Women in Combat Update

rangerette-benjaminDavid Gelernter, in an article on the degree to which popular antipathy to Beltway “political correctness” fuels the Trump candidacy, notes en passant that the whole women-in-combat thing is PC at Shock And Awe levels:

Political correctness means that when the Marines discover that combat units are less effective if they include women, a hack overrules them. What’s more important, guys, combat effectiveness or leftist dogma? No contest! Nor is it hard to notice that putting women in combat is not exactly the kind of issue that most American women are losing sleep over. It matters only to a small, powerful clique of delusional ideologues. (The insinuation that our p.c. military is upholding the rights of women everywhere, that your average American woman values feminist dogma over the strongest-possible fighting force—as if women were just too ditzy to care about boring things like winning battles—is rage-making.)

The mainstream press largely ignored the Marines story. Mainstream reporters can’t see the crucial importance of political correctness because they are wholly immersed in it, can’t conceive of questioning it; it is the very stuff of their thinking, their heart’s blood. Most have been raised in this faith and have no other. Can you blame them if they take it for granted?

via The Elephant in the Room | The Weekly Standard.

What, reporters don’t see PC slant any more than fish perceive wetness? You think? Meanwhile, here are a few other things that are going on:

  • Women are being recruited for direct combat specialties now. This is a bonanza for recruiters, as they can plug 5’0″ females into hard-to-fill MOS slots, get credit towards their quotas, and be well clear of the backblast area when Ashley and Alexandra bork out of training months later. Naturally, we’re seeing celebratory press coverage, as if volunteering == qualification. When the Unique And Special Snowflakes™ getting fawning press coverage like this start flunking schools, expect lots of downward pressure on standards from social engineers like Ash Carter, and their stooges in the press. Although maybe the press is the actual causative agent, and Carter’s the stooge? Ah, “What difference does it make?”
  • Women shouldn’t have to follow icky military regulations — not when it interferes with following their bliss, or their feels in general. And they get Congressional cover for that (emphasis ours): “Congresswoman Chellie Pingree has asked the U.S. Marine Corps top official to review rules she feels discriminates against female recruits who have tattoos.” The girl in question has a gaudy “collar” containing an insipid aphorism, and even though tattoos that show in uniform are banned, and even though the girl got the tattoo after she knew she wanted to join up, Pingree (D-ME) and this Unique and Special Snowflake™ believe that the USMC should adjust to them. (She could get the tattoo removed but that would cost her money, and anyway, the downsizing Marines should be glad to bump another kid for her, because she’s special).
  • The Israeli example is often misquoted, even by people who ought to know better. Israel, initially a nation predominantly leftist and irreligious in orientation, experimented with women in combat in 1948. While many roles are open to Israeli women, the IDF today is careful to stick to assigning women where they can do Israel, not just their own careers, some good. French (again) at National Review sets the record straight. He relies in that on this 1992-vintage theoretical/historical paper on women in combat (including with Soviet forces and the IDF).
  • Writing in a brief letter to Navy Times, Norman Polmar (who probably needs no introduction to this audience) succinctly dismisses the Israeli woman-warrior legend:

Rarely mentioned, if at all, as some U.S. military leaders, mostly civilians, advocate putting women in front-line, ground combat units, is that for the foreseeable future our ground and special forces will be fighting militant Muslims. As I learned from my work with the Israeli Navy, the Israelis are reluctant to have women engage in tactical operations because: 1) Muslim men do not surrender to women; 2) men get killed trying to save women; and 3) the “treatment” of women combatants captured by Muslims.

Unfortunately, many of our political leaders have no understanding of the “real world.”

