According to a recent story from ABC News, Admiral Eric Olson (cc/USSOCOM) recently said he’d like to see female SEALs in combat roles. Speaking at the 2011 Aspen Security Forum, he said there was more to being a SEAL than physical strength.

Sgt. Adams, FET 12, 1/8 Marines, Shir Ghazay

“I don’t think the idea is to select G.I. Jane and put her through SEAL training, but there are a number of things that a man and a woman can do together that two guys can’t,” the Admiral told Forum attendees. “…it’s much more important what they’re made of and whether or not they have the courage and the intellectual agility…”

You may remember Kit Up! discussed something along these lines a couple of months back. CSTs and the FETs that preceded them have received a lot of attention and have been successful. They’re not a new idea, as the Marines of the Lioness Program can attest.

Let us try to preempt some of the inevitable outcry. No one is saying females must equal male counterparts in every way, and this is an important distinction: the use of females in SOF capacity is, frankly, a force multiplier. There will be many who decry the idea and go on and on about how females who can’t hump ten klicks in full kit, but that’s really beside the point. We think it’s time to end the “we have two different PT standards and they’d never make it as a grunt” stupidity and look at the big picture. You don’t throw away an M4 because the bullet isn’t as heavy as a 12-gauge slug or go as far as a .50 cal round. A suppressed H&K MP5 won’t take a deadbolt like breaching shotgun, but that doesn’t make the MP5 a bad weapon? You use the right weapon for the right job, and this is no different.

PO2 Richeal, Team Leader FET 15, Sangin District

A SEAL team or ODA with females has versatility an all-male team does not…which doesn’t mean they would automatically need to take female members on a HALO drop followed by a twenty mile overland hump straight into a MOUT assault.

Right?

Don’t focus just on direct action. The advantage of ‘hearts and minds’ interaction provided by females has been proven—isn’t FID part of SOF’s job description? Perhaps the SEALs aren’t supposed to do it, but look at pseudo-operations. A male and a female team would attract less attention than two males especially if they’re trying not to look like they’re there to break things and kill people.

FET of PRT Farah discusses women’s shura in Shib Koh Afghanistan.

There are other advantages. A female perspective as relates to the observation of the interior of the house their male counterparts haven’t been in can be of value—where the kids are, or where occupants live relative to the layout of that and other residences may be an indicator of caches or contraband. A map of the interior, drawn by a tactically proficient female, could be invaluable in a later raid. Women are also more active listeners than men. Years of police service have proven that. They may be able to read the lines of what is being said by the females in the house vs. what the males are saying and thereby identify falsehoods or misrepresentations.

Female LEOs on the range during tactical course.

Anyway, here’s the original story. Let the brouhaha begin.

{ 78 comments… read them below or add one }

Trbo July 30, 2011 at 4:27 pm

"…but there are a number of things that a man and a woman can do together that two guys can’t.”

Couldn't agree with him more.

Reply

RYNO July 30, 2011 at 5:08 pm

like making babies :O haha joking aside ya i agree with this. i mean it could like like a family vacation to many. could help more with internal defense in that reguard, you are kidden better.

Reply

dragbag July 30, 2011 at 5:13 pm

Any woman that can successfully complete the UNMODIFIED SEAL training pipeline = BUD/S – SQT, and can last a year on a Team, has my respect.

Reply

nobodyatall July 30, 2011 at 5:39 pm

"Women are also more active listeners than men." Sure, right, whatever.
Are these women listeners going to be provided with female translators?

And from a cultural standpoint, what is the significance of a women's shura in a male dominated society?

Reply

ZWP July 30, 2011 at 7:31 pm

there are women who I have no doubt could make it through BUD/S. Here at USNA we have females who can not only keep up with men in physical evolutions but dominate them. Most SEALs will tell you that BUD/S and SQT are 10% physical and 90% mental. most don't quit during the physical evolutions, but rather when they get the opportunity to think and self-defeat themselves. The problem will arise if SOCOM tries to push women through on some diversity vendetta. simply open the opportunity up to them and put them to the test. Women are already integral members of the support staff, this wouldn't be that drastic of a change.

ps- if you think women aren't physically fit enough to make it through BUD/S just google "Crossfit Women"

Reply

Scout July 31, 2011 at 5:46 am

ZWP – I agree and think (based on direct comments from aviators) the diversity vendetta situation was what happened in naval aviation – cleaned up to soem degree now – but at what cost..??

