Military lowering standards to qualify women for combat


Photo Credit

Don’t look now but affirmative action is coming to the U.S. military as it considers different training for men and women.

Instead of “Army Strong,” perhaps the new motto should be “Army Fair.”

When former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced the lifting of the ban on women serving in combat earlier this year, he said not everyone can meet the qualifications to be a combat soldier but everyone is entitled the opportunity, as reported by Fox News.

Since the decision to lift the ban, there has been a lot of debate about the physical requirements of serving in front-line positions, with concerns about lower standards being part of that discussion.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who supported the decision, spoke of this when he said the military, and particularly elite special forces units, should maintain their “rigorous physical standards.”

Six months later, we learn that the U.S. military is looking at ways to modify its training for women to help them qualify for direct ground combat roles in the infantry, tanks and special operations, according to the Washington Times.

The idea was proposed by Rep. Niki Tsongas, D-Mass., at a House Armed Services Committee hearing this week.

“To put in place a training regimen that is ill-suited to maximizing the success of women is not really the outcome any of us want to see,” she said.

Army Lt. Gen. Howard Bromberg, deputy chief of staff for personnel, appears to agree with Tsongas.

“We are looking at that, and we’re not looking at it just for the integration of women,” he testified. “We’re looking at it for the total soldier, because just as you have a 110-pound male who may lack some type of physiological capability or physical capability, he or she may both need to be trained differently.”

Lt. Gen. Robert Milstead Jr., deputy Marine Corps commandant for manpower, is also on board. While pitching for gender-segregated boot camp, he spoke of how men and women “need to be nurtured different.”

As it stands, all four women who’ve attempted to pass the Marine Corps Infantry Officer Course have failed. The demanding 13-week course is considered to be among the toughest in the U.S. military.

And while much of today’s combat takes place at a distance, al-Qaida must be looking forward to meeting this new “nurtured” soldier up close and personal on the battlefield.

Apparently, “maximizing the success of women” is a greater priority for some than living and dying.

Of course, if you understand the progressive left, you could see this coming. Just as Obamacare is but a foot in the door that will lead to single payer, the announcement in January was just the beginning of the emasculation of the U.S. military.

Which leaves one to wonder if the final earthly thoughts of these new American soldiers, as they lay dying on the battlefield, will be to wish that there had been a little less gender equality within their unit.

[poll id=”79"]

Tom Tillison

Tom Tillison

Tom is a grassroots activist who distinguished himself as one of the top conservative bloggers in Florida before joining BizPac Review.
Tom Tillison


11 thoughts on “Military lowering standards to qualify women for combat

  1. Noah Dawson says:

    I said that was going to happen when they lifted the ban. Military standards as they are now are so low that even grossly out of shape individuals could and can pass. 80-100% pt score individuals are what most people think of when they think of the military. These guys are in shape. You start to go lower and they start to get fatter or they the start to get weaker from not working out on their own time. Females are worse, their 80-100% are average females. Most females in the military are overweight slobs. The high majority can’t do 5 proper push ups. They pass their pt test because people feel sorry for them or because they are giving an effort. Explain to me why females can not do the bare minimum of a man? Why are their run times so much slower. I ran cross country in high school, their were females who were faster than me. I was a Marine Corps 300 pft’er. I was also infantry, we had enough guy falling out on humps from being out of shape handing off their t/o weapons (spread loading) to other marines. Its going to end up females have lighter packs and can’t carry their t/o weapon. Soldiers and Marines are going to have to carry their load from the beginning of the movement. Then you have the weapon situation if they are 0311 or 11b that they can’t carry saws. Now you have another hindrance an how you manage your platoon, squad, team. Im glad I got out, good luck

  2. Sharon B says:

    This woman is angry about this decision. I believe women have a right to serve in combat but ONLY if they can pass the exact same tests the men have taken.
    Lowering the standards will definitely hurt our military. I believe this is a purposeful act in a series of acts to weaken us.
    We as a country, are being systemically weakened from within by this Administration and its Appointees.
    When will our elected GOP officials take action? Will their need for power and money take top priority while our country is falling to its knees?
    This machine needs to be stopped.

    1. MikeTango says:

      Unfortunately, this has been going on since the early 1980’s when women were training with men in R.O.T.C. and the academies. Airborne school requirements were lowered for women to pass.

      Today, women have a different PFT vis a vis men. Women are being qualified for the current opened combat arms positions using the female PFT requirements.

      What they are trying to do is penetrate the elite combat arms positions by lowering standards for women b/c of pressure from the Obama administration and feminists.

      The liberal MSM has already been on-board with women in Marine Recon, PJ’s, Special Forces, Delta, Seals, etc…even when women could not even pass the Marine IOC. “Putting the cart before the horse.”

  3. Jerry says:

    Whats next? Affirmative Action professional sports teams? I would not want to be fighting for my life with less than the strongest team possible. There is no end to liberal depravity.

  4. Ray says:

    Absolute insanity.

  5. OldmanRick says:

    Yep, the left is effectively destroying our last bastion of freedom – the military.

  6. Robert Edwards says:

    There might be places a female would be more suited than a male. For example, inside a tank. The generals example of a 110 pound male needing special consideration shows absolute stupidity. It is a question of whether he can meet the standards–not the weight. People get passed over all the time for not meeting standards. If you lower the standards for some then you will just create poor unit morale. If females are seen as getting special treatment from the brass then they will get poorer treatment from the troops unless they are seen as a sexual object to be sought. This then raises the question of sexual misconduct among the troops. One female in a tank might get a lot of attention. I get a picture of a military that is creating more problems than it is solving.

    1. MikeTango says:

      The 110 pound male combat arms soldier is a farce. A full ruck, weapon, and ammo would weight the soldier down. Considering that in sustained combat operations a soldier could loose 20 pounds. They are just blowing smoke to make a case to lower the standards for females. Their arguments are becoming ludicrous, desperate, and dangerous.

  7. zeprin says:

    When the ‘Girls’ start coming home in aluminum boxes out of all proportion to their numbers engaged….. then there will be a change. And not before. Wishful thinking trumps reality everytime. Until the price becomes too high and you can’t hide from it anymore. It’s sad but that’s the way of the political world.

    7 years a Marine. 14 years US Army.

    1. PaulMurrayCbr says:

      Or when they begin being executed for cowardice in the face of the enemy.
      Ahh – who am I kidding? It’ll never happen.

  8. Special Operator says:

    When you lower the standards for any reason of training and qualifications for military units, you increase the likelihood of more military personnel being killed in action and lower the chance for military units to prevail in combat action. Need anything more be said!!!!! As a former Marine Force Recon commander, I can attest to the fact that most males “can’t meet the physical qualifications” to serve in “special operations units”. Anyone who meets all the long standing qualifications for service as a special operator should have the opportunity to serve, but the qualifications should not be changed to permit “anyone” to gain entry to a special operations unit. To lower standards is to “kill your own people and diminish the opportunity to prevail on the battlefield”.

Comments are closed.

Related Posts