  • Meanwhile, the draft for women continues — not in the USA, but in Bernie Sanders’s lodestar, North Korea. So many politically unconnected Nork men are so weak and stunted from endemic malnutrition, that the Socialist Workers’ Paradise has to draft girls from the better-fed nomenklatura. A young North Korean (of either sex) must be 142 cm (4’8″) to be accepted, down from 145 cm  (4′ 9″) in 2009. Nork female draftees must serve from three to six years; Nork male draftees must serve from 10 to 13 years depending on specialty. The average Nork is 9 or so cm shorter than his or her southern cousin: “bad luck” made manifest. It’s so exciting that the USA may follow such enlightened provinces as North Korea and Lopez-era Paraguay down the bright sunlit path to a female draft.
  • russian_rangerettesFor the “You Go Grrrll!” angle you can look in just about any paper, but this dog’s breakfast of an article at Mother Jones collects most of the feminist dogma into one place. That women can’t pick up wounded men the way they can each other? Doesn’t matter because “standards will not be changed.” That women will get pregnant and drop out to the mommy track at critical points in train-up? Doesn’t matter because “time lost by women to pregnancy is the same or less than time lost by men to discipline problems.” Eh, honey, combat units (especially SOF units) don’t lose significant soldier time to discipline problems; you’re comparing two dissimilar things, due to ignorance, bias, or (most likely) both. The writer also cites the opinion of CST members that the CSTs were a great success. Tip for reporters: ask the actual combatants saddled with those CSTs what they think.
  • The Washington Post’s Michelle You Go Grrrl! Lee wrote a tendentious “fact-check” claiming that the USMC study of women in combat didn’t find that their use in a long and thorough experiment “increased casualties.” True insofar that the experiment was conducted in training, not actually in combat. Hey, nobody died in the whole study, so casualties are totally over. She also quibbles that since the wounded would still be wounded whether they were evacuated by male Marines or abandoned by female Marines, there was “no change” in the number of casualties. Technically, perhaps, that’s true. What the study did find is that the typical male Marine who had to rely on the typical female Marine to evacuate his wounded body was not going anywhere. It was an inference from that that he was going to die. (You can’t expect Michelle You Go Grrl! Lee to understand logic and inferences. After all, she’s only a girl!) The study is here.
  • And it’s not related to women, per se, but it’s a close cousin, as the social engineering is strong in this one: the right of gay people to serve in the military being a done deal, an appeals court is considering granting them the right to pass on AIDS without telling their partners they’re HIV positive. After all, some fine, progressive military lawyers don’t want to harsh some gay guy’s fabulous for him. The case is less about the specific facts and about the specific accused, than it is about the social engineering: even if the guy in this instance “wins,” he’s out on his ear with a Bad Conduct Discharge for other misconduct, so it will make no material difference to the appellant. It’s just a chance for some military lawyers and judges (who are, but shouldn’t be, lawyers) to do some social justice virtue signaling in the service of their one true aspect of godhead, the Great Buggernaut.

Why, in the darkest days of the US military, say, as the British assault crested the earthwork at Bunker Hill, no doubt the defenders’ last thoughts as they were bayoneted were: if only we had some women here! As the Texans’ very bones were chilled by the deguello sounding across the San Antonio scrubland, they realized that they were doomed because they didn’t have a couple of female narcissistic careerist West Pointers (but we threepeat ourselves) to stack up against the thousands of Mexican regulars. And in the arduous retreat from the Chosin Reservoir in 1950, the lack of womens’ collaborative touch really made it hell.  (Collaborative touch? You know, the one seen in every all-female workplace, and the kind you hear about when your lady friends and relatives tell you about their women bosses).

Why, beats there a military heart in the land that has never uttered this bald plea to Fate: “Can you not deliver unto me and my small unit, greater social engineering and more intense micromanagement”? Will no one rid us of this dread and dreary deficiency of female intuition and “collaborative touch”?

Into that great, vast chasm of yearning steps Ash Carter, but we can imagine, in our mind’s eye, his followers: just what we needed. Thousands, nay millions, of suffragettes and feminists, marching in step.

In sensible shoes.

62 thoughts on “Women in Combat Update

  1. Buckaroo

    One wonders (hopes) that a President Trump would reverse this women-in-combat nonsense. The odds seem to favor that, but would the present folks occupying the General Officer ranks follow the order, or resist?

    And what about going back to DADT? Can that farce be unwound, or has the ship sailed? Again, I can’t imagine anyone other than Trump taking this one on.

    1. Sommerbiwak

      What’s the problem? If someone wants to hump the same sex at home, who cares? What anyone does at home is their thing.

      Sexual relations on duty are no no anyways.

      1. Buckaroo

        Really? What if “home” is a bunkroom shared with 7 other guys?

        As far as sexual relations on duty being forbidden– having never served I personally have no idea how routinely this regulation is broken, but wouldn’t it be infinitely easier to enforce if women and homosexuals were precluded from service?

        1. Sommerbiwak

          So what sharing a room with other men? Do you jump all the women you meet daily? Doubt it. Same goes for homosexuals. You probably know more homosexuals than you know. And most are not the obnoxiously disgusring type that present themselves as better and claim special snowflake status.

          1. Haxo Angmark

            you missed the point. Faggotry is a Group-Entitlement power play. Pervs form squares, circles, then take over the entire institution: cf. ad agencies, classical music from 1980’s onward. I witnessed both in NYC. That’s now happening throughout the military, esp. @ higher ranks. Criteria for advancement then becomes, to be blunt, membership in the male cock-sucking/female dildo-strapping network. Result: rapid decline in combat competence. And the evidence for same is already legion

          2. Hognose Post author

            Probably true. But the quiet gays were always there. I’m sure we had gays in SF, a few of them, back in my early days when it was Strengstens Verboten. They must have been some pretty exceptional guys.

          3. Paul Rain

            They are, at this time, at their absolute peak only 2% of the male population.

            In actual fact, most are the flagrant types who admit that they do, indeed, ‘eat the poopoo’, as our more commonsensical African fellow men have noted.

            Even if they weren’t mostly trash, you could easily lose those who weren’t without losing anything.

            Now, given that penile plethysmographs are unlikely to be made part of the AFQT anytime soon, reverting to a sensible policy isn’t even going to lose those who can act sane in a non-sexual area. If you are a deviant, and noone knows, it isn’t a problem. If you make it an issue, it may well be a problem. I don’t think any human being will miss the fabulous gay weddings in dress uniforms.

