Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by FrightHorse 3938 days ago
A great many people seems to be very upset that a large portion of the non-integrated squads had experienced Marines, as if this negates the test. Two things:

First, the integrated squads had experienced Marines as well. They selected randomly (within criteria) to have the MOS (Military Occupational Speciality) and experience distribution a typical combat unit would have. That means both junior and senior Marines. That also means that, as combat MOS's have not yet been integrated, women will by definition be inexperienced in combat roles. This does not mean the women were inexperienced Marines.

Second: This is not an experiment about what's fair, it's to test what's real right now. And when women are integrated into combat roles en masse, this is what that will look like. Women will be less experienced and will be both integrated with, and adversary to, experienced male combatants.

This is a test of the current situation--everyone is green once. But that changes. And women will gain significant combat experience. You'll see an evolution in training to shore up potential weaknesses and exploit inherent strengths (and they are manifold) that women bring to the table.

That said. As it currently stands with women having had less experience, there is the very real potential that those units they are integrated into will experience a s degraded combat capability until training learns to compensate for certain inherent physical and psychological differences between the sexes (not to mention internal cultural hurdles that they inevitably be faced with). Degraded capability means an increased likelihood of casualties in combat. As I said, I believe this will change. I believe in five years this type of test will yield far, far closer results.

The question is this: Is that painful (and very likely lethal) initial period worth the ultimate goal of total integration? Is the risk to our servicemen and servicewomen worth that ultimate reward? I believe it is. I was pro-gender integration before I joined the US Army, I was pro-integration during my six years in the Service, and I remain fervently pro-integration years later as a significantly balder and fatter man.

It's worth it. But don't hide yourself away from the fact that there will be pain.

1 comments

It seems the military in general does not believe the initial painful period would be worth the ultimate goal of total integration. The article quotes a government study from 1992:

A military unit at maximum combat effectiveness is a military unit least likely to suffer casualties. Winning in war is often only a matter of inches, and unnecessary distraction or any dilution of the combat effectiveness puts the mission and lives in jeopardy. Risking the lives of a military unit in combat to provide career opportunities or accommodate the personal desires or interests of an individual, or group of individuals, is more than bad military judgment. It is morally wrong.

This was 1992, when there didn't exist the taboo we have today of not speaking against gender integration and government and military leaders could speak their minds.

The military in general did not believe in open LGBT or racially integrated service either. I wouldn't put any stock in any opinion proffered by the military itself, their job is to toe their line and present a cohesive front supporting whatever is the current policy, and there's few the military in general likes less than changes in policy.