What happened to ‘combat standards won’t be lowered’?

[T-post Tom]

The Senate’s latest deal to increase military spending may be more like funding the Titanic.



Trump is president, but the “Dempsey Rule” is still in full effect for today’s American military. The rule is named for a statement by Obama’s chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, during the 2013 announcement that all combat jobs would be opened to women. It states that standards so high that women can’t make them will go the way of the dodo bird. “Do they really have to be that high?” he asked. They do if you want to defeat your enemies with as few casualties as possible. The Marine Corps is now answering “no” to this question by removing the Combat Endurance Test (CET) as a requirement to pass the Infantry Officer’s Course (IOC).

The CET has been under fire and scrutiny from the Left because almost no women have been able to pass it, crushing the myth that women can do anything military men can do if only given the chance. If that were so, there would be no need to remove the CET or “re-evaluate,” as Dempsey put it, any current operational standards. Challenging tests and standards are useful for training because they are as close as the military can come to replicating the stresses and rigors of real combat. Men have always been able to pass these tests and meet these standards. Women? Not so much. Without the CET, more women can take places leading infantry platoons in direct ground combat, whether they’re capable of doing so or not. The CET was an obstacle to the arch-feminist goal of equal numbers, no matter the consequences. Those consequences will be the needless loss of the lives and limbs of America’s sons and daughters now to be led by less competent and physically less capable officers.

Activists for putting women in combat units swore up and down that performance standards wouldn’t be lowered, that all they wanted was a “level playing field” and “a chance to try.” That these were empty platitudes was as easy to predict as the rising of the sun. Feminists have issued them every time they’ve pushed for more military jobs to be opened to women. They gave us double standards and lowered standards and have redefined combat to conflate “being in harm’s way” with hunting the enemy. They don’t care so much about our ability to effectively fight our enemies as they do about getting a chairwoman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, period. It is surprising and disappointing that this should occur when Trump promised during his campaign to “make our military great again.” It’s happening with nary a peep from the Republican Congress and on the watch of Secretary of Defense James Mattis, formerly a general in the Corps himself.

The Marine Corps Times downplays this huge lowering of standards, laughably calling it a “slight change.” When failing one of the hardest tests in the military no longer matters, something big has changed, and not for the better. “The Corps also says the changes were not a result of high attrition rates,” the Times reports, reporting that Training Command said, “The average attrition rate for the CET between 2012 and 2017 was less than three percent” and down to one percent in 2017.

The armed services constantly complain about the decline in quality recruits and use it as justification for pulling from broader pools, including, as reported by USA Today, those with mental illness. In this climate, lower rates of test failure and attrition are a good indicator that standards are being lowered and then lowered some more.

The Senate’s latest deal to increase military spending may be more like funding the Titanic. What good are more dollars when they’re being used for less demanding training and militarily irrelevant programs like sex-change surgery? If our military won’t “weed out” the less capable during formative training, our enemies surely will.

Editor’s note: This piece has been updated to note that the CET is still included in the Infantry Officer’s Course, but that trainees are not required to pass it in order to pass the course. It has also been updated to include James Mattis’ former rank in the U.S. Marine Corps.

https://www.conservativereview.com/articles/happened-combat-standards-wont-lowered/

[Jim Hammer]

Or...

... maybe the Marines decided that the CET was an antiquated tool that was no longer needed to evaluate the ability to lead.

[Coyote]

http://dacowits.defense.gov/Portals/...-09-161544-600
Truth is in the middle here. The endurance test has been a target for DACOWITS and their agenda but it is not the sole reason for the high female failure rate. It is also questionable how much it directly ties to infantry skills. It does directly tie to evaluating leadership but that is subjective so makes the test a political target and opens it to criticism as to fairness. The male failure rate is also very high. Most of the female failure rate has been due to repetitive injuries that we see in other physically demanding training with women-spiral fractures, hips, knees.

[T-post Tom]

Originally Posted by Jim Hammer

Or...

... maybe the Marines decided that the CET was an antiquated tool that was no longer needed to evaluate the ability to lead.

Tell that to the Marines fighting for their lives after a forced march led by a sub-standard 0302 (male or female) that only made the grade because of lower standards induced by the PC crowd's perception of "inclusion".

[manchambo]

Originally Posted by T-post Tom

Tell that to the Marines fighting for their lives after a forced march led by a sub-standard 0302 (male or female) that only made the grade because of lower standards induced by the PC crowd's perception of "inclusion".

The problem here is that the standard at issue might or might not be important to battle effectiveness. The story doesn't give the slightest clue. And it is certainly within the realm of possibility that some traditional standards aren't that indicative of effectiveness--we are unlikely to decide any wars based on pull-ups.

[Bob Dole]

I wouldn't want to go in to combat unless I was able to complete the rigorous standards. Sounds like a recipe for getting you and your buddies asses kicked.

[HonestChieffan]

Originally Posted by Bob Dole

I wouldn't want to go in to combat unless I was able to complete the rigorous standards. Sounds like a recipe for getting you and your buddies asses kicked.

Thats the difference between being a warrior or being a social justice warrior. The Warrior gets to die because the SJW got their way.

[manchambo]

Originally Posted by HonestChieffan

Thats the difference between being a warrior or being a social justice warrior. The Warrior gets to die because the SJW got their way.

Yet another empty macho statement without a word (or apparently a thought) about what standard we are even talking about, what it was, what it has been lowered to, or how that might relate to combat effectiveness.

[Shaid]

It's the military, the other side isn't going to make it less challenging for you because of your gender. If there are physical endurance requirements and you are able to meet them, you're in. If not, work harder and better luck next time.

[Shaid]

Originally Posted by manchambo

Yet another empty macho statement without a word (or apparently a thought) about what standard we are even talking about, what it was, what it has been lowered to, or how that might relate to combat effectiveness.

They are in place for a reason. Everyone has a ruck that weighs the same and has the same items in it. It doesn't weight less because you weigh less. You don't have a smaller weapon because you are a smaller person. You have to haul that gear as effectively as the next person or you slow everyone up which means you expose the other soldiers to more danger. It doesn't matter if you're a woman that can't meet the standard or if you're some small guy that can't meet the standard or some overweight guy that can't meet the standard. It's in place to make sure everyone maintains effectiveness. It's as simple as that.

[raybec 4]

As a former infantryman (Army) who's seen combat, I can tell you that physical and mental endurance is the difference between life and death in a firefight. If EVERY person doesn't do their job or pull their weight for the entirety of the mission someone who shouldn't die will die.

[Coyote]

Lot of smack talk by guys I’m guessing don’t know the square root of jack shit about “combat effectiveness.” I recommend you stick to the what’s for dinner thread.
The changes were made in November to better reflect requirements of Marine infantry officers as outlined in the Infantry Training and Readiness Manual and actual operating force requirements.
“As a result, the Combat Endurance Test (CET) reverted back to its original intent, prior to 2012, as an assessment tool to measure the retention of knowledge, skills and fitness achieved at the Basic Officer Course (BOC).” Training Command said in a statement.
The CET has not always been a direct indicator of success in the infantry course. Many women have been dropped dropped after failing to keep up on approach-marches, defined as “the load necessary for the prosecution of combat operations for extended periods with access to daily resupply.” According to the infantry manual, a Marine infantry officer must be able to lead a forced march of 15 kilometers with 105 lbs., or approach-march load, in under three hours.

[raybec 4]

Originally Posted by manchambo

The problem here is that the standard at issue might or might not be important to battle effectiveness. The story doesn't give the slightest clue. And it is certainly within the realm of possibility that some traditional standards aren't that indicative of effectiveness--we are unlikely to decide any wars based on pull-ups.

They fill up entire libraries with shit you don't know but feel the need to comment on.

[manchambo]

Originally Posted by Shaid

They are in place for a reason. Everyone has a ruck that weighs the same and has the same items in it. It doesn't weight less because you weigh less. You don't have a smaller weapon because you are a smaller person. You have to haul that gear as effectively as the next person or you slow everyone up which means you expose the other soldiers to more danger. It doesn't matter if you're a woman that can't meet the standard or if you're some small guy that can't meet the standard or some overweight guy that can't meet the standard. It's in place to make sure everyone maintains effectiveness. It's as simple as that.

This is moving in the direction of a meaningful discussion. Did they change the standards in a way that allows a person who can't carry a ruck or a weapon to pass? That would be a problem.

[vailpass]

Originally Posted by manchambo

This is moving in the direction of a meaningful discussion. Did they change the standards in a way that allows a person who can't carry a ruck or a weapon to pass? That would be a problem.

You've been schooled on the subject. Why embarrass yourself any more?