Why the Next President Must Restore Sound Policies Affecting Women in the Military

This compendium of articles and commentaries − Part 8 in a series posted in the SITREP section of the CMR website − provides abundant information, analysis, and expert opinions on women in direct ground combat. 

Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter had promised to be guided by the facts, but on December 3, 2015, Carter chose to ignore the fully authorized and supported request of the U.S. Marine Corps to retain women’s exemptions from the infantry and other direct ground combat units that attack the enemy with deliberate offensive action. 

Secretary Carter was unable to criticize the Marines’ comprehensive research, but he moved ahead anyway.  Carter disingenuously denied there would be "quotas" or lowered standards, even though the military services keep promoting "gender diversity metrics" of 25% or more.  In order to meet these goals, the services will have to adopt standards that are “gender-neutral” but lower than before.

Policy changes affecting all military women − and eventually civilian women of Selective Service registration age − should be rooted in reality, science, and experience, not theories, unsupported assumptions, and "mitigation myths."  Instead, the Obama Administration chose to impose a political agenda that will do great harm to both military women and men in the combat arms. 

Still, military history did not end on December 3.  The military is a resilient institution that will respond to new leadership once the Obama Administration leaves office.  Facts and solid data incorporated in the following documents, plus recently-disclosed reports that CMR will analyze in coming weeks, will continue to make the case for restoration of sound policies in the next administration. 

A.    Analysis of Current Research on Women in Land Combat

The following are major CMR Policy Analyses posted in the News & Commentary and Essential Resources sections of the CMR website:

• Marines Set Sound Priorities: Survivability & Lethality in Battle
• Interim CMR Special Report, Part II, November 2015: Marine Corps Research Findings: Where is the Case for Co-Ed Ground Combat?
• Executive Summary, Interim CMR Special Report – Part II

• CMR Policy Analysis: Co-Ed Combat Tests Hazardous to Women’s Health
• CMR Policy Analysis: Israeli Defense Force Decides Armored Units Will Remain All-Male
• CMR Policy Analysis: New British Report Shreds Case for Women in Ground Close Combat (GCC)
• USMC Research ˗  4-Page Executive Summary
• USMC Research ˗ Infantry Course Completion Rates
• Partial List of Prior Studies, Reports, and Research on Women in Direct Ground Combat
• What Do Women Want?  Statements from Women Marines 

B.    Major Commentaries: Concerns About Women in Direct Ground Combat 

The following news articles and commentaries often incorporate information that CMR obtained and analyzed during 2015:

