• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

Marines may be forced to lower standards to appease Obama

MrLiberty

Bronze Member
Site Supporter
Recently we reported about the results of female Marines seeking to complete the Marine Infantry Officer Course (IOC) — ZERO — as well as female Marines attending Infantry Training Battalion, School of Infantry-East. We also compared that with the Army and females being allowed entry into the Ranger Training Assessment Course (RTAC) and that twelve will be going onto Army Ranger training.
Well, it seems the Marines have drawn the ire of the Obama administration via the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Dempsey. That’s just not the result Obama was looking for.
As reported by the Washington Times, “Two years ago, Army General Martin Dempsey, the nation’s top military officer, laid down an edict on the Obama administration’s plan to open direct land combat jobs to women: If women cannot meet a standard, senior commanders better have a good reason why it should not be lowered.
Today, the “Dempsey rule” appears to have its first test case. The Marine Corps just finished research to see if female officers could successfully complete its rigorous Infantry Officer Course. The IOC diploma is a must to earn the designation of infantry officer. Of 29 women who tried, none graduated; only four made it through the first day’s combat endurance test.”
“Marine Corps public affairs said it did not have the data on which tasks proved the toughest for women. But one particularly demanding upper-body strength test is climbing a 25-foot rope with a backpack full of gear. A candidate who cannot crawl to the top fails the test. Traditionalists see the 0-29 performance as a call to arms by those inside the Pentagon who are determined to have significant numbers of women in the infantry. They are on the lookout for standards they believe are no longer relevant in today’s battlefield.”
“The pressure is on the services from the White House’s politically correct crowd vis-a-vis Obama’s Pentagon appointees, who will force the services to accept degraded standards,” said Robert Maginnis, a retired Army officer and author of the book “Deadly Consequences: How Cowards Are Pushing Women Into Combat.”
So will the U.S. Marine Corps be forced to justify why its IOC training is so hard? Will they have to go before the Sanhedrin of the Pharisees of political correctness and explain why anyone needs to be able to climb a rope with a full gear pack? Will the Commandant of the Marine Corps be called into General Dempsey’s office and be forced to explain every single standard of the Marine IOC and justify its existence? Will the Corps be forced to surrender its standards of excellence?


http://allenbwest.com/2015/04/marines-may-be-forced-to-lower-standards-to-appease-obama/


obama didn't invent political correctness, and it certainly started in the military long before he arrived, but, he has taken it to new heights and I for one am disgusted with all this PC shit going on in our nations military. :soapbox::soapbox::soapbox:
 

Doc

Bottoms Up
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
IF it happens it will cause more people to die. There is a reason they have standards set as they do. A 60 minutes report from a couple months ago assured us that those in the Military do not want to lower any standards and they spoke of the impact doing so might have. Guess Obama does not watch 60 minutes. :pat: Why would he, he already thinks he knows it all. :bonk:
 

tiredretired

The Old Salt
SUPER Site Supporter
Been more then one discussion on this subject on a veteran's forum I frequent. The general consensus is the Marine Corps will NOT be lowering its standards. Let's hope we're right.
 

bczoom

Super Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
If you're going to be an Infantry Officer, you have to be able to keep up with your troops.

The troops will have a hard time listening to and respecting their OIC if they have to keep dragging said Officer around to keep up.

USMC Aviation, Intelligence, Supply/support/logistics or other non-front-line positions would be more appropriate for the women due to the inherent physical needs of being in infantry.
 

jimbo

Bronze Member
GOLD Site Supporter
Been more then one discussion on this subject on a veteran's forum I frequent. The general consensus is the Marine Corps will NOT be lowering its standards. Let's hope we're right.

The CIC of the Marines is the President. The standards over the past few years have been lowered more than once for PC.

Why should this situation be any different?
 

JEV

Mr. Congeniality
GOLD Site Supporter
Just look at how many strong military leaders have been replaced with pussies who are willing to cater to this moron. This is another effort to win the vote of ignorant women who get sucked into this kind of bullshit in the name of "inclusiveness." He's pandering to the baby mama murderers so they'll vote for the other empty shirt in a bad pantsuit, and putting our troops at risk in the process. Let the broads who want command positions join his other army...Homeland Insecurity, where the physical requirements are less than passing PE in middle school.

There...now I feel better with that out of me.
 

Danang Sailor

nullius in verba
GOLD Site Supporter
The modern battlefield does not have the same separation of action that has prevailed for at least two centuries; the division
between the front lines and rear echelons is no longer clear and cannot be counted on for any semblance of safety. Everyone
must be prepared to fight a defensive action at any moment, with little or no warning.

While it has been proven over and over again that women are not built for dedicated combat roles, based on a lack of upper
body strength and other physical factors totally beyond their control, it is nonetheless true that every service member,
regards of gender, should be thoroughly trained for combat: pilots can be shot down in hostile territory, convoys can get
lost - remember Jessica Lynch? - and 'safe rear areas' can be overrun by enemy combatants who refuse to confine their
operations to a traditional 'front line'.

So, even though women should not be in dedicated combat positions, they should still be trained how to effectively use
an M-4, and how the act of inserting a good knife edge up and hilt deep under a guy's sternum, lifting, twisting, and then
quickly removing tends to dissuade said guy from continuing his antisocial behavior.

 

jimbo

Bronze Member
GOLD Site Supporter
The modern battlefield does not have the same separation of action that has prevailed for at least two centuries; the division
between the front lines and rear echelons is no longer clear and cannot be counted on for any semblance of safety. Everyone
must be prepared to fight a defensive action at any moment, with little or no warning.

While it has been proven over and over again that women are not built for dedicated combat roles, based on a lack of upper
body strength and other physical factors totally beyond their control, it is nonetheless true that every service member,
regards of gender, should be thoroughly trained for combat: pilots can be shot down in hostile territory, convoys can get
lost - remember Jessica Lynch? - and 'safe rear areas' can be overrun by enemy combatants who refuse to confine their
operations to a traditional 'front line'.

So, even though women should not be in dedicated combat positions, they should still be trained how to effectively use
an M-4, and how the act of inserting a good knife edge up and hilt deep under a guy's sternum, lifting, twisting, and then
quickly removing tends to dissuade said guy from continuing his antisocial behavior.


Still, a person that can do all the tasks required of a position is a better soldier than one who can do only a portion of the required tasks.

Why isn't giving the easier and less risky jobs to a portion of the workforce at the expense of the remainder considered discrimination?
 
Top