Female Seals?

We need women on the front line. We need women in the Navy Seals, Special Forces, and Army Rangers. Right?

Needs and requirements drive supply in a sane society. A change in policy is normally made because some form of deficiency exists. Pushing for equal rights in our Special Forces is similar to 'Billy' feeling left out because he can't work as a waitress at Hooters (circa 2009). The only 'minor' difference is (and as ridiculous as it may be), a male Hooters waiter serving drinks will not cost American lives. 

It may be painful for some to hear, but the military is designed to kill - especially in reference to Seal Teams, Special Operations Forces (SOF), & Rangers. What you've seen on TV regarding the training of these elite men is only 50% truth - at best. Fact is, the training is much more intense than you'll ever know. Once 'training' and acceptance into these exclusive organizations is complete - the upgrade has only just begun. Injuries, mental anguish, and at times - doubts are mixed with pride, honor, loyalty and selfless service - all of which heavily outweigh the latter. I'm sorry I mentioned the word 'elite', that doesn't sound fair. For women this injustice of not joining the ranks of these men have clearly held women down for far too long.......I mean, this injustice of not joining the ranks of these men have clearly made us weaker as a military fighting force. Both statements are equally ludicrous. 

It is clear that our special forces are not meeting standards. Time and time again I read about other countries rolling over our special operations units. Wait, what? We're the best in the world. What exactly is the need for change based on? Our leaders are clearly willing to risk American lives for either political gain or to..........forget it, I cannot think of another reason. There can simply be no other explanation for this change. Is the risk worth the reward?

When leaders like Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta use the military fighting force as a social experiment there are no winners. It's impossible to say that there is a benefit to such a move. That is, if you truly understand what, when, how, and why these men deploy. 

Do you want to know the scarcest word in the American language today? The word 'No'. I yearn for the days when leaders would respond to situations like these with a strong dose of common sense and the word 'no'. I beg of someone to stand up and say 'no' while honorably doing the right thing. I beg for a mom with her screaming kid in the grocery store to firmly say 'no' without fear of judgment. All those fancy terms thrown around in every basic military training and officer candidate school across this great nation really do mean something.

I think a real-world story is in order. While I was deployed to Afghanistan in 2009, I was providing overwatch for a team of Special Operations Forces in my F-15E. On this night, the objective was atop a large mountain - about a 4000' ascent from the basecamp down below. While scanning the team and surrounding terrain for enemy forces, it was clear the team was taking much longer than normal. I've watched in awe on many occasions the incredible physical shape of these men ascend terrain that a mountain goat would struggle with; all while carrying heavy equipment, ammunition, and weaponry. It was clear on this night, that one person continually required help because of falling back from the group. After nearly two hours, we handed the ground forces off to another flight to provide overwatch once they reached the objective at the top of the mountain. The advantage of flying out of the same base as the ground troops is that you on occasion get to catch up with ground party team leads over dinner at the chow hall. A couple nights later, I saw the team lead and sat down to chat. I asked him what the hell took so long that night. The frustration in his voice was apparent that night on the radio. I learned that they 'got stuck' with a female medic not attached to the Special Forces. This was because leadership determined that they needed more medics on this mission. The female could not hang with the team-especially because of the high terrain and physical demand of the mission and equipment required. "We would have lost someone had we taken fire during that ascent"..........."we would have had to provide care and feeding for her while trying to suppress fire" were the words he left me with.

You see, that's the American way. To protect someone on a mission will always be a priority to an American soldier. Forget the anguish this girl was causing. Forget the fact that not only should she have not been there - they didn't want, nor need her on this mission and they knew it could cost the team dearly.

All those years of anguish for so many thousands of women who dreamed of becoming a Navy Seal may finally come to an end. Selective discrimination based on requirements sure isn't fair; especially in the military. It never has been fair, it was never meant to be fair, and it should never be fair......with specific regard to demanding career fields with special requirements. Put the requirements aside, and you have many, many intangibles that are rarely discussed.

Will there be a difference when a couple team members are captured and they're torturing the American prisoners - male and female. And by torture, I mean rape. Our enemy would never use the female to their advantage to gain information from the soldiers would they? That against the Code of Conduct! Remember that 'American way' that I spoke of? This too will bring any American male to his knees. The dynamic of females in this environment and the implications of numerous contingencies that arise during a mission cannot be understated. If she is weaker, how much extra attention will she require during combat? Can she carry her 200lb male team member out if he's injured? Intangibles.

Many times, these social feel-good programs with no clear goal other than appeasement towards a very small minority have dramatically damaging side-effects. Want to read a fantastic double-entendre? "The order Panetta and Dempsey signed prohibits physical standards from being lowered simply to allow women to qualify for jobs closer to the battlefront. But the services are methodically reviewing and revising the standards for many jobs, including strength and stamina, in order to set minimum requirements for troops to meet regardless of their sex." From: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/military-has-schedule-for-women-to-move-into-combat-jobs-including-seals-other-commandos/2013/06/17/610007f4-d7af-11e2-b418-9dfa095e125d_story_1.html

In 1997, Hooters agreed to pay $3.75 million to settle a sexual discrimination lawsuit filed by a group of men. The judicial system is an entirely different problem, but paying $3.75 million so you can continue to run your business in which it was designed (and succeeds), is a travesty in itself. There will be no payment large enough for this colossal mistake and failure in leadership.

If someone could so kindly list out the advantages of this decision for me; that would be great Remember, the pros should - without question - outweigh the cons for such an important decision..........right?

Anomalous Analysis