azranger
Brigadier General
Ranger
Posts: 1,824
|
Post by azranger on Apr 12, 2016 14:28:43 GMT
This all depends on standards and are they changing over time.
We now teach handcuffing techniques that require the subject to obey commands.
Last year the DT instructors decided that officers could chose whichever technique worked best for them. I was in a group that had tenured officer and about the same size as myself. The techniques we learned were not optional on the part of the bad guy. We both executed hand cuffing the same way and the DT instructors wanted to know where we learned that. It was the techniques of 70s and 80s.
At that time our Highway Patrol had a minimum height of 6' and weight of 180 lb. if I recall correctly. I know the height is correct. It did discriminate against members of both sexes but certainly more against females. The techniques of the era were developed for standard of the officers at the time.
I don't recall any such physical standards in the Marine Corps. I believe I was told there was two types of Marines the Doberman type and Rottweiler type. I think the difference is that in the civilian world the use of force has a continuum from verbal and open hand techniques, through intermediate weapons with less lethal means to use of deadly force.
In the military the techniques lean toward the use of deadly force end of the continuum. I would guess MPs are the exception.
My concern would not be in combat situations rather what goes on in the clubs after Marines have consumed alcohol to a point where judgment is gone. It's hard to be in an environment where use of deadly force is acceptable and then be drinking and not have some fighting going on.
Semper Fi
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 12, 2016 14:31:12 GMT
The point is that in modern war, a woman in a rifle platoon may be the safest place she can be.
Front lines are a legacy of the past, and a fiction of the present.
Attack strength? Not me. Attack areas of perceived weakness. The best security is to remove that perception.
I don't care that a woman feels she can do the job. I want to KNOW, by demonstrated performance that she can do the job.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Apr 12, 2016 17:14:51 GMT
Not sure what the Fox news comment was about as the story was on other news sites I also read. The point I was making is that we are now integrating women into infantry units where there will be a lack of privacy. The navy has made adjustments for female sailors on all vessels including submarines but the army and Marines will not be able to do so for women in infantry actions.
Not against it since I believe anyone should be allowed to choose their branch of service and career designation if allowed. The government and society can dictate and require appropriate rules of behavior but boys will be boys and we are talking about young males from 18 to late 20's and they do not think or act with the big head! Ergo trouble. Never been in the military but spent many years working with 18 to early 20's men and women in a college setting and don't believe they act or think any different than young military recruits and soldiers, do you? They will and are going to behave badly. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 12, 2016 17:57:54 GMT
You cited the comment on Fox News. I have now, and had then no doubt there were similar stories on other media outlets as well. Fox News and the other outlets are just behind the times, and have been for thirty years regarding this issue. That was the point. They all think that the Army and Marines are putting Donna Reed in uniform, when the truth is that women soldiers and Marines do not give a rat's behind about these things, that to them are solved problems, thus old news. We teach them to access, overcome, and adapt, and that is what all of us here pay for, the ability to do just that.
Were I a naval person I would wish to make all sailors, regardless of gender, as comfortable as possible aboard ship. The ability to do that is present, so why not. The ability to dig a gender specific cat hole, in a patch of piney woods is there too. Don't sell them short, and that is all I am saying. These women by and large, are strong in their sense of duty or they would not be there.
If it is any comfort, I like a little privacy with my cat hole digging in the piney woods too.
Your second paragraph addresses conduct. Inappropriate conduct is subject to disciplinary measures, up to and including adjudication under the provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The military defines what is inappropriate, and you can bet your last donation to the alumni association, that the militaries definition is much more stringent than you will find on any college campus.
Behaving badly in the military context Dave is not tolerated. Soldiers know that, and they know the consequences. Some will violate, no question about it, but then, that is what Leavenworth is for. You cannot legislate or regulate morality, you can only punish its absence.