Reply

FormerSFMedic July 30, 2011 at 8:05 pm

I've said it here before and I'll say it again. Woman operators bring a huge advantage to the table for SOF units. These are Special units with Special missions, so why not have these capabilities in the toolbox? I don't think SOCOM is even close to sending these females to BUDs or SF Qcourse, but if they do, let's hope they do it right and with the right intentions. Remember this, thoigh SOF schools are a right of passage more than anything.

Reply

major.rod July 30, 2011 at 11:02 pm

Can women complement a special ops team on a specific mission? Sure! Does that mean that they should be incorporated fully into a special ops or combat unit all the time? Not unless they can meet the SAME standard. I was a TAC at the Academy and met a few women concievably become combat arms I met MANY more that were interested in that path SOLEY for advancement. Those same types play the system to the detriment of the unit and the troops. Secondly we have demonstrated again and again an inability to hold minorities to standard (BTW, I'm a minority) because of the systemic protections afforded minorities and the tendency for low performing individuals to use those paths to avoid accountability.

Reply

Sev July 31, 2011 at 3:48 am

I agree. Its when people are pushed into these billets solely for the advancement of something (Women, gays, blacks, whatever) that sh** hits the fan. Its like letting minorities score lower on tests to become firefighters, its putting lives at risk. Keep the standards consistent or don't have standards at all.

Reply

DauntlessCelt July 31, 2011 at 1:30 pm

Yeah, too much in the United States has gone to heck in the name of "diversity."

Diversity happens by itself, just look for quality and you will find both.

Reply

nraddin July 31, 2011 at 10:21 am

Why is it OK for a white male to pursue a path solely for advancement but not for others? I get that you want a high standard but there are plenty of white males out there in combat units that totally suck. Why is it that minorities and women are held to a standard that says if any of them are there for reasons other than being a hero they all suck, where the it's ok for the majority (White males). (BTW, I am a white male).

Reply

major.rod July 30, 2011 at 11:12 pm

"There will be many who decry the idea and go on and on about how females who can’t hump ten klicks in full kit, but that’s really beside the point." (Scratching my head) Beside the point? What are we supposed to do only execute missions within six miles of vehicular transport? BTW, the standard for straightleg Army Infantry is 12 miles (TWENTY clicks) in under three hours. We expect QUITE A BIT MORE from our special ops. I think you are WAYYYYYYYYY OFFFFFFF and don't appreciate the physical demands of dismounted close combat exasperated by increased load and/or altitude.

Reply

Mad Duo July 31, 2011 at 12:58 pm

You misunderstand our intention and you're possibly missing our point, though that could certainly be because we ineffectively communicated our message. It's "beside the point" because we're not arguing on behalf of females going on such physically arduous missions. You expect quite a bit more of our specops and are right to do so. However, in those specific cases where a female could be used appropriately to the team's advantage, there should be properly trained and prepared females on hand to step up and run the mission. This isn't about the physical comparisons because we aren't arguing they should run the same missions. Just the ones they're suited for (right weapon for the right job). We tried to be clear that we're not in favor of adding them to a combat billet in a combat unit all the time. Sorry if we weren't sufficiently clear the first time, we'll try to clarify as questions come up.

Reply

DauntlessCelt July 31, 2011 at 1:21 pm

Thanks for the clarification. I think that women who are highly-trained and experienced could be used to great efect when interacting with the civilian female population. But I think that is they only thing that would be most advantageous to us.

They would be a great force – to be called upon only when needed. You just have to ensure that implementing new social tactics won't be detrimental to the overall mission.

Reply

Marcus July 31, 2011 at 12:35 am

What's the difference in standards for the Navy's male and female EODs? Don't they go through many of the special ops pipeline schools?

Reply

windy July 31, 2011 at 1:19 am

14 int det is a brit recce unit which broke open the IRA in northern ireland.they did have at least one women on the pay roll.the paddy's had proceduces in place to counter them but they weren't looking out for women.they were not a direct action unit like the sas but had the same cqb standards so if women could pass that then that says alot in its self.

Reply

JimJim July 31, 2011 at 4:49 am

Those woman on the PRT need some multicam headscarfs!

