that once women start attending SEAL training, it would make sense to examine the standards. He said, “First we’re going to make sure there are standards” and “they’re gender-neutral.” Only after that will the Navy make sure the standards “have something to do with the job.” We’ve heard that before in matters of race. It’s called disparate impact. That is, if the Navy SEALs cannot prove that staying up for 18 hours with no rest or sleep, sitting and shivering in the cold Pacific Ocean, running with a huge log on your shoulder, and being spoken to like a dog are necessary, then those parts of SEAL training will be eliminated so that women can pass.

The most disgusting, perhaps traitorous, aspect of all this is the overall timidity of military commanders, most of whom, despite knowing better, will only publicly criticize the idea of putting women in combat after they retire from service.

COPYRIGHT 2015 CREATORS.COM

WalterWilliamsWalter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.

Check Also

Star Parker: I’m Optimistic About America

I’m a conservative, and I guess I should be writing a column about my great …

5 comments

  1. Standards should be across the board…male or female, black or white or Hispanic or Asian in all positions. I feel the same with police and firefighters. I would rather have a chauvinist pig carry my rear end down a ladder from a burning house than a woman let in on lesser standards. if the woman can fireman’s carry my butt, then more power to her!

  2. So, let me get this straight. Combat Teams With Women Are Less Effective because of artificial constraints imposed by the Pentagon. Does anyone have any REAL information, like how effective combat teams with women would be if there were no artificial constraints? And I’m talking only about combat teams with the small percentage of women who passed the training courses without special reduced standards.

  3. The problem is not with allowing women into combat,it is lowering the standard of attainment to artificially permit a quota of unsuitable women into combat.

  4. Even if we had Amazon women wanting to join, their performance is moot. The mitigating factor is sex. Men under collective duress and deprivation form a unifying bond, literally a non-sexual love and if that’s carried into the carnage of combat, that bond is for life. And this bond must form in training prior to combat because combat OJT is deadly. Men cannot “divorce” their brothers. When women enter this realm, they destroy it because they introduce the sexual element where it has not existed before. Nor can a woman ever experience this brotherhood because it is non-sexual. If we are baffled by men who repeatedly volunteer for combat thinking them crazy, we should consider the primary reason they do is because of that intoxicating oneness they experience with a band of brothers all of whom are living within each others’ last day.

  5. “Troops may not fire at the enemy unless fired upon.”

    Of course, Gen McInerney is incorrect, and should know better, in thinking handcuffing our troops “has never been done in U.S combat operations that I know of.” LBJ was quite boastful in the Vietnam era that “they can’t bomb and outhouse, unless I authorize it” – or, words to that effect! Additionally, at the initial, there was near universal “rules of engagement” that you required ‘authorization’ to “shoot back.”

    Our ever “enlightened/evolving,” milky-toast society and attendant (non)leadership are exactly WHY The United States of America has not WON a war since WWII! You DO NOT go into war seeking to “win the hearts and minds” of your enemy, you go and ‘destroy’ any ability they have to continue fighting!! Until and unless WE are WILLING to engage in that concept once again, WELCOME TO THE WORLD OF ENDLESS WAR….