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Apr 12, 2016 18:04:10 GMT
Dave, Could we not also have a problem with girls 18-20 being girls? Several women became pregnant on a carrier back in the 90's, same cruise, hmmm. It was either something contagious or the immaculate deception.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Apr 12, 2016 18:17:20 GMT
Okay, I am going to go a bit of soap boxing here but 'boys will be boys' is one the worse saying that exists. A person between 18 to late 20's is an adult, a man not a boy or a woman not a girl. Boys will be boys means that behaviours of boys is excusable because 'boys' can't be expected to behave to the standards expected of an adult-even though they are well past the age we have set as one is expected to assume the mantle of adulthood. Even if the boy is under 18, it's an excuse for not behaving in a way that should be expected in any normal circumstances. Right now a lot of the things that fall under 'boys will be boys' cover behaviours that involve sexually harassing or abusing women. When boys act as boys, they get this unofficial nudge, nudge, wink, wink we know this happens' approval instead of being held accountable as men who have crossed the line of proper behavior. What is worse is when people point out that the excuse is unacceptable and want change the current dismissal phrase is to apply the term "PC." Currently all the burden of preventing 'boys from being boys' falls on the girls. Take dress codes as an example, middle school girls have to dress 'modestly' not to distract the boys. Shouldn't the lesson be boys, women have bodies and it is rude to behave in unacceptable ways. (I will point out that modest is a subjective term and one group's idea of modest can be totally different from another, it is not a clear cut defined standard) Once a woman is a victim of of sexual harassment, abuse or rape, she is again victimised by having to justify her clothing, her behaviour and her past, to make sure she didn't 'get what she deserved' by dressing to provocative, having more than one partner in life, may have been drinking as well or even just spoke. BTW while I am on a rant. I will point out today is Equal Pay Day to mark and act passed 53 years ago yet women currently earn $.79 to every $1.00 men earn. If the military becomes truly equally integrated, then past history shows that instead of women being able to take advantage of a better paying job that the pay for the position will drop. NY Times-As Women Take Over a Male-Dominated Field, the Pay DropsI'll get off my soap box now.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Apr 12, 2016 18:22:41 GMT
Oh and don't even get me started on 'bathroom' politics.
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Apr 12, 2016 18:27:11 GMT
Darn big box, don't twist an ankle getting down. I only used girls will be girls, because he used boys will be boys, he lead me astray!
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Apr 12, 2016 18:59:06 GMT
Darn big box, don't twist an ankle getting down. I only used girls will be girls, because he used boys will be boys, he lead me astray! Excuses, excuses. Truthfully, I didn't see your reply until after I finished my post. I have to admit sometimes it takes me awhile to compose a response because right now I have the attention of--oh look a squirrel!
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Apr 12, 2016 19:12:12 GMT
The "boys will be boys" comment neither excuses or promotes bad behavior but merely states a fact. Males think and act differently from females at all ages especially in their teens and twenties. As a brother with 2 sisters, a father with 2 daughters and a grandfather with 2 grand daughters I understand Beth's points and comments and fully agree. Everyone is responsible for their actions and should be held accountable. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 12, 2016 19:12:53 GMT
That'll be the day when anyone leads you astray Tom.
Beth is absolutely correct. If these kids are old enough to get shot at, they are damned well old enough to behave themselves. Notice that statement, and the use of the word KIDS (for that is what most of them are upon entering) is gender neutral. In Uncle Sam's eyes they are soldiers, and are expected to act responsibly.
Even a little (non-sexually connected) grab ass, in the wrong environment, meaning combat, when your attention should be directed elsewhere, can earn you a Conduct Prejudicial To Good Order and Discipline charge under UCMJ.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 12, 2016 21:50:55 GMT
Montrose in previous posts has commented on this subject, the subject being basic requirements for entry.
If anything I go beyond his. My vision of the not too distant future is something like this, and I think you will see all this come about this century.
The basic requirement for enlistment as a private will be a college degree. For some specialties a masters level degree will be a prerequisite. In addition the prospective soldier will be required to pass a physical training test, that is the equivalent of the current Special Forces/Ranger PT standard, as well as undergo a review board similar to those used by police forces to determine if the perspective enlistee has the required levels of maturity to enter and be successful in the ground combat force.