Reply

Scout July 31, 2011 at 5:42 am

I have changed my view on this issue a little bit in the last 20 years – I used to be pure traditionailst and then I started reading about and meeting some top-shelf females in LE, military, and other operational scenes. So – Yes they can do some serious work – BUT Here is the rub 1) The most squared away and upright man will STILL find himself attracted to these women in "more than professional" ways – This seriously affects readiness and morale. 2) The average female sailor/soldier gets pregnant on the job at a very high rate and causes all sorts of readiness issues and admin headaches – not mention costing the taxpayer $$.

I almost think that females – if introduced – should have been brought in in Spec OPS before regular military. The "high performance" positions (such as tactical pilots ) seem to be where they will do better and cause less trouble – although I know a number of aviators who will argue this to the death . Maybe it's just best to put males/females in seperate units – best of both worlds – and let em' compete.

Reply

timmer July 31, 2011 at 7:32 am

When it comes to women i say use all of the tools in the tool box to accomplish the mission.Women have a great role to play and should be used.Those macho narrow minded fools who can only see through a very narrow view are dumb. Women are needed in many combat roles and the military has known this for decades for example in the CIA they have been very effective.

Reply

theIronDuke July 31, 2011 at 1:35 pm

It's not just combat effectiveness, you need unit cohesion as well. You don't want there to be any more distractions or tension than what is already on the table.

I fully support having women in the CIA, intelligence, politics, workplace, blahblahblah.

but you cannot say this is a narrow-minded argument. Remember KISS. Keep it simple, stupid.

Reply

Jeff July 31, 2011 at 9:36 am

I'm not knocking women on the battlefield, but what ARE the unique capabilities a woman would bring for SOF? I saw that they would be allowed inside the house of a potential target or whatnot to gather intelligence, where as per Muslim mores, men could not. I get that, but is that it? Could someone elaborate on other possible gains for putting women in SOF?

Reply

Brian July 31, 2011 at 10:00 am

This whole debate is ridiculous. Do women do great things in our military?-Yes! Should they serve in special operations units?-No! Could they serve as special attachments in specific missions?-Yes! WTF? Why are we questioning this stuff after thousands of years of ground combat dominated by armed males? Social experimentation at the potential cost of lives is reason enough to leave such an organization.

Reply

Solomon July 31, 2011 at 11:42 am

amazing.

so having breasts and ovaries, but not having the physical qualifications to make it through BUDS is suddenly the main requirement for these people to become a part of SEAL teams?

tell that to all the guys that tried and washed out. tell them that they could be apart of the SEALs except for the fact that they weren't born with breasts and ovaries.

Reply

Payce July 31, 2011 at 12:59 pm

I'm all for it and agree that they could be a force multiplier. Although, to call them SEALs without them completing the SEAL pipeline would be wrong because they didn't earn it, just like the rest of the service members that didn't run it.

Reply

dauntlesscelt July 31, 2011 at 1:14 pm

So basically the only way it would help is when you have to interact with female middle-easteners.

That would have to meet the same standards as the males, and not be a distraction from the overall mission or get too involved with the men/ vice-versa.

You want "brother's in arms," not "lovers in arms"

Reply

major.rod July 31, 2011 at 2:14 pm

Ambition is fine! Its wrong to use equality/diversity to justify LOWER PERFORMANCE (its also wrong to choose combat arms as an OFFICER just to get promoted quicker). Are there white guys that are slugs in combat arms units? Sure and they catch HECK for it and drummed out or are not promoted. Women and minorities should be expected to meet the same standards no? BTW, nraddin were you an Infantryman also?

Reply

major.rod July 31, 2011 at 2:31 pm

"However, in those specific cases where a female could be used appropriately to the team's advantage, there should be properly trained and prepared females ON HAND to step up and run the mission." So we should have a fully trained special ops qualified women on EVERY BFE SF outpost "just in case" we have a unique opportunity to incorporate her skills on a mission? C'mon!!! You often don't know from one day to the next when that need will arise. You liken a women on a special ops team to having an MP5 in the arms room. MP5s sit in the arms room waiting for the mission with no impact on the rest of the weapons or the team as a whole. I'm OK with the PURPOSEFUL use of women in these liaison roles but that doesn't mean they need to be everywhere, forced on units that don't need them or ever "sold" as something else (like EVER being called SEALs). Your article doesn't talk about the purposeful use of women in these roles and your gross mischaracterization about what Admirl Olson SAID and what you titled the article makes me suspicious of your motives.

