Combat Role standards potentially up for review

Link


While the title is extremely misleading, this article makes me sick. At what point during combat did anyone say "hey you know what? I didn't have to be in that good of shape after all!"


Let me be clear in the fact that I don't mind allowing anyone to serve their country. My issues come when that person is not qualified to serve in their primary duty.

But didn'tcha know? Everything is a social club now, and they have to let anybody into any role just for wanting to be there. Qualification is exclusionary and just unfair and mean and so on.

The Army has "pencil whipped" scores and qualifications all the time because statistics/reports are (sadly) of the highest priority.

That said, when it comes to actual combat related skills and missions, I would hope nobody drops any standards as the price of some political goal.
That would endanger everyone!

You don't really think the PC crowd cares about that, do you?

Not so long ago our water heater caught on fire. Thankfully Mrs. Clyde was home at the time and extinguished the fire before it really got going. We called the fire department (via the non-emergency number) explained what happened and asked for advice.

Within ten minutes a firetruck was parked outside our house. In came four huge fireman, each one bigger than the last. The type of guys who could rescue two people on each arm. Heck they looked like they could carry horses out of a burning barn.

They were exactly what everyone wants firefighters to be. Well except they weren't akin to a Benneton ad, they weren't a politically correct group. Nothing but big dudes.

Perhaps we'll see (I hope not) if lower qualifications make a difference. I do hope the results aren't negative as I believe they will be.

Did any of you read the article or excerpt in the OP? All it says is that standards have to be justified. That is not the same thing as saying they have to be lowered.

Agree firemen are (as a rule) some big, fit dudes. We have one here at Fort Gordon who has won the big nationwide contest/challenge for the best firefighter before. That's one job where "who you know" might get you some leg up on getting a fire-fighter job in a Mayberry town, but otherwise you better be at the tip-top of your game.

Sorry, but I expect combat soldiers to be the best of the best also, which at this point is largely true, and I hope it stays that way.

I don't give a shit who you get for counting sheets and pillows, but engaging the enemy on a constant basis is a whole different breed of cat.

It could go that way, but I'm thinking more along the lines of, "the standard equipment kit for a medic is 100 lbs, therefore medics must be able to run 100 yards with the standard equipment kit." obviously I've made up the standard, but it should be easy to justify any standard that matters.

It should be noted that in the Army at least there are already different standards based on age.

So the 17-21 yo female standard is similar (lower pushups, higher situps, similar run) as the 37-41 yo male standard.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/army/l/blfitfem17to21.htm
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/army/l/blfitmal37to41.htm

How do you argue against allowing females in based on lower standards while also allowing older males in?

Agreed, but readying special units to justify their standards leads me to believe they will not be as objective as they should.

Put bluntly, have the standards for combat changed? If not, which I would argue they have not, is the current training adequate to prepare service members for combat and combat environments? If they are, which I would argue they are, why are we looking to change the standard?

Considering how much military technology has changed, would it be all that surprising if the physical standards had changed as well?

That's not the argument. GEN Dempsey said he would require justification for any standards that were too high for women to meet. This is an adjustment in standards not because of a shifting requirement, but the desire of a less qualified group of people to serve in a previously locked capacity.

IIRC the Army is/was looking at a complete overhaul of their PT standards. Away from the traditional 2 minutes pushups, 2 minutes situps, 2 mile run to more like "carry X amount of weight, Y distance" "do X line sprints" "do a kit run in X time."

Ah, here's an article about the pilot program. Sounds interesting:


Story Highlights

Eight posts to pilot two new tests: Army Physical Readiness Test and Army Combat Readiness Test.
Army Physical Readiness Test has five events: long jump, rowers, 60-yard shuttle, pushups and 1.5-mile run.
Army Combat Readiness Test is short obstacle course run in ACUs with weapon; includes 400-meter run, casualty drag, ammo-can shuttle, individual movements and agility sprint.



http://www.army.mil/article/52631/

IIRC, they've been relooking the PT test for the past 7 years. I don't have a whole lot of faith that it will change soon.

How is a 17-21 yo female 'less qualified' than a 37-41 yo male considering the similar standards?

Still not the argument. Read it again.

How many 40 year old riflemans are out there?

Eh, can't look at it like that. There are plenty of career E-4s that are old enough to be my grandparents.

I'm not sure what Anc is talking about. The issue I had with the statement was the reduction in standards that females were unable to attain. Age groups have nothing to do with this.

Perhaps an example will clear this up. I see this as an obligation of the service to justify their standards, such as Ranger school. Ranger school is a rigorous 62-day course meant to test the fortitude and endurance of candidates. If women are able to complete the course, as a male student is, they should by all means be allowed to attend; however, if the standards are dropped merely to accommodate the females, we have issues.

Two words: Nasty Girls.


Actually, even in the real Army there were a lot more older men in lower ranks than you would expect. Not everyone is a lying sack of shit coward like Dayton. Quite a few who had always thought about serving jumped on the chance to do a few years when their country needed them and raised the age limit to boost numbers.

While I understand the concern over physical capability, that's not enough to ban all women from direct combat roles. If they meet the physical requirements, shouldn't they be considered for those roles?

Um. no.....there are not "career E-4." If you don't make rank by a certain time, you get the boot. In other words (and it changes a lot so I'm sure I'm not dead on the money here) let's say that the RCP (Retention Control Point) is 8 years for an E-4. That means that if you do not make E-5 by 8 years, you get kicked out.

Granted, if you join The Army at 34 you might very well be a 40 year old E-4, but only because you joined later than usual.

As for PT standards adjusted for age and gender, I'm against it, to a point:

there should be only one standard for everyone, pass or fail. There's one standard for weapons qualification, so why not? It would then of course be challenging for a female/old guy, but a breeze for a young buck. This test would be for purposes of basic fitness - you don't meet them, you get the boot.

That said, there would then be special incentives (recognition, monetary, etc. etc) based on age and gender. In other words, if among the 35 year old females (based on adjusted standards) you get the best PT score in your unit, you get all the valuable cash and prizes.

Bear in mind then your PT score would have nothing to do with promotions....it's a just a pass/fail event. There are plenty of other areas in which to rate a soldier's effectiveness, like doing their job, leading and teaching subordinates, etc.

Should revise the NBA standards so shorter people can play.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muggsy_Bogues

Bad news for Storm, though.

The military should never lower its standards. I am sickened by the standards that the Air Force has lowered already. Airmen setting around in an airport in their utility uniforms looking like a bunch of sloppy grunts. You look sloppy, you are sloppy.
Some fucking desk brass got no business questioning the physical standards of those who "do".

Funny, in my experience the ones with the shiniest boots at 1400 and the sharpest, neatest uniforms usually have nothing else to offer their unit besides being a pretty photo op.

That was pretty much the case for my old division in Japan...when I got there, the guy in charge of the other three seaman was pretty new to the command himself, and these guys were used to just sitting around doing nothing. By the time I left there, we had all stepped up our game with collateral duties and being real assets to the ship so that there wasn't time for us to put ten layers of polish on our boots.

Simple - Unless 37-41 yo female are not given the same lowered standards as their male counterparts the situations are not analogous.

Gotta agree with Anna over Enlisted on the appearance thing.
You need something difficult/dangerous done quickly without excuses? Look for the people with some mud on their boots, preferably hung over and watching The Three Stooges.