            —-

            As an interesting aside- for those who want to actually understand why male homosexuality exists, this classic post by anthropologist Gregory Cochran is very instructive. Best way to sum it up, is that there is no way that the ‘reasons’ that various biased or crazy biologists propose for the evolution of male homosexuality as a ‘normal’ genetic trait can ever work. A ‘gay uncle’ who never has children but helps out the children of his brother or sister would need to save two or three kids who would otherwise have died a certain death to break even. Other explanations are even more implausible.

            The most likely explanation is that there is some pathogen similar to Toxoplasmosis gondii, which is carried by cats, and when it infects young mice, damages their brains to the extent that it causes them to lose their fear of cats… highly beneficial for the parasite, and its natural host. Interestingly, there is also some correlation between T. gondii infection and schizophrenia in humans, although the direct link isn’t there as it is with mice and cats. Presumably some similar infection drives the predatory behaviour of most male homosexuals.

        2. pdxr13

          You have common sense!

          1990 enlistment question:
          Are you now or have you ever been a homo-sexual or a member of the Communist Party?
          Initial next to correct answer. Yes________, No____X__________.

      2. AnonForOpsec

        Have any of you who don’t see a problem EVER been totally immersed in that kind of environment? I doubt it. It complicates training and is distracting. It draws attention away from the important lessons that one day could mean life or death. BUT THAT’S THE POINT, ISN’T IT??? The lives of these insignifigants have less value than the political correctness they’re forced to endure. Future generations will have to pay for the ill conceived policies of this one but by George, mine won’t. They’ll take care of our own and watch the guilty burn without concern; you cannot see, that’s the future your ilk is inviting…

      1. Buckaroo

        For a “life-long liberal”, Trump is awfully un-PC.

        As someone who lived in and around NYC for 30+ years, I have been following Trump pretty closely long before he was regularly covered in the national media, or started appearing on his own TV shows. Trump did do a lot of business with Democrat politicians in NYC– which is exactly what you’d expect a local real estate developer to do, because Democrats run the city. NYC is an impossible place to do business if you don’t have the local politicians, bureaucrats, and unions on your side. I suppose you can hold that against him, but on the other hand, those are gonna be pretty useful skills to have in a Chief of State who will have to do business internationally.

        So as a practical matter, Trump had to support Democrats for many years. But, when Giuliani became mayor, that gave him the cover he needed to come out as Republican. And as far as his personal politics are concerned, when you take his business out of the equation and look at his stated positions and behavior, he is neither liberal nor conservative; rather, he is a nationalist. That’s why he is despised by both Democrats and Republicans alike. Republicans don’t like him because he’s not “conservative” enough and fails ideological purity tests; Democrats don’t like him because he has no use for political correctness, and doesn’t buy into the usual Cultural Marxist tropes like identity politics and class warfare; and the elites of both parties despise him because he is a Nationalist, and not an Internationalist, which is what they are.

        Nationalists believe in things like well-enforced borders; well-controlled immigration; protecting national industries and jobs; and a strong national defense. In fact, these things are all cornerstones of Trump’s stated policies. No other candidate– Democrat or Republican– stands for these things like Trump does. Cruz gives lip service to some of them, but it was Trump that stood up and pounded the table for a border wall and illegal immigrant deportation while Cruz stood on the sidelines, mute.

        Add it all up: he is not politically-correct; doesn’t buy into gender or racial identity politics; and is a nationalist who believes in a strong defense; and you come to the very rational conclusion that he would likely try to return the military to its pre-Obama condition, at minimum.

        1. Tantumblogo

          He’s un-PC when it doesn’t cost him anything. But when pressure is applied and the PR turns negative, his tendency is to roll over and spout PC bromides.

          There is nothing there. Trump is nothing but a left-leaning self-interested billionaire elitist. He may not be worse than his competition but to think he’s better is a fantasy.

          1. Haxo Angmark

            correct. In any case, DT will not be Prez. Looks like he’ll fall c. 100 (or more) delegates short of a first ballot win at the CleveCon. Post-floorfight, probably a Cuck/RINO (Ctuz/Kasich) ticket. If Trump goes Nationalist 3P, that should throw the election to Mrs. Clinton. She’s the One – totally corrupt, completely incompetent, utterly murderous – we should all want at the tiller of Leviathan when it hits the debtberg

          2. Paul Rain

            Do you have a son or daughter working a job below the top quartile of income?

            If so, Trump has suggested that he will oppose their replacement by a foreigner, at a lower wage. If it’s elitist to secure the Blessings of Libery for your Posterity, then elitism sounds like a mighty good idea.

        2. Aesop

          You speak as though anything Trump says has any objective value as verifiable fact, doubly improbable as that is since it is contrary to every moment of his life from birth until five minutes before he started campaigning for the presidency.

          When you realize that all you’re doing is replacing one clinically narcissistic poseur with delusions of competence and a middling IQ, for another clinically narcissistic poseur with delusions of competence and a middling IQ, you’ll have no one to cry to when your chickens come home to roost.