Basic and specialty training combined will be on the order of a year in length, and I expect the failure rate to be in the range of 25 to 30 percent. All this will be before this recruit gets anywhere near an operational unit. A second language will be mandatory.
Enlistments will be eliminated and in its place, a recruit signs an open ended contract that, obligates the person for a minimum of six years, but beyond that they may stay for as long as they wish, as long as they continue to meet standards.
All officers will be educated at West Point. The requirement for admission is the same for enlistment, a college degree, plus a masters degree in selected disciplines. The WP course will be three years in duration, and upon graduation a degree of Doctor of Military Arts and Sciences will be conferred on the successful graduate. The average graduate will be about 25 years old.
Salaries will rise, but retirement pensions will be contributory. If a person leaves before they are fully vested at the twenty year mark, their contribution can be withdrawn, and used for any purpose they so desire, but intended to help them transition into civilian life. The optimal retirement age will be at the thirty year mark, but retirement after twenty is possible with appropriate reduction in annuity.
Some echelons of command will disappear, and it is highly likely that the brigade will be the highest maneuver echelon remaining.
The amount of artillery will be greatly reduced, and probably disappear as a separate branch. Tanks and other armored vehicles will disappear with improved generations of anti-armor capable man portable weapons, combined with aerial platforms that will make armored maneuver impossible.
The squad will be the basic combat element, and will probably be led by a junior officer. It will be heavier in terms of personnel than today, probably on the order of fifteen to eighteen. Platoons will disappear as echelons of command. Companies will consist of a robust headquarters, strong on communications assets, and control about six squads
Above the company there will be all arms battle groups, larger than today's battalion, but much smaller than the typical 2016 brigade. Four to six battle groups will make up a brigade, along with a dedicated multi-discipline support group.
All these requirement will force a reduction downward in overall strength, and I am using a working figure of around 200 K, as opposed to today's 450K. The force however will eliminate ALL, EVERY DAMNED ONE, of the overhead of headquarters still left over from the mobilization based army of the 1940's - 50's - 60's. In addition many staff jobs, and logistics in particular will be farmed out to the civil sector. UPS folks is more sophisticated than Uncle Sam's Army, why not take advantage of it. Using them as an example sets the mind to thinking of how many other routine day to day non combat related jobs, presently filled by people in uniform, can likewise be eliminated.
The end result is a stronger, more mobile Army ground force, with the bullshit stripped away, that is more combat worthy, and capable for the wars of this century and beyond.
Yes, if anyone is wondering, I have read Starship Troopers.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Apr 12, 2016 23:27:42 GMT
QC your first point that a private require a college degree is probably going to be one of the hardest points. College has become very unaffordable and out of the price range of many parents and students. We've been lucky because Sam is smart and has a lot of scholastic scholarship otherwise she would not have been able to go without saddling herself with such a huge debt load that would be impossible to pay off on the type of wages most people earn after getting out of college.
The government should look at a student loan type program that would pay for college then allow the student credit towards repayment for every year served--like 20% so that after 5 years or 15% for 7 years. The same program could even be used for other students in other fields like doing research for the NIH for things like the Zika virus or PTSD. The possibilities are endless and everyone wins.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 12, 2016 23:43:15 GMT
The problem with thinking out of the box Beth, as you have done above, is human nature's fear of change.
How many people do you think the military would attract, for what in essence would be an opportunity for a free education. It is essentially what we now do for the service academies, and have done since their founding.
Also think of the educated work force that would be generated by such a program, if a soldier did not continue beyond the obligatory six, or retied about age forty three on average, after 20.
Education at the college level will be a requirement for the average foot soldier in this and future centuries.
I have a similar outline plan for ground force reserve components, that I still have to work out a few bugs for. Carl will recognize the final product though as being quite similar to the Constabulary in Europe 46-52. No horse platoon, but very similar in mission and scope.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Apr 12, 2016 23:51:26 GMT
It goes beyond that--a college graduate would have a chance to gain work experience in a real work environment while dealing with student loans. It would mean that they would have the full buying power of their income sooner, be able to buy houses, cars and furniture sooner and that benefits everyone.
|
|