Reply

Mad Duo July 31, 2011 at 7:28 pm

"The top commander of U.S. special operations says he thinks it's time for women to go into combat as Navy SEALS. A Navy SEAL himself, Admiral Eric T. Olson said at the opening session of the 2011 Aspen Security Forum that he would like to see female SEALs in combat roles. 'As soon as policy permits it, we'll be ready to go down that road,' said Olson……if there's any mischaracterization between what he said and what we titled it, it's either because you're looking too hard for ulterior motives or we aren't making our point clear enough and need to work on our commo skills. So we're clear, no one is suggesting every SF outpost everywhere has females hanging out waiting on a klaxon. Anyway, pretty much the primary motive is to state our opinion and get a debate going…which seems to have been accomplished. We don't get a recruiting bonus or anything if girls going into SOF units. You make some great and cogent points in the discussion though (particularly the response to the MP5 analogy), which is a Good Thing in our humble opinion. We appreciate a good academic discussion.

Reply

major.rod August 1, 2011 at 11:14 am

"So we're clear, no one is suggesting every SF outpost everywhere has females hanging out waiting on a klaxon." Thanks for the clarification. Necessary, there are activists that want equality/diversity at all costs and will use words taken out of context to make their point. I'm all for putting expertise at the point of the spear when its needed. WMD, translators, EOD are all skills that help us be more effective. Not every mission requires those skills and we don't automatically give "operator" status to a JAFO. The only thing I'm more passionate about than "everyone meeting the same standard" is "does it make sense in combat".

Reply

Morgan July 31, 2011 at 8:03 pm

Apart from abusing the CapsLock key the way you do, you also fail to understand the Mad Duo's point. I got it the first time round. You're so terrified that the hallowed ground where once only the manliest men ever dared tread might be sullied by someone with b00bs, that you're just blocking every arguement for women in spec ops with the tired old "too hard, too expensive, too dangerous, too diverse" crapola. And you're being dumb extending the MP5 analogy beyond it's intended use. Because as much as you think that MP5 is "waiting for the mission with no impact" … a SEAL would be pretty cheesed if he needed the damn weapon and it wasn't available.

Reply

major.rod July 31, 2011 at 11:02 pm

No Morgan. I haven't discussed the majority of common objections to women in combat (cohesion, tradition, risk of capture, fed law, us attitude etc.) and if you had read my previous post to a reply you see I'm a champion of the same standard for everyone. Instead you want to whine about me taking the MP5 metaphor beyond its intended use vs, addressing the key issues I brought up and say I'm terrified? HARDLY! (how's that for caps lock control?) Let's debate and not whine about something when we run out of facts to support our point? Make the case for how women can do just as good a job as a guy and I might agree. I've got 20+ years as a grunt but who knows maybe you know better what we should expect from those at the tip of the spear.

Reply

RMCFrank July 31, 2011 at 2:35 pm

My country's army has a female colonel from an Armored Rgt. I've known personally female Arty battery comds who (earlier in their careers) have been FOs embedded with light infantry units in Afghanistan as well as female infantry platoon and company comds. If a girl can hack it and bring something useful to her unit, why not give her the chance? (my $0.2)

Reply

major.rod July 31, 2011 at 11:15 pm

Frank, I'm all for equal standards. Do women in the Canadian Army who serve in the combat arms or other specialties havethe same standards as men? We do not. Our physical fitness test has a 60% difference in scoring for pushups (e.g.11 vs.31), 20% difference in run times and 30% difference in body fat. Those are all for minimum standards (60% score). All infantry units I served in had at least a minimum PT average of 80%.

Reply

RMCFrank August 1, 2011 at 4:49 am

Actually they do and they don't. Depends what physical fitness test the unit decides to use. There are generally two options: the generic CF EXPRES test for all members of the Canadian military that has different standards depending on age group and gender. Most combat arms units I've seen though do a yearly BFT (Battle Fitness Test) which arkens back to the early days of the Cold War IIRC and that only has one standard.

Reply

major.rod August 1, 2011 at 11:19 am

Ah, then you can see we (the US) has a pretty steep hill to climb. We've never applied the same physical strength standards to women. We've done it for so long that no one recognizes the unfairness of it.

Reply

nobodyatall July 31, 2011 at 6:14 pm

Aside from that one who was promoted with limited field experience.
She and seven of her employees were blown up because they hadn't vetted or searched a man they were trying to turn into an informant.

There are plenty of anecdotes that make one point or the other.

Reply

Morgan July 31, 2011 at 8:05 pm

Because men have never been ever ever blown up ever?

Reply

mike July 31, 2011 at 6:31 pm

And women are capable of working as are small children (excellent rug weavers) and women can also pretend to be husbands in several of the states. Some even pretend to be Catholic priests. Society has a social order – the construct of natural law that needs to be maintained for the successful survival and development of the human race. It may not seem FAIR – but it is right and proper and true to form. Women do not belong in the ranks of warriors.

Reply

RMCFrank August 1, 2011 at 4:52 am

Chauvinistic troll is chauvinistic.

Reply

Zach August 1, 2011 at 3:44 am

Maybe have some females trained for special operations and attach them as support when needed?

Kinda like in this article: http://www.military.com/news/article/spec-ops-nee

@ the end of the article lists the supposed standards:

"FET Soldiers must be able to carry 35 pounds — including ruck, helmet, weapon and water — for six miles in an hour and 39 minutes."

I'm not in the military but isn't that light for full gear?

Reply

RMCFrank August 1, 2011 at 4:51 am

It's not all that heavy but most people will break a sweat, guaranteed, and the aim isn't to hurt, merely to evaluate, give an idea of the person's physical condition.

Reply

Armored August 1, 2011 at 5:42 am

Women belong at home. Regardless of what you may say, someone has to keep the 'homestead' and take care of the kids while the man is away. It makes no sense to have kids and both of you go and do your own thing while some stranger (babysitter) takes care of them. Do you ever wonder why kids are so messed up these days? Even if you didn't have kids or were married, I still wouldn't recommend it, women have no place in combat, too many psychological factors involved/attachments/physical factors. Furthermore, women in the military are more likely to be raped by the enemy or by their own male counterparts (not saying all male soldiers do, just from the reports I've read) I don't know about you but I'd hate to see a woman sodomized in front of me by a bunch of savages.

Reply

blight August 2, 2011 at 5:52 am

What makes you think they couldn't get a rise out of you by sodomizing another man in front of you? You're either following the Geneva Convention, or you're not. And if you're not, then anything could happen.

Reply

Armored August 2, 2011 at 8:08 am

Hi Blight,

That's kind of a loaded question since in the first place we are talking about women on the battlefield; Whether or not they could get a rise from a man is beside the point, the exception to the rule doesn't overthrow the rule and the rule is that for the most part, the world hasn't fully adopted the same idea as the US as far as being 'tooty fruity' is concerned; in other words, for the most part men like women in most parts of the world and you could probably imagine what would happen if they got a chance to capture a woman from the west especially since in some parts of the world people have never seen women of fairer skin, longer hair etc. up close before. Could anything happen? Sure. Are woman more susceptible? Yes indeed.

Reply

Armored August 2, 2011 at 8:11 am

I'd also like to add that you should take into account how other cultures feel towards women and how they view women, the role of women etc.

Reply

Armored August 1, 2011 at 5:56 am

I'd also like to add that, can you imagine if the 'Black Hawk Down' incident with our US Special forces in Somalia would of had women that were stripped naked and dragged across the towns like dead animals? Can you imagine what the Somalis would have done to dead female soldiers? No thanks. It was a bad enough ordeal as it was for those men; we dont need to compound it by placing our women on the front lines. I agree with the Bible.

Reply

Geoff Guillot August 1, 2011 at 8:23 pm

just out of curiosity, how does it relate to the bible?

Reply

Armored August 2, 2011 at 5:22 am

Hi Geoff, here it is from the trustworthy King James Bible:

14 I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.

15 For some are already turned aside after Satan.

-1 Timothy 5:-14-15

Call me old fashioned but I think it's sad that women no longer treasure their femininity. Hope this helps.

Reply

Geoff Guillot August 2, 2011 at 5:41 am

thanks, really appreciate it

Reply

team GUY August 1, 2011 at 10:08 am

PS. Crossfit only gets you better at Crossfit, it won't get you through BUD/s and Crossfit is a fad made up by team guys so they can open up a guy and stamp a trident on it so it sells after they do their six year and call it quits.

Reply

Victor August 1, 2011 at 11:36 am

Like I said before, this is an interesting conversation until 1,000,000 china men cross the 38 parallel.

Reply

Gary August 1, 2011 at 7:34 pm

Why, because china men couldn't pass SQT either?

Reply

redband-D August 1, 2011 at 6:41 pm

Why do the women have to be referredto as SEALs or SOF?.. You attach specialist to a team all the time, when needed, you attach a woman to the team for the mission. then let her go back to whatever her specialty is until needed again.

Reply

James 37F August 1, 2011 at 7:45 pm

I'm on a TMT supporting an ODA here in Afghanistan, and there is a CST here as well (as well as other enablers, but I'm not gonna go into those details). So far there's been no problem with the woman here. They get along just fine w/ everyone, and are "one of the guys" so to speak. They regularly do PT w some of the SF guys, and regularly go out on missions.

I would trust those woman just as much as any of the men here should the shit hit the fan and our convoy or base gets attacked.

Reply

James 37F August 1, 2011 at 7:48 pm

Oh and yes we do have a female interpreter that I've seen go out on missions as the only terp while the male terps don't go (sometimes you only have so many seats on the trucks). She seems well respected by the locals, and the camp workers

Reply

@Cr4shDummy August 1, 2011 at 11:41 pm

Exactly, it needs to be the right way. It can't be a pc program for diversity or political purpose.

I know some tough chicks, absolutely give them a chance. Just don't lower the standards. Honestly, it's about endurance and I'm sure there are woman out there that can handle the current standards.

Reply

Casey August 2, 2011 at 5:48 am

The last thing I wan't to see is a female with a fucking Trident on her breast, just because she walked and talked with SEALs. All I care about is knowing the the Navy SEAL name will not be tarnished by garnishing women with it who havent been through what every SEAL has.

Reply

timmer August 2, 2011 at 6:33 am

Jeff · study warfare, when you limit yourself to just one set of plans then you start losing. To keep an opened mind for a different view you will win. The enemy uses women with great effective actions we should do the same(actually we already use women but can't advertise it). many certain types of women can do the job and pass the course.

Reply

timmer August 2, 2011 at 6:36 am

I hear the banjos playing! "women belong in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant" yeeeee haw!. WOW!

Reply

Armored August 2, 2011 at 7:40 am

A banjo? You appear to have a bone to pick with southern people.

Reply

Uncle Willie August 2, 2011 at 10:45 am

Oh, I get it, it's only okay to stereotype women on here. The South is a sacred cow and off limits.

Reply

Armored August 2, 2011 at 11:52 am

Hi Uncle Willie,

In the first place, I'm not southern, I just fail to see what banjos and southern people have to do with all of this. Understanding what a woman's role is is key. If you want to instill masculinity in your women then by all means, just don't complain when your kids end up hoodlums because nobody is around to raise them and your women end up choosing bizarre alternative lifestyles while simultaneously becoming man haters and lesbians much like what is happening in the US. As for me, I prefer a woman that is feminine, diligent and motherly toward my children. I'll take a women that is like a flower, you can have 'Rosie the Riveter' on steroids.

Reply

Marcus August 3, 2011 at 8:50 am

Thanks for downvoting a question without answering it. I asked; because, that community will probably be the first group raided for personnel, if this ever comes to pass. If the female Navy EODs are held to the same standards as the male Navy EODs, that would seem to be relevant.

Reply

Spartan 267 August 3, 2011 at 3:33 pm

This is hilarious! Why would female's added into "Teams" need to be qualified as SEALs????? NSW has plenty of support staff! Period! Air Force CTT's, and PJ's are always integrated into Task Unit's and go along with the "Team's" Is there a need for them to be "baptized" as SEALs???? This is completely ludicris!!!! Being a Qualified SEAL denotes being able to conduct ALL missions sets and aspects the SAME way any "actual" SEAL Operator can, Period! If a "Team" is doing survialence or counter survielance, then get a "qualified" Female to fill that role as per NSW standards or SOCOM trained "support"! The overly PC Military and for that matter the USA has no place for Females as Direct-Action Special Operators in any branch! Period! They would not be able to conduct the same training that goes on in these pipelines even if they are integrated with out "modifing" the training, ie, the intimacy of close contact for body-heat, near nudity and the expediency of "personal" issues whether training related or possibly being tracked by the enemy or aninmals! My suggestion, good luck!

Reply

Riceball August 4, 2011 at 6:23 am

I don't think you've read the article very thoroughly, the intent is not so much as to allow women to join SEALs or Delta, Special Forces or any other spec-ops unit, the idea is allow women to serve along side or be attached to such units as specialists or liaisons.