          HopeyDopey campaigned on finally quelling America’s centuries-long racial strife; as a result we see cities in flames regularly in the worst displays of such strife in 50 years.
          Trump’s forte (besides compromising everything and greasing palms to get part of what he wants) is supposed to be business acumen and financial expertise. Coupled with being handed the world’s largest debt and recession/depression grenade, with the world’s shortest fuse on same already smoking, that should work out SO well…

          In the both unlikely and unfortunate case of Trump winning the election, he isn’t going to have time to deal with straightening out the military (you should excuse the unintended pun); he’s going to have his hands full trying to get everyone to the lifeboats before this entire sumbitch sinks bow-first into oblivion. And odds are long before then you’ll find out that oligarchy is a small club (in Trump’s case, it’s an Army Of One), and you don’t factor into his calculations now, or then, once you and the rest of the self-selected field hands drop off your ballot, and go back to picking Massah’s cotton.

          Come that day, in the words of no less an authority on such choices than Brother Blutto of Delta house, “I advise you to drink heavily.”

  2. ToastieTheCoastie

    It’s too bad this country is so steeped in feminist dogma that we can’t have a conversation about the real reason wimminz don’t belong in the military (or most workplaces, for that matter). They don’t belong because they cause disciplinary issues and distractions.

    Working in the oilfield, it was always interesting how the atmosphere among a group of men changed instantly when a woman drove up to the wellsite.

  3. rocketguy

    That gal packed so many funky-font words into that collar tattoo that it will be an unreadable grey band not too many years down the road. I’m always impressed with how much money people spend doing stupid stuff…

    1. pdxr13

      Tattoos at a reputable parlor with a skilled artist can be $100 a square inch or more. It sucks to be allergic to the “all natural” pigments injected under your skin. Piercing and other mutilation is much cheaper. Getting a tattoo concealed with “removal” leaves large scars, like a skin graft, and the same kind of dent in finances.
      Will being completely and always free of tattoos be the new fashion trend? “I don’t hate myself and never needed to cut or ink my body to show off my conformity”.

      Akbar & Jeff’s Tattoo Hut!

      Dr. Seuss “Sneeches” with star-bellies and not.

      1. Jastxla

        Actually, you can get them removed via laser at a dermatologist’s office. It takes multiple visits, each with a charge. It does not leave scars.

        1. james n

          That tattoo will look like mush in a few years, the script is so tight and dense it’ll just blur out. I fail to see how a uniform wouldn’t cover it though. While laser is certainly an option it would take many sittings, each session only dealing with a small part of the tattoo, with a month between each laser session. Say a year to possibly a year and a half for it to vanish. Oh and the laser hurts more than the tattoo. Much easier to just cry victimhood instead.

  4. medic09

    The National Review piece succinctly covered the IDF issue. I would add that not long ago two of the IDF’s top physiologists, Professors Yoram Epstein and Yuval Heled, published their clear case and professional opinion against placing women in ground-combat roles. The article appeared in the IDF professional journal, Maarchot (April 2015 in Hebrew). Sadly, the article attracted some loud backlash from the crowd in Israel who want the IDF to emulate the American military on this issue. But the scientists spoke clearly enough.

    1. Mike_C

      This is a link to an earlier paper (2008) from Epstein’s group:
      http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Fulltext/2008/11001/Differences_in_Physical_Fitness_of_Male_and_Female.8.aspx
      I suggest clicking on the PDF link as the figures are better displayed there.
      Bear in mind that the study sample (number of subjects) is small, and further, the men in the study may have been relatively unmotivated due to the stigma of having been assigned to a less-prestigious mixed sex group vs a more-prestigious all male group. In other words, the observed post-Basic improvement among men may have been smaller than if they’d been training only with other men.

      Med Sci Sports Exercise is a reputable journal, by the way. These days there are a lot of so-called “predatory journals” that sorta kinda look like proper scientific journals, but are of poor scientific quality, with inadequate or nonexistent peer review. In contrast to those, MSSE is a good journal.

      1. medic09

        And even so, the conclusion in the ’08 study remains “basic physiological differences between the sexes were still evident. ” In the Maarchot article last year, where Epstein and Heled were making an explicit policy recommendation, they were adamant that women should not be integrated into front-line ground combat roles. They went on to explicitly suggest that women be limited to, at most, close support roles that may still put them at risk; but whose physical demands will not create a higher group risk. And, just like the USMC study, it will all get willfully swept aside by those with social and political agendas.

        1. medic09

          I would add one other comment. The group studied in ’08 for the paper Mike_C linked did a 4-month course of basic training. That is substantially less than the course of training that IDF recruits must do for any of the first-line infantry units. It was so in my time, and it is still so.

          1. Hognose Post author

            To me one of the most interesting thing in the study Mike flagged is that the 50-percentile-boxes in the graphs have no overlap. Bottom bound on the male box is higher than the top bound on the female box, indicating that the means are really far apart.

            Reading between the lines, the men in this predominantly-female unit are probably not a similar cohort to the men going to IDF ground combat units, too. Meaning that this sample, small though it is, is a sample of what’s probably the best case for sex integration in IDF combat elements.

