During Johnny Carson’s 1975 interview with Ronald Reagan, the latter referred to a federal study unearthed by a congressman entitled The Demography of Happiness. Some $249,000 was spent to discover that people who make more money are happier than people who make less, young people are happier than old people, and people who are healthy are happier than people who are sick. That’s spending a lot of money to unearth the obvious. Similarly, Fox News is reporting that “female Marines cannot meet some standards for special operations forces,” according to a report prepared by a brigadier general for the USMC commandant. Some tidbits from the article:
“The data in this report indicates that even striking what appears to be a balance for setting standards will likely introduce some level of risk across all of these factors,” the report by Brigadier Gen. George Smith concludes. “The recommendation to open or to request such an exception to policy for any MOS [Military Occupational Specialty] or unit will depend on the Marine Corps’ tolerance for the level of risk that such a change would impose.”
“[T]here is no more compelling evidence that our female Marines have served very capably and courageously in combat and have distinguished themselves in non-linear, extremely complex operating environments,” the report states. “However, none of those rewards reflected a female Marine having to “locate, close with and destroy the enemy” in deliberate offensive combat operations. Rather, these actions were all in response to enemy action in the form of IED strikes, enemy attacks on convoys or bases or attacks on female Marines serving in the Lioness Program or on Female Engagement Teams.”
[T]he Marines report echoes the findings of the 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces.
“Winning in war is often only a matter of inches, and unnecessary distraction or any dilution of the combat effectiveness puts the mission and lives in jeopardy,” that report stated. “Risking the lives of a military unit in combat to provide career opportunities or accommodate the personal desires or interests of an individual, or group of individuals, is more than bad military judgment. It is morally wrong.”
Indeed, the report summary states, in part:
Overall: All-male squads, teams and crews demonstrated higher performance levels on 69% of tasks evaluated (93 of 134) as compared to gender-integrated squads, teams and crews. Gender-integrated teams performed better than their all-male counterparts on (2) events.
Speed: All-male squads, regardless of infantry MOS, were faster than gender-integrated squads in each tactical movement. The differences were more pronounced in infantry crew-served weapons specialties that carried the assault load plus the additional weight of crew-served weapons and ammunition.
Lethality: All-male 0311 (rifleman) infantry squads had better accuracy compared to gender-integrated squads. There was a notable difference between genders for every individual weapons system [i.e. M4, M27, and M203] within the 0311 squads, except for the probability of hit and near miss with the M4.
The report also discloses higher injury rates for women and their disadvantage in upper and lower body strength resulted in higher fatigue levels which in turn contributed to greater incidents of injuries.
I know, I know. You’re asking, “Did they really need a study for most of this stuff?” It appears there’s a January 1, 2016 deadline requiring full combat gender integration for the armed services, and the Marine Corps decided to, you know, look at whether or not that would actually work. Lo, and behold! Men are generally stronger than women and perform better in combat. The arena of combat is the arena of killing. Physical strength and stamina are absolutely indispensable for a combat unit. It serves not our nation’s security to compromise our combat effectiveness in order to placate somebody’s demented notion of equality. As quoted above, not only is it bad military judgment, it is morally wrong.