Reply

LA Mariano August 9, 2011 at 12:17 pm

I know of a woman that was TDY to a seal team in the 70's. Did the work outs, ran the miles, and out did the mileage on some of the & evan out shot them.

Reply

snedy August 22, 2011 at 3:13 pm

One fine word you used there buddy, serve! You still think that women are here to serve you and you're afraid that she just might be as tactically smart as you and one up ya!! No, women are not as physically strong as a man; but we're getting closer.

Reply

snedy August 22, 2011 at 3:17 pm

I have been a warrior for over 20 years, who are you to say where I should be or how I should act. Wake up Mike, it's 2011!

Reply

snedy August 22, 2011 at 3:22 pm

Seriously, why does sex and a female being raped have to be the first thing in your minds eye! Why can't a man "keep the homestead"? Move out of the way, you're bothering me!

Reply

snedy August 22, 2011 at 3:28 pm

If I was a soldier in Somalia and I was treated the same as the male soldiers; then I died the same kind of hero as he did! We female soldiers only want the same chances to succeed in the military. Stop trying to act like we are in the days of days. Women have evolved and there is no going back to what "YOU" think is right.

Reply

Frogman242 August 29, 2011 at 6:20 am

I just wanted to say bead window to any of my fellow operators. Some info is best not talked about on a unsecure net.

Reply

Ryan October 21, 2011 at 9:56 am

I have no issue with women being integrated into a SOF team for SPECIFIC missions, because they can interact with women without pissing off the locals which would help a lot. So there is merit to that side of the discussion. Now that being said, I firmly disagree with the idea of considering them SEALs, Rangers, PJ's, SF, MARSOC or any other SOF they may work with. Use them now, but after this fiasco is over throw them on the back burner. I have nothing against girls who can do their job, but they sure as hell do not belong in direct combat arms let alone Spec Ops. Ask anyone who is infantry, close to infantry, or is part of SOCOM and they will whole heatedly agree with me on this. It is not being sexist, it is called being realistic.

Reply

Pup1 December 5, 2011 at 2:26 pm
Michael December 19, 2011 at 2:32 pm

Without comparing fighting fires after bailing out with Navy SEALs and their roles, there are very competent, attractive and tough women smokejumpers, maybe ten percent of the total number based in Missoula, MT and other sites. My brother was a SJ for nine seasons starting in '67 and he's been to SJ meetings and many of the women did not look like someone's stereotype. There are women cops and urban firefighters, so I think the time will come when "GI Jane" will be a reality.

Reply

Dr. T. Sanchez April 25, 2012 at 5:37 am

You're at USNA, yet you have the time to run your suck on the internet? Maybe if you'd get outside and do more PT, you wouldn't be getting "dominated" in physical evolutions. Get to work, slacker!

Reply

Dennis January 29, 2013 at 7:46 am

I was in BUD/S class 125 and you you see guys who excell at PT, but I wouldn't want to be in combat with them(very cocky/trendy types). Women who do triathalons and PT/crossfit all day and are in great shape and dominate some dweeb at the Naval Academy seem to think they are ready for BUD/S or Ranger school based on fitness alone. It is about how one accepts that person as an operator not how good they are at crossfit or triathlons. So many guys I know on the teams were on the teams for all the wrong reasons, for the trident pin, or to be the cool guy, or to make a point ot statement in life, and I beleive this is what women want, acceptance and to be the cool operator, not the life style as a quiet professional. I feel this the emasculation of our military and country, and time will show this when recruiting for these units plummets. Have at it women, you can do it better, it's all yours.

Reply

The Female January 29, 2013 at 2:52 pm

Thousands of years of combat is null and void, for the most part, in modern warfare. We're not using swords and spears and shields anymore. If we were, then no, women wouldn't have a place on the battlefield. I should say most, but you ought to get my point. Women have been fighting in wars since the beginning, anyways. Every war in history has seen women fighting tooth and nail with gravel in the belly. There's no doubt that women, who can meet/exceed standards of training, can do the jobs required. Keep in mind that the women who are able to pass these tests would be heartier and hairier than most of us.

Reply

C. December 15, 2013 at 9:12 pm

Women want to be in spec-ops ok adhere to the same standards the men are held to if they can cut it ok if not there history full stop end of message

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: