U.S. commandos say no to women in special operations jobs
Female soldiers trained on a firing range while wearing new body armor in Fort Campbell, Ky. in Sept. 2012. Members of the U.S. special operations forces say that allowing women to serve in Navy SEAL, Army Delta or other commando units could hurt their effectiveness, lower the standards and drive men away from the jobs. (AP Photo/Mark Humphrey, File)
WASHINGTON » The men in the U.S. military’s most dangerous jobs care little about political correctness or gender equality. And they have a message for their political leadership.
When they are fighting in the shadows or bleeding on the battlefield, women have no place on their teams.
In blunt and, at times, profanity-laced answers to a voluntary survey conducted by the Rand Corp., more than 7,600 of America’s special operations forces spoke with nearly one voice. Allowing women to serve in Navy SEAL, Army Delta or other commando units could hurt their effectiveness and lower the standards, and it may drive men away from the dangerous posts.
An overwhelming majority of those who agreed to respond to the RAND survey said they believe women don’t have the physical strength or mental toughness to do the grueling jobs.
Some of the broader conclusions of the survey, taken from May through July 2014, were disclosed by The Associated Press earlier this year, but the detailed results and comments written by respondents had not been released.
The Pentagon released the summer survey and other documents when Defense Secretary Ash Carter announced last week that he was opening all combat jobs to women. That decision was based on recommendations by the military service secretaries and the leaders of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Special Operations Command. Only the Marine Corps asked to exempt women from certain infantry and frontline positions, but Carter denied that request.
Half the men who got the 46-question survey responded to it, and Rand did not identify any of them. In some cases people who feel most strongly about an issue are more inclined to answer surveys.
Some 85 percent of the respondents said they oppose opening the special operations jobs to women, and 70 percent oppose having women in their individual units. More than 80 percent said women aren’t strong enough and can’t handle the demands of the job. And 64 percent said they aren’t mentally tough enough.
“I could list hundreds of reasons why women cannot do the job that a Green Beret is required to do, but as I only have 1,000 characters, I will choose the one that I think is the most important,” said one respondent. “I weigh 225 pounds, and 280 pounds in full kit, as did most of the members of my ODA (a 12-man Army Green Beret unit). I expect every person on my team to be able to drag any member of my team out of a firefight. A 130 pound female could not do it, I don’t care how much time she spends in the gym. Do we expect wounded men to bleed out because a female soldier could not drag him to cover?”
Another said politicians don’t win the covert wars.
“Gender equality is not an option when the bullets are flying,” he said. “Most males in the area of the world I work in would rather back hand a female than listen to her speak. There is a reason we send men to do these jobs.”
Some were even more blunt.
“No one wants this. Do us a favor and listen to what we are saying for a change. Can Washington really afford to take that risk so politicians can brag to the public that they brought gender equality to SOF?” said one, who continued profanely.
Some saw it as inevitable.
“This integration will happen eventually and we might as well embrace it while we have current solid leadership and incoming solid leadership at the top to facilitate the transition,” one said.
The deep challenges the survey revealed with integrating women into tight-knit commando teams are not lost on the Pentagon. Gen. Joseph Votel, head of U.S. Special Operations Command, posted a memo and video online last week after Carter’s announcement, explaining the decision and vowing that the qualifying standards for special operations jobs will remain the same.
He noted that women have already moved into some special operations jobs, including as helicopter pilots and crew, members of cultural support teams in Afghanistan and in civil affairs and information operations.
And he added, “If candidates meet time-tested and scientifically validated standards, and if they have proven that they have the physical, intellectual, professional, and character attributes that are so critical to special operations – they will be welcomed into the special operations forces ranks.”
The bulk of those who responded to the survey were young, white married men. They worry that having women in their small teams could fuel jealousy at home or create problems with sexual harassment or illicit affairs. And they rely on and trust their teams and units as family.
Ninety-eight percent agreed that their unit is united in trying to accomplish its missions. But when asked whether men and women in a unit would be united to accomplish a mission only 48 percent said yes. Nearly 33 percent said no, and almost 20 percent were undecided.
And nearly 60 percent said they expected that women assigned to their unit would be “treated unfairly” at least some of the time.
Some, however, said they might be willing for women to serve in some, more peripheral special operations jobs. Several suggested that women could be used as attachments or additions to some units, just not as actual members, such as the cultural support jobs they fill now.
But that’s where they drew the line.