• Dec. 28: Katie Keiffer, TownHall ˗ Don’t Let Hillary Draft Your Daughter
• Dec. 27: New York Post: Woman who failed FDNY physical test 6 times given another chance
• Dec. 24: Rowan Scarborough, Washington Times - Marine Corps Study Finds Few Women in Combat in Other Nations’ Militaries
• Dec. 23: R. Emmet Tyrrell, Jr., American Spectator: Women Warriors and the BottleDec. 22: Jude Eden, The Stream - The Vast Majority of Women Do Not Want to be Fully Integrated Into the Combat Arms
• Dec. 22: Hy Rothstein, Washington Times - Arming Women With Policy but not Capability to Fight
• Dec. 21: Aaron MacLean, Weekly Standard - A Few Good Men and Women
• Dec. 17: Rowan Scarborough, Washington Times - Army Women Hurt More Often in Combat Training
• Dec. 17: Walter Williams, Front Page Magazine - Our Timid Military Leaders
• Dec. 11: Kathleen Parker, Washington Post ˗ Women in Combat Puts Men at Risk
• Dec. 10: Zack Wright, National Review – The Politically Correct Integration of the Marine Infantry is a Mistake
• Dec. 10: Jude Eden, Breitbart ˗ Thanks Ashton: Women Now Subject to Involuntary Combat and Selective Service
• Dec. 8: James A. Lyons: Making Women Front-Line Targets
• Dec. 7: Arnold Ahlert, Front Page Magazine ˗ Putting Women’s Lives on the Line
• Dec. 4, Jude Eden, Stream.org: Ashton Carter Betrays Military Women & Combat Effectiveness
• Dec. 4: Kathleen Parker, Washington Post ˗ Women in Combat – The Few, the Foolish
• Dec. 1: Dr. Paul O. Davis, War on the Rocks: http://warontherocks.com/2015/12/sports-science-physiology-and-the-debate-over-women-in-ground-combat-units/
• Nov. 8: Jude Eden, Stream.org ˗ A Tale of Two Combat Integration Tests – Army vs. Marines
• Oct. 28: Ray Starmann, U.S. Defense Watch ˗ The Marines’ Last Stand
• Oct. 19: Jude Eden, Political Animal ˗ Shut Up You!  DoD Gags Military on Women in Combat Discussion
• Oct. 2: Jude Eden, Political Animal ˗ What Repealing Women’s Combat Exclusion Means for Our Military
• Sep. 17: Navy Times: Congressman Calls for Navy Secretary to Resign as Marine Women-in-Combat Feud Escalates
• Sep. 16: Jacqueline Klimas, Washington Examiner: McCain: Navy Secretary Jumped the Gun on WIC.   
• Sep. 15: Elaine Donnelly ˗ Marines Lives Matter
• Sep. 14: Marine Corps Times: Marine War Hero: SecNav Off-Base on Women in Combat
• Sep. 14: Morgan Chalfont, Washington Free Beacon: Sec Navy Comments on Gender Study “Way Off Base”
• Sep. 14: Julie Pulley, Wall Street Journal ˗ Women in the Infantry?  No Thanks
• Sep. 14: Larry Thornberry, American Spectator ˗ Settled But Superfluous Science
• Sep. 12: John McCormack, Weekly Standard: Obama’s Navy Secretary Slanders Marines
• Sep. 11: Red State – Marines: Male Units Perform Better; SecNavy: What’s a Few Dead Marines?
• Sep. 11: David French, National Review Online ˗ Women in Combat Endanger Fellow Soldiers’ Lives
• Sep. 10: Washington Post ˗ Marine Experiment Finds Women Get Injured More Frequently, Shoot Less Accurately Than MenSep. 9: Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold, USMC (Ret.) War on the Rocks: What Tempers the Steel of an Infantry Unit
• Sep. 10: San Diego Union-Tribune ˗ Women Fare Worse in Combat Skills Tests
• Sep. 8: Col. Keith Nightingale, USA (Ret.), Foreign Policy ˗ Women in Ranger School is Fine, but Women in the Infantry Isn’t.  Here’s Why
• Sep. 7: Marine Corps Times ˗ Grunt Life: Marines Dish on the Corps’ Women in Combat Experiment
• Aug. 25: Phyllis Schlafly, TownHall ˗ Women Still Don’t Belong in Combat
• Aug. 26: Rowan Scarborough, Washington Times, Army Stats Show That Women Are Injured Twice as Often as Men in Combat Training
• Aug. 26: Arnold Ahlert, FrontPage ˗ Combat Roles Hazardous to Women’s Health
• Aug. 26: Diana West, Family Security Matters ˗  Why Female Army Rangers Are Not Cause for Celebration
• Aug. 20: Jude Eden, New York Times - Room for Debate: Maintain the Combat Exclusion for Women in the Military
• Aug. 20: Michael Fumento, Investor’s Business Daily: Sorry, Military Is No Place for Gender-Based Social Experiments
• Jul. 15: Mike Fredenburg, National Review, Putting Women in Combat is an Even Worse Idea Than You Think
• Jun. 2: Marine Corps Times – Mabus: I’d Like to Do Better Than 1 in 4
• Mar. 26: Col. Johnny Brooks, USA (Ret.), Foreign Policy Best Defense Guest Column, Is our Country Setting Women Up to Fail?
• Jun. 30: USA Today ˗ Women Not Clamoring to Enter Combat Arms Fields
• Jun 30: Rowan Scarborough, Washington Times ˗ “Women’s Combat Roles in Israel Defense Forces Exaggerated, Military Traditionalists Say”
• May 21: Jacqueline Klimas, Washington Times: Former Military Leaders Ask for Better Congressional Oversight on Women in Combat

For more information on these and many other social/military issues, see the News & Commentary and Essential Resources sections of this website, www.cmrlink.org.  The Center for Military Readiness is an independent, non-partisan non-profit organization, founded in 1993, which reports on and analyzes military/social issues.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *