freeman3 wrote:I am not sure that there is that big of a deal between a 3 and 7 year hiatus as long as the person is permanently out of the military. That would be more important to me. Is someone who is out of the military for 7 years less a part of the military than someone out 3 years? Maybe.

Not much difference by my experiences.

freeman3 wrote:His "mad-dog" quotes I would hope are just Marine Corp bravado, which is fine. As long as there is a big brain behind the bravado.

I think if you read them through this lens, you will have a higher opinion: Mattis does not want to fight, but if a fight is brought to him, he will not hold back.

My guess is he will have us out of Afghanistan (or on a radically different track) in a major hurry. Can anyone explain what we are doing there? How is it not an echo of Cold War thinking? Isn't it precisely "If we leave, the bad guys will take over?" How many American lives is it worth to hold back the inevitable Taliban tide?

But it's not likely as easy as just leaving. We did that in Iraq and you hear people complaining about how that allowed ISIS to grow. Do the same in Afghanistan and you have a similar situation.
I agree we need to get out and get out soon, I agree nobody seems to know what we are doing there, but just leaving could send ripple effects through the entire universe and who wants a war on planet nebulan?

I have no answer (who really does?)

GMTom wrote:But it's not likely as easy as just leaving. We did that in Iraq and you hear people complaining about how that allowed ISIS to grow. Do the same in Afghanistan and you have a similar situation.
I agree we need to get out and get out soon, I agree nobody seems to know what we are doing there, but just leaving could send ripple effects through the entire universe and who wants a war on planet nebulan?

I have no answer (who really does?)

I do. We let it be known and post signs, "If you permit terror camps to spring up, we'll be back--and you won't like it. We won't come to nation-build, but to drive you back into the holes you came from."

His comments pertaining to social experimentation reducing combat effectiveness are concerning. If gays and women can do the job they should be allowed to do it. Blanket exclusions are discrimininatory. If Mattis is going to insist on adherence to certain necessary standards that's fine, but if he wants to just roll back things he should be opposed. Otherwise, he sounds like a good pick.

freeman3 wrote:His comments pertaining to social experimentation reducing combat effectiveness are concerning. If gays and women can do the job they should be allowed to do it. Blanket exclusions are discrimininatory. If Mattis is going to insist on adherence to certain necessary standards that's fine, but if he wants to just roll back things he should be opposed. Otherwise, he sounds like a good pick.

That isn't what has been going on.

Instead of "can do the job," "barriers" are being removed. It's like my old job: they found women didn't have the same upper body strength as men, so guess what? They changed the requirements. That's great until you have to wrestle a suspect.

Similarly, there are few jobs more physically demanding than combat positions in the military. Don't believe me? Go dig a foxhole. I'll wait.

As for homosexuals, that's something liberals cannot wrap their heads around. They are a distraction--as women in combat units are. You can commence with the name-calling. But, anyone who thinks that 18-25 year-olds (comprising the majority of the military) are not pre-occupied with sex has forgotten what it is like to be young.

Historically, it has been very important for disadvantaged groups to fight. Blacks during the Civil War (and WWII). The end of aristocracy followed mass conscription. In the Middle Ages those of the aristocracy were the primary fighters. There is something fundamental in human society about bearing weapons and if a group does not they are subordinate. Fighters have generally been considered a higher caste than other groups. Given the reverence afforded soldiers (and even police for the most part), you can still see remnants of this.

So if women and LBGT members want to be fully equal they need to fight. I don't think it is a good argument that they have to be excluded from front-line roles because standards will invariably be relaxed. Don't relax the standards! They need to be allowed to do the job, if they can do it.

...and you failed to answer the argument.
If gays and women are a distraction, then what do you do? Just by them BEING there, they distract young straight men. During an actual fire fight, nobody has time for distraction of any kind. Heck, even if they manage to control things at the height of the conflict, the overwhelming portion of time is pretty dull and distractions run rampant.

Yes a woman (or gay) can pull a trigger and shoot an enemy
But she distracts others simply by being there. Yes it certainly is discriminatory but it's also a fact of biology. You want people to ignore basic human nature, while you may be able to enforce this in general society, on the battlefield, it's a different story.

Not to burst a bubble, but there have always been homosexual in the military

Also, there are examples now of women in combat roles. Israel has them. The Kurds have them. Other Arab nations such as Jordan have female pilots in combat missions. Perhaps, Tom, you could show us where this has been an actual problem for those military outfits.

I think the "distraction" argument is bogus. Military training is all about discipline and focus anyway. And there are all kinds of potential distractions to filter out - loudmouth jerks, moronic officers, the soft new recruits, those with borderline PTSD etc etc. If a soldier can avoid those distractions, through discipline, they can control others.

danivon wrote:I think the "distraction" argument is bogus. Military training is all about discipline and focus anyway. And there are all kinds of potential distractions to filter out - loudmouth jerks, moronic officers, the soft new recruits, those with borderline PTSD etc etc. If a soldier can avoid those distractions, through discipline, they can control others.

Oh yes, a distraction. Sure.

It was a "distraction" when I was assigned to Indiantown Gap, PA and two in my company were caught in the act.

There is no inherent difference between homosexuals and women, right? They are both attracted to men. So, both are distractions.

As for the notion of transsexuals in the military. That's foolish. They would create too many problems for too little benefit. There has been talk about letting pre-operative transsexuals sign up and get the surgery as a guarantee. There are so many psychological issues with these folks that . . . they are a net negative.

Sorry, but they don't let people with flat feet in, so why take someone with a whole boatload of emotional (and physical) problems?

Again, it's a military. It exists to kill people when necessary, not to make people feel better about themselves.

A survey by Rand with regard to unit cohesion as a result of allowing women found no effect. Of course that is not directly combat related.
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/p ... .chap4.pdf

As for a reduction in task cohesion--defined as the ability to carry out a mission--according to Megan MacKenzie who reviewed existing US and international research on the subject there is minimal correlation between female integration and mission achievement. And at least with regard to the Ranger school women are being held to the same standards.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/che ... 9bee532a3a

As for LGBTs here is an interesting study surveying units in Israel on unit cohesion as a result of allowing gay soldiers showing no effect.

http://archive.palmcenter.org/files/Pol ... ogy%20.pdf

freeman3 wrote:A survey by Rand with regard to unit cohesion as a result of allowing women found no effect. Of course that is not directly combat related.
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/p ... .chap4.pdf

As for a reduction in task cohesion--defined as the ability to carry out a mission--according to Megan MacKenzie who reviewed existing US and international research on the subject there is minimal correlation between female integration and mission achievement. And at least with regard to the Ranger school women are being held to the same standards.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/che ... 9bee532a3a

As for LGBTs here is an interesting study surveying units in Israel on unit cohesion as a result of allowing gay soldiers showing no effect.

http://archive.palmcenter.org/files/Pol ... ogy%20.pdf

I'm sure there was political pressure to get the women through ranger training. http://people.com/celebrity/female-rang ... urces-say/

And, of course documents were shredded. http://people.com/celebrity/some-docume ... -shredded/

You believe as you like. I've been there.

I have no problem with women, LGBTQ, man, or anyone who can pass the physical requirements for combat.

https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/2016/06/21/new-marine-corps-fitness-standards-combat-weed-out-men-women-alike/86169826/

The results underscore the difficulties for women. Nearly 86 percent of the women failed the tests, compared to less than 3 percent of the men.

Fully Equal?

Yes, I can believe what I like and it's going to be based on the available evidence. By the way, the Army flat out denied the People Magazine story.

Brad, that Marine Corps study has been heavily criticized. They basically took average female marines who had obviously never in combat units before, put them in co-ed units and compared them against veteran marine units. Shocking they would do poorly.

Let's see what the top-tier of physically fit women can do given adequate training.

Criticized or not, doesn't matter. They are standards. Men and women alike can train and get better. Not just females failed this test.

Do you agree that the standards should be the same and at the level that they are?

I would hope that you do not wish to reduce the standards, as that would make it look as if the standards are being changed to drive the female combat soldier agenda.