“They have no place in a team room. We all know this but nobody has the b(asterisk)(asterisk)(asterisk)s to say it,” said one man. “We are hunter killers, we are coarse, we bleed, we get blown up, we fight together. And we do the same with our HN (host nation) counterparts. At the end of the day we want to crack a beer and talk, joke about very unpolitically correct things. They are not going to feel part of the team. They will feel alienated, and they will be frustrated, and they will be angry. And before you know it the whole team is falling apart.”
13 responses to “U.S. commandos say no to women in special operations jobs”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I totally agree there is no place for women on these teams! So, create all women elite teams and make the black widow the team leader!
Unless you were being sarcastic why waste tax dollars on all women “elite” teams when a regular mens spec ops teams can already do a better job. Is the Secretary of Defense’s name Ash Carter or Ass Carter?
They demand equal rights to everything else, including pay. Let them get killed. BTW, no maternity leave which is a benefit not really enjoyed by male soldiers.
They demand equal “rights” but are noe willing to accept equal RESPONSIBILITY. Doubt that? Think back to Tailhook 1991 when females VOLUNTARILY associ99ated with a bunch of drunk male aviators – – some even volunteered to have a male shave their legs – – and then went whining to Patsy Schroeder and the so called “news” media about how they were mistreated, disprespected and how OFFENDED they were. The Navy responded cravenly by shutting down all of the officer clubs, lest the poor little darling girls might be victimized by all male drinking activities. BAH HUMBUG! These thin skinned easily offended chip on the shoulder weeping willows have no place on active duty in ANY capacity.
ash carter do this for your army …do what is right
Where’s “GI Jane” when you need her? 8-(
Helluva way to burn morale. I’m all for equal treatment, but sometimes you really need to take a hard look at reality. If the female can do EVERYTHING the male can do without relaxing existing standards, then she should be able to serve in the position. However, most women don’t have the physical strength equal to the men to accomplish tasks like dragging wounded soldiers to cover.
Politicians need to get off of the dam “PC bandwagon” and let our military personnel do the jobs they were trained to do.
while there are many women who can outperform many men, there are very few women that can perform at the physical level required at the elite military units.
for those women who pass the course, the same course with the same performance requirements as given the men, they should be given a chance as they have proven themselves in training.
however, if physical standards and performance levels have been lowered or compromised in any way to allow women to pass the courses, then i agree with the units’ members who prefer to have fully qualified physically capable partners serving at their sides in combat missions.
Vietnam was a hell of a place for grunts(infantryman).the gear that we carried consisted of a rucksack,6 canteens of water,400 rounds of 5.56 ammo,100 rds. of belted ammo for the M-60 machine gunner,M-16 rifle,steel helmet,5 day supply of food rations,smoke and frag grenades all of which amounted to approximately 120 lbs. which we humped thru the thick jungle. In 100 degree plus heat and extremely high humidity. We did this everyday for weeks at a time.At night,a perimeter would be established .We were lucky if we had at least 4 hours of sleep.While sharing a foxhole with a buddy at night,one could not relieve oneself outside the hole.You had to do it in the hole next to your foxhole buddy.Personel privacy was practically non existent. If women are willing to accept all of this,then by all means,they should be permitted to do lt.
This is another utterly stupid liberal social experiment which hopefully will be stopped when a Republican is elected president in 2016.
Hmm…no liberal comments; I wonder why?
Better training in the form of science-based techniques have raised the athletic performance of women since accurate measurements became routine in the 20th century. A common assertion is that Olympic gold medalist Mark Spitz’s winning race times wouldn’t qualify him for any Olympic-level women’s swimming team of any country in the 21st century. Absolutely true as far as it goes. The nagging issue is this: across the numerous endurance and strength based sports where comparable records for both men and women exist, the 90% phenomenon has held fast for generations. That is, if you compare contemporaneous records, female performance has consistently been approximately 90% that of males. If you look at all the data presented in one place at the same time, the consistency is rather startling if not a little spooky. So yes, if the 90% rule of thumb can be extrapolated to those combat tasks requiring sheer physical strength and endurance, we can expect to observe a measureable difference between male and female soldiers ON AVERAGE. That said, as I’ve stated elsewhere, a fully gender integrated U.S. military is a social experiment that simply has to play itself out. It’s up to future historians to conclude if the price paid was worth it.
They won’t have to wait long if we get into a war and lose it because of all this effort to make our armed forces a petri dish for social experimentation.
Ugh…..when will Odummy, & his idiot Secretary of Defense, Ass Carter, realize that life & death military operations are NO place to have “Everyone Gets To Play” experiments. Women are just NOT built for the crushingly grueling requirements of Special Operations. Period.