  5. Aesop

    Let’s do this right: All EOD will henceforth be women. They don’t have to carry anything most days but the occasional small demo charge, or a mine detector. Or, in a pinch, a sharply pointed stick.
    And using Bitched Up Barbie for detecting mines is a win-win, whether they succeed at it or fail, and either way, they’re not line grunts, treadheads, or gun bunnies. And it frees up a man to fight.

    Because if you put them in those other units, whether it’s said or not, the women are going to earn a disproportionate share of DSCs/Navy Crosses, when their larger comrades see a grenade sail into a foxhole, grab the chicks, fling them bodily onto the grenades, and sit on them until the smoke clears, and subsequently tell all and sundry how bravely SuperChick sacrificed her own life to save her comrades’.

    And it’ll be gospel truth.

    That won’t just be a wartime truth; re-watch Men Of Honor, and imagine all the various and sundry ways in peacetime men will simply let the women get crushed, both figuratively and literally, where they fall. And whenever possible, after handing them a helpful anchor to swim with. When you kill chivalry deliberately, life among 18-year-old demi-men in the military reverts to Lord Of The Flies in about 0.2 seconds, and command influence will be utterly powerless. In fact, the command will be dealing with the same phenomenon with SNCOs and officers advanced under gender affirmative action, and will be giving them a helpful push off the cliff whenever the opportunity presents itself. Out of a sense of personal preservation, not to mention thinning the career herd, simultaneously.

    And even if standards slip, equipment won’t. No one is going to adopt a lighter chick-friendly tank tread, the Navy isn’t going to switch to titanium arresting cables because the current ones are too heavy, or any of 1000 other things they’ll run into every day, in every MOS. Compared to their WWII equivalents, nearly every piece of equipment, major and minor, is an order of magnitude bigger and heavier than what it was two generations ago. Andeven when we manage to find some minimal weigh savings, the obvious and universal answer is to throw another ammo can, water can, or case of MREs on somebody’s back to make up the savings, exactly as has been the wont since the time Marius’ Mules were carrying a gladius and shield.

    I note with some small satisfaction the service chiefs all recommended whole-heartedly the obvious fact that women will and ought now be required to register, universally, for the draft. Previous court decisions exempted them solely on the grounds that they were not allowed to participate in combat duties. That thin reed is gone now.
    Walk to the post office and fill out the card, Barbie, or you’re a draft-dodger for life: no government jobs or loans for you, for a home, college, small business, or anything. Not even WIC/AFDC/food stamps! Ahahaha!
    All that equality’s a cast iron bitch now, huh cupcake?

    They all deserve to get what the ObamaNation of a DoD has heaped on them, and get it good and hard.
    Sauce for the goose, and all that.

    It won’t be pretty, but the attrition rate is going to be the exactly predictable 99.999992% one would expect, and the .MIL will point to the 4 women out of 500,000 to persevere and tell the rest “Just be like that, and you’ll have no problems.”

    For the rest, a medical separation, and curiously similar Vibram-shaped tattoos on their faces will be their farewell from further service.

    It’ll proceed from exactly the same basic survival instincts that got lieutenants fragged in Vietnam.

    And all of this, pointed out with prescient perspicacity by no less an authority than Reg of the People’s Front Of Judea, is symbolic of the adherents’ struggle against reality.

  6. Sommerbiwak

    Why do women have a lower cut neckline shirt? What’s the point in showing cleavage (as small as it is with a V-neck) in uniform?

      1. Grog

        The link with the picture is “they get congressional cover for that”

        The tattoo looks like the writing on the ring in the lord of the rings movie.

  7. looserounds.com

    Man, I read this and at the end I laughed and laughed and then it hit me, and suddenly my brow darkened, my smile turned to a frown, and I said to myself. ‘”shit”

  8. Beast12

    It’s worth noticing how the Army’s trying to stack the deck regarding ladies’ pass-rates in combat arms basic & AIT:

    “Prospective soldiers will be asked to run, jump, lift a weight and throw a heavy ball — all to help the Army figure out if the recruit can handle a job with high physical demands or should be directed to a more sedentary assignment.”

    Army looks to recruit more women, adapt physical testing
    http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/army-looks-to-recruit-more-women-adapt-physical-testing/ar-BBpsxMZ

    So presumably the Army would only pull in the ladies who can meet predetermined combat arms physical performance requirements, thereby making the reported pass-rate better than what you’d get if you pulled in just any lady who wanted to be in combat arms. But between low female interest in combat arms jobs & the actual requirements, I’m sure politicians won’t be pleased with the numbers. Make ready your quotas for the next phase of the Global War on Standards!

  9. John M.

    They are preparing the U.S. military to attack the US populace. “Combat readiness” isn’t an issue because it won’t be “combat” the way we think of it. Whom would you rather command to Hellfire a house in Kentucky ? A redneck, or a woman with daddy issues?

    Oh, and re fragging lieutenants in Vietnam: was that a real thing, or just stories?

    -John M.

    1. Sommerbiwak

      It may have happened. Opportunities have been there obviously. But I never heard of confirmed cases.

