the Marine Corps released research data showing that all-male teams outperformed units comprising men and women in 69% of ground-combat tasks, especially those that involve carrying heavy ammunition or weapons.
The findings, Marine officers said, show mixed-gender units are less effective in combat and more likely to suffer casualties than traditional all-male units.
In a summary of the findings, the Marines cited a 1992 presidential report that concluded: “Risking the lives of a military unit in combat to provide career opportunities or accommodate the personal desire or interest of an individual, or group of individuals, is more than bad military judgment. It is morally wrong.”
A new study in an all-volunteer unit last year confirmed the results:
The study found that in 93 of 134 tasks, all-male teams outperformed mixed-gender teams. In 39 tasks, there was no difference. In two tasks, the mixed-gender teams performed better.
“The brutal and extremely physical nature of direct ground combat, often marked by close, interpersonal violence, remains largely unchanged through centuries of warfare, despite technological advancements,” the Marines said in a summary of the research findings.
Not everyone is persuaded by the Marines approach….
As an old Marine, I approve of this message.
ReplyDeleteI don't know whether it's due to the physical limitations of women on average (body mass, hormone levels, etc), or the social and psychological effect of women on men, but it doesn't intuitively seem like a good idea to begin with. You don't fight a physical battle effectively by mitigating your perception of reality with ideological bias. Your ideology is either going to be brutally realistic or it will fail. The presence of women on a battlefield where death is expected generally hinders the ability of male warriors to perform. You can't change that fact by imagining that social engineering will change it. When rounds are coming downrange, all bets are off.
As an old Marine, I approve of this message.
DeleteThanks Jim. Have you read Robert Kaplan's "Warrior Politics"?
http://www.amazon.com/Warrior-Politics-Leadership-Demands-Pagan/dp/0375726276/
I haven't. I'll have to check it out.
DeleteAnother Marine vet here.
ReplyDeleteIt's one thing to engage in Leftist social experiments in peace time but it's another matter when it comes to combat where life and death and mission accomplishments matter.
I know liberals will use the two women passing Ranger School as part of their argument. It's one thing to pass Ranger School (though it is very hard) but it's another thing to incorporate them into actual fighting units.
The Marines always say "If it isn't broke, don't fix it." I think this should apply for not messing with the Combat Arms as it is.
Is it possible that empirical evidence and sanity will have some input on this matter??? Is it? Can it be?
ReplyDeleteNah, probably not.
Or maybe I'm just feeling down and pessimistic today.
By the way, just to brag and make you all jealous, I own a copy of _Women in the Military: Flirting With Disaster_ by Brian Mitchell which is *autographed with an inscription by Phyllis Schlafly." It says, as i recall, "Brian Mitchell is a great American" and then has her signature. I asked her to sign it when she came to town about twelve years ago.
ReplyDeleteHow was that book?
DeleteI'm a non-specialist, but it seems excellent to me. A bit outdated now, of course, but still well worth reading. And I think he destroys the whole idea that there is a hard and fast distinction between combat roles and support roles in the sense that it's *no problem* for women to be in the military even in "support roles."
DeleteThank you Lydia
Delete