By Gunnery Sergeant Jessie Jane Duff, U. S. Marine Corps (ret), Senior Fellow, London Center for Policy Research
On April 1st, the combat exemption for women in the U.S. military was lifted. This means women can and will be involuntarily assigned to infantry and ground units. This also means that brutal and horrific violence against women is now legal as long as it comes from the hands of the enemy.
The American public is largely removed from the military and we didn’t even hear a whimper from the fathers and mothers of America that their daughter on active duty now can potentially be assigned to a combat unit. It’s called orders. Choice is gone. This isn’t about women who want to anymore. As General Dempsey said upon his retirement from being Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, there will be representation of women in all ground combat units.
There is zero evidence women can maintain combat readiness. Even the top women still perform at the bottom percentage of men. The data is OVERWHELMING. But people have to go look for it and do their homework. No one is going to hand them a cheat sheet. I had to dig and ask around. I went to the Center for Military readiness, www.cmrlink.org/ and asked Elaine Donnelly for her Freedom of Information Act requests. Because, you see, the Pentagon is not releasing the hard facts.
The entire pro-women in the infantry movement is thriving on a false argument. It’s an argument that has no analysis or reason, let alone any evidence women in infantry units can even maintain combat readiness. Their biggest claim is “if a woman wants to and can, she should be able to”. Yet, what they fail to realize, it isn’t a choice. Women either have combat exemption or they don’t. So congratulations feminists and progressive men who thought they were making a stand on equal rights. Equally, men and women will now go to combat. And all the facts, data, and years of military and sports research clearly demonstrate: women are not built equally to men, regardless of how much training and fitness they do. They break faster and have critical injuries that make them more expensive to recruit and replace overall.
With Elaine’s research, I found that of the over 400 women who “wanted to” go to an Infantry Training Battalion, 65% of the women FAILED the school, while 98% of the men graduated. Ninety eight percent! So, we have yet to find out of the 65% of the women who failed, how many lost their career from injury/disability. Oh, and it costs $30,000 to recycle just one person into a new job if they fail a school. If 65% fail on average, it will become quite costly and highly impractical to waste limited resources. That’s assuming the school didn’t cause them to be injured or disabled beyond being able to finish an enlistment.
I read the Marine Corps 9 month integration study and found out that of the 35% of women who passed infantry training, the top 25% of the women were still performing at the bottom 25% of the men during their combat operations study. These women are the BEST of the BEST. This means the Corps is now going to have to rank these women always in the bottom percentage of men.
Now, we’re not even done. Training is one thing – long term combat operations starts picking off even more women. This is like going through Rangers School over and over again. That bottom 25% of women (who were the top 25% of women in the Corps) still had 6X the injury rate as men. SIX TIMES!
So progressives who peddle the “if women want to” argument, how many of those women who “wanted to do this”, in reality can’t even finish a career because they are broken by the massive training.
So, women cost 5 times a man to recruit (due to the high attrition rates from basic training, failure to ship, or simply to find a woman who wants to enter the military), they perform at the bottom 25% of men, and they are injured at 6X the rate of men in infantry units. How does this help maintain combat readiness? THAT’S the argument.
Unfortunately, so many men aren’t arguing with facts. They are arguing with emotion – many saying it will mess up their moral, cohesion, and Esprit de Corps. Well geeze guys, that is a good argument, but you can’t win on emotion. Get out there and start doing your research. Start fighting with facts. But the “you’re hurting my bonding time” is how most of them are coming off. I get what they mean because I am a Marine. What they’re saying is very true – the Corps isn’t about co-ed P.E. It’s about killing the enemy the quickest means possible, and sometimes that requires hand-to-hand combat and brute strength.
The men in Congress failed to argue the Pentagon’s decision to lift combat exemption with facts. There is zero evidence after all of the research is gathered that women can even maintain combat readiness. Women are the ones who will pay the price. Shorter careers and injury are now the least of our worries. Attrition rates for women are already higher than men – now they will skyrocket.
If the Army and the Marine Corps can’t maintain combat readiness, women in combat units fighting ISIS on the front lines should never happen. The one woman out of 100 who may get through the training and the extensive field operations comes at an incredible cost. The taxpayers should be appalled at the money being spent to recruit, train, and replace hundreds of women who are injured and disabled, often making them unable to do more than a single enlistment.
If this were happening to any other minority group, there would be massive public outrage. But, instead, combat exemption for women was lifted on April 1st and there was no media reaction; none. So when your daughter or sister goes into the Army or the Marines, just know, she can potentially serve in front of the wire in ground combat units.
ISIS is applauding our initiative for equality.