      I think it is mostly a fantasy. With a tradition going back to the bronze age. Stone age probably. Who does not think of killing his boss at times?

      1. Hognose Post author

        There have been numerous cases of fraggings that were prosecuted at courts-martial in Vietnam and even earlier. I have a very dry book, Marines and Military Law in Vietnam, that covers some of it. Maybe a good subject for a posting.

        Fragging was mostly a post-1970 occurrence as the quality of the Army, the leaders, and the units declined.

        1. archy

          Most of the fraggings of which I was personally aware wdere not just simple murders, but a *real* fragging iwas not out of hatred for an unpopular blot on the chain of command but a means of self-defense against ticket-punchers and ringknockers who wanted the attention and approval of their Highers, no matter what the cost to the grunts in their charge. I’d estimate that more than half of the successful [and non-prosecuted] fraggings were committed by unit NCOs desperate to save their guys from an uncaring or incompetent platoon leader, even to hammering the weakest link in the unit’s chain of command. The practice was not at all limited to company grade officers, however; I’m aware of attempts/warnings made on two general officers in-country, one of whom was hastily reassigned to USAREUR to prevent a more successful try. It was common for the first *fragging* to be done with an M18 smoke grenade as a warning, a second might be for the recipient to find a frag under a pillow or ruck with a live grenade body but a fuze that had been removed and *popped* setting off the blasting cap, then replaced. If the warnings didn’t work, the third time was the charmer.

          The practice was not confined to Vietnam. I was in a unit in which platoon leader NCOs cheerfully took part in eliminating a deadwood XO from a unit, around the same time one grunt took the somewhat more excessive step of placing five M5A1 demolition blocks of C4 against the orderly room wall from an adjoining room, noticed only by chance when the erstwhile engineer demo trainee wandered off trying to find a claymore clacker to borrow. The other incident took place stateside, and involved a gay who might have been killed for that alone, but his positioning himself for an E-5 personnel slot was not at all appreciated by those others who had worked to work their way up the promotion ladder only to have a HQ company puke steal their slot. Were there warnings? Maybe, maybe not; he may have been too dense and too arrogant to have seen them for what they were.

          Additional: I’s estimate that about half the *fragging* command murders involved claymores rather than fragmentation grenades. But such incidents were if not completely unknown in SF, at least way less common because the leadership was worlds better, and SF NCOs had their own ways of removing those who destabilized the unit- usually alcoholics.

  10. robroysimmons

    Divide and conquer, but since I am dealing with conservatives it will be endless essays and gripe sessions, right wing magic thinking. If you are a conservative leaning white man you might as well go join the cult of flagellation for all the good the above will do you.

    In short you look at the political coalition that inflicted this upon the organization then pit the groups of that coalition against one another day after day after day on a personal level.

    FTR it was done to my white corn bread ass at MCRD by that lunatic DI I had we were a couple of hours into a sit down get up session in the squad bay and the windows were dripping with moisture when the lunatic pointed me out just for the hell of it and told the other 70 losers that we would not stop because of what I supposedly did. I got plenty of death threats and I never forgot that lesson.

  11. Keith

    I keep wondering what the fallout will be if/when the first American female soldier is captured by ISIL or the like. It’s one thing to spend years in an enamy prison camp, but quite a other to spend them as a sex slave. The words “perminantly broken” come to mind.

  12. NyneMillameetuh

    At some point all the homosexual, feminist, anti-White, and cultural-Marxist filth being spewed by the USG will simply drown it. This is both a blessing and a curse. A blessing, because eventually it will be to weak to spread leftism at gunpoint. A curse, because we’ll be here when it goes down.

  13. staghounds

    “whether they were evacuated by male Marines or abandoned by female Marines”

    Judging from the women I know who are Marines, I suspect there will be more ineffectual rescue attempts resulting in shot woman Marines who couldn’t move their inured comrades than there will be abandonments.

    Which brings to mind a question. These conversations are always full of women’s strength differences, pregnancy problems, and the effect of the women’s presence on the men.

    What does experience say about the non-physical aspects of women soldiers? Are they noticeably more or less motivated, clever, unit-oriented, obedient, or driven than men? Are they willing to accept responsibility, take initiative? Do they put the mission first better or worse than men?

    1. Hognose Post author

      You’re probably right about women Marines.

      The psychological differences, in my experience, are subtle but real. Women seem to direct a lot of anger, hostility and ambition into cimbing in the organization. They love using the rules, to get ahead, but also to do a number on other women. Men seem to have a more developed hunting instinct and a competitiveness that is aimed at the rival organization, not at rivals in the organization.

      Also, when men develop toxic rivalries, they can still work together, even in the unusual case where they don’t get over the hostility quickly and permanently. A woman with a case of toxic rivalry is a backstabbing waiting to happen.

      1. Sommerbiwak

        Matches my experience over the years. But the lefty ideologies say it is not so.
        Ironic how the old clichees break through in the end.

  14. Quill_&_Blade

    I was raised in a USAF family, but my knowledge of military things is quite limited at best; so I’ll take my lumps for whatever inaccuracies follow:
    Wasn’t there an all Japanese unit (442nd?) in Italy, WW2? Also, an all black Army Air force squadron in the same war? So there you have it! ALL FEMALE UNITS!! Like herding cats you say? Why no, I mean they’ll all have equal uniforms, no designer labels, so what could go wrong? That would accelerate the analysis, and prove quickly that the front line is a woman’s place. Man, you gotta wonder WHY someone didn’t think of this sooner, I’m a GENIUS!!

    1. pdxr13

      WAF’s. Not herding cats, because the harshest high-standards women will mercilessly drive them, until the ladies drive themselves. Men can not do this.

      Women can do a lot of jobs, and a few jobs better than men. This frees up men for hard jobs and combat, just like in the IDF. Women get parallel advancement path to men, not affecting or affected by men, all the way up to 5 Stars. Naaaaa, too practical.

  15. Pete

    In PC land, the only rules that have to be followed are the ones that can only degrade the effectiveness of the military. Rules that were in place before the arrival of the SJW asshats demanded that the military waste time with mandatory group-hug sessions (like the insanely idiotic COO (Consideration Of Others) crap that female general developed and pushed on soldiers) all have to be struck down because such militarily effective rules and regs interfere with the transgender snowflake being able to actualize his/her/its self-image.

    More succinctly – women on college campuses have to have “safe spaces” and be allowed to make false rape accusations against males after feeling regretful when they recover from their self-induced hangover, because they can’t be held responsible for the decisions they make…but they are perfectly capable of performing the dirty job of direct combat arms, because in PC land because there are no differences between males and females!

    So why do females have lower APFT requirements than males? Watch a SJW head explode when you ask them that….

  16. Pingback: WeaponsMan: Women In Combat Update | Western Rifle Shooters Association

  17. LSWCHP

    The 442nd Regimental Combat Team is legendary, even here in Australia, and I’m not ashamed to admit that my eyes well up just at the mention of their name. The valour those gentlemen displayed must never ever be forgotten.

      1. Aesop

        And FTR, the weakest, smallest recruit to the 442d then is still stronger than 85+% of all female recruits, ever.

        Creating an all-female combat arms regiment would merely serve to illustrate why they don’t belong in the first place: it would be the slowest, weakest unit in the entire Army, and based purely on present experience, never get above C-3 readiness, and even that only for a few days per annual quarter, while suffering medical losses at several times the rate for male units. In fact, you’d probably never find a woman with the physical constitution to last long enough to advance beyond E-6 in the combat arms, because they’d fall apart physically years beforehand.

        That’s assuming you could first find a regiment’s worth of women to put in it in the first place, which is anything but likely.

  18. Heh

    “the Israelis are reluctant to have women engage in tactical operations because: 1) Muslim men do not surrender to women; 2) men get killed trying to save women; and 3) the “treatment” of women combatants captured by Muslims.”

    The way I see it:
    1. Is a POSITIVE BENEFIT — we don’t want Muslim prisoners of war.
    2. Eh, we can break the men of that habit with good training.
    3. Also a benefit, long-term, if we publicize it, because it will deter women from joining up.

  19. MM1

    Sir,

    I have heard it said that rape is far less about sex than it is about dominance. I believe this to be true.

    My time in the Navy was before the sunset of DADT, and there were quite a few homosexuals (keep the jokes down to a dull roar, guys) in my department (of 400), many of them being far from discreet about the fact. The cross section of those I knew went from trustworthy and hardworking guys down to the scumbag schemers and welfare-wearing-a-uniform types. In other words, that cross-section was generally very similar to what I saw in the rest of the Navy, as a whole.

    The problem that I saw coming with the end of DADT was rooted in the sort of prison yard politics that has always existed in berthing get Oz-like when the large bodybuilder, Fabulous Freddie decides to exert dominance over the physically smaller Ricky Recruit. It doesn’t even have to be rape. It can be anything from groping to unwanted advances or anything along those lines. Now that being openly gay makes Freddie a member of a protected class, rather than a guy with something to hide, the scales of military justice are already leaning his way. Poor Ricky, on the other hand, is faced with two or three options other than to just shut up and live with it. Either he takes a piece of shoring timber to Freddie’s skull or he does the “right thing” and turns this POS in. The third option would be to bring in some peers to apply a little group coercion (or the non-violent, but potentially threatening type). None of these options is even remotely good, in terms of Ricky’s career, sense of self respect, or public reputation.

    Option A, to put a beating on a member of the rainbow tribe, regardless of the justification, is going to immediately set off command wide “hate crime” alarms. That is assuming that Ricky even managed to take care of business, because like you’ve said, gay dudes don’t always live up to the limp-wristed feminine flower stereotype. It goes without saying that if Ricky makes this choice, there is a really good chance that he is going to not only be discharged, but that he might get to spend some time breaking rocks into gravel before he is.

    Option B, being to rat his ass out to the EO or SAVI rep flies in the face of all things manly. Seriously, think about what that would do to a guys (think of a E-nothing FNG here for maximum impact) self respect, not to mention the respect he will lose from his peers. How in the hell did this culture develop where snitching is an option at all, let alone the only path that Ricky can take without danger of dishonorable discharge or worse? Worse yet, who is to say that Ricky’s is the story that is actually believed? Short of a rape kit or witnesses to prove otherwise, the special snowflake status of Freddie makes the outcome far from certain.

    Lastly, we could stick with option C, where Ricky admits that he was molested to his shipmates and tries to rally up a peer-pressure lynch mob to make Freddie pay. This pretty much combines all of the negative outcomes together, dilutes them a bit as it is distributed around the group, and then turns it into a “climate of hate” problem once Freddie or one of his fabulous friends squeals. Ricky still has to live with the broken respect issues, still might face serious repercussions for “not coming forward” and “taking things into his own hands” assuming that the COC actually accepts his version of events. So now the entire unit might end up facing a witch hunt, and Ricky didn’t even get to feel the crunch of Freddie’s busted nose.

    Think this is a stretch? Think again. The EO office has been both the shield and the weapon of choice for scumbags and schemers for a while now. Human nature being what it is, there are absolutely going to be cases of this going on. I’m actually curious to know if there are any publicly available numbers showing if male on male sexual attacks and harassment have increased or not over the last few years. Of course, we know damn well from experience that the overwhelming majority of these sorts of things go unreported.

    Sorry about the length of this “comment”. End rant.

    Very respectfully,

    MM1 (SW/AW)

    1. MM1

      Sorry to tag on even more to this comment, but I need to wrap it all together to finish my point.

      If you look at of the above… Yeah, well Freddie is absolutely aware of the conundrum Ricky is in. Chances are, Ricky will just roll over and take it, quite possibly until the day he tries to suck start a shotgun. That’s why this shit works. It preys on the pride of man. And that’s why Freddie and his fabulous friends will keep on doing it. Domination.

      V/R,
      MM1

      1. Stacy0311

        From my time on ship (gators and a carrier) as a Marine, Freddy needs to remember something: there are a lot of dark confined spaces on ship. Accidents happen. Really bad accidents happen when there are no witnesses

        1. MM1

          I hear you, man. That was the Navy I knew, as well, but it was definitely fading. Not that the dark spaces had disappeared or anything, but that the concept of righteous but informal justice in all sorts of matters was getting stomped out with a vengeance by the new, kinder, gentler powers that be. There used to be a commonly accepted code of conduct (no peace for the liars, thieves, or snitches) that was held sacred by the enlisted ranks. I’m chalking up the remnants of it that I saw to the generation that was trained and cultured by the Viet Nam vets. Across my 10 years in, as those Gulf War 1 vets were retiring, that culture was fast fading with little life left to live. The sort of subject discussed in this fine article marks the pivot point between decline and descent. There ain’t no coming back, in my opinion. Still, let’s hope that the Freddie’s of the mil might still have a chance at the traditional encounter with something heavy and hard, like the diamond deck at the base of a long ladder.

          Very respectfully,

          MM1

  20. PJ

    I don’t get what the fuss is about. When the revolution starts, we WANT the regime forces to be ineffective, don’t we?

  21. Gracemom

    Just curious. . . After all the hoopla over the three women that graduated from Ranger School, how many have started since then? Have any more graduated? Does anyone have any numbers?

  22. Tierlieb

    I know I may be weird as I do not care about the women in the US military part at all, but the short mention of North Korea irked me:

    Sure the lowering of height standards is about malnutrition? Recently I joked about them getting a good deal on toy aircraft and submarines. But today I learned that they actually have a thing called “midget submarine” (the MS-29 YONO)… so maybe this reflects a new armament strategy towards more subs and not an acknowledgement of malnutrition (which happens there, no doubt)?

    1. Hognose Post author

      The declining stature of the North Korean and his deficit versus the genetically functional identical South Korean (of about 8cm or 3 1/2″ roughly) is entirely due to juvenile malnutrition. Your mother wasn’t kidding — skipping meals will stunt your growth, if you skip enough of them, and Norks skipped enough of them.

      Midget submarines predate the malnutrition, actually. The Norks have always used those sorts of things to infiltrate the South and to practice for a barrage of Brandenburg or Spetsnaz style attacks if the balloon goes up. Every so often the ROK armed forces sink one, and Norks being Norks, occasionally one sinks of its own volition, or turns up awash in ROK waters with the crew and pax all dead from air mismanagement.

      The Norks have the most numerous special operations forces of any nation on Earth.

      1. Tierlieb

        Regarding juvenile malnutrition: From a historical perspective I was aware of this. But when it comes to NK, I usually expect half to be propaganda (which I consider pointless: there is no need to try make NK look bad, they can do that all on their own).

        But comparing to the South Koreans makes a lot of sense, so point well made.

        Side note: Larry Bond has a new NK/ROK novel out since the 16th of March: Red Phoenix Burning. Looking forward to reading this. The original Red Phoenix from 1990 was quite entertaining (mainly in the set-up to the conflict).

Comments are closed.