Women in U.S. infantry (USMC, Rangers, etc. - merged)

[Humphrey Bogart]

Edward, what he said about your post.

At that time the Canadian Army was considering its own ranger/commando course, but I think an austerity program got in the way. A couple of officers (Charlie Belzile who later commanded FMC was one of them) did the RM Commando Course in the UK.

There was some fiddling with exercises to develop/test leadership. Three CIBG in Gagetown ran Ex Les Voyageurs in the fall of 1962 (a write up is on line in an old Canadian Army Journal) which was successful. Unfortunately the brigade tried to repeat it the following autumn with some extra wrinkles like no route recce allowed. Of the 15 teams that started, two finished, one from 3 Sigs Sqn and mine from 1 RCHA. My impression was that most of the other teams had not trained properly, which is a leadership failure in itself. No write up was submitted to the journal and there was an absence of press releases.

Toot, Toot. That's my own horn as I was singled out in the post-exercise report for leadership and the team was lauded for high morale throughout the exercise.

Charlie Belzile was also a veteran of the Korean War.  I recently met a British veteran who was a Royal Marine Commando and did Commando Training with Belzile.  He mentioned Belzile specifically when we discussed the Canadian Army and said he was a very good officer, one of the finest he'd ever worked with.

I have no problem with women attending Ranger School but they should be given no special treatment or privileges over anyone else.  The standard is the standard, it's well known how tough the course is, it's up to the individual to make sure they put themselves in the best position possible to pass the course.  If you're a woman, maybe that means you take an extra year to bulk up and work on humping extra loads but the standard should not be lowered to accommodate anyone because doing so cheapens the tab. 

We've gone the complete opposite direction in the Canadian Army because standards cost too much money.  If we had to recycle 50% of our soldiers off every PLQ course, the Canadian Army would be broke.  This is why our leadership training should be taken for what it is, a check in the box.  Luckily, our meriting system still works, sometimes. 

Edit:

For the record, I know a couple of women in the Canadian Armed Forces that I would put money on passing Ranger School, first try with no workup.  Why do we insist on babying them through everything?  it's doing a disservice to their considerable abilities.

 

[dimsum]

Edit:

For the record, I know a couple of women in the Canadian Armed Forces that I would put money on passing Ranger School, first try with no workup.  Why do we insist on babying them through everything?  it's doing a disservice to their considerable abilities.

Would it be worth sending them to Ranger School then?  I guess politics may get in the way.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Would it be worth sending them to Ranger School then?  I guess politics may get in the way.

We should definitely consider it.  They can't do any worse than some of the candidates we've sent the past few years.  Three of whom were officers who quit within the first two weeks of the course.

That's what happens when the CO sends his favorite pet rather than the guy most likely to pass the course.

 

[FJAG]

I find this whole discussion to be very rich considering the same folk attacking Cld617 will, in another thread, bemoan how unprofessional our military has become or how bush league we are because of XXX. 

Actually, let me lay that issue to rest.

My time in the the military spans 1965 to 2009 with my regular force time from 1969 to 1982 which was the period where the old army deteriorated under downsizing, equipment issues and increasing administrative complexity. I know the old army, the transitional army and the new one.

Having said that, when it comes to "professionalism" I have absolutely no hesitation to say that today's soldiers and officers at the battalion level beat the old ones hands down when it comes to professionalism and they do that in an environment that makes it difficult (considering how much time and energy they have to devote to administrative crap that gets in their way). I think today's troops have every right to stand proud and should have absolutely no reason to wish for the "good old times". There were no "good old times", just a different time.

Administration and high level "management" has always been a growing problem for us. We've allowed ourselves to be wrapped in a blanket of bureaucracy that solves every problem it encounters by creating more bureaucracy, more regulations  and more constraints. That, regretfully, is also a level of professionalism, although many of us consider it very counter-productive to our main mission in life.

The specific arguments that you see voiced here in this thread by some of us aren't that "everyone who shows up should pass" or that standards should be "lowered" but that courses that are designed to teach skills and/or leadership shouldn't be designed with artificial standards that eliminate people (particularly women) from the course that do have the ability to learn the skills and that are capable of being good leaders. In its most simple terms, a leadership course (regardless whether the ranger course or a BOTC etc) should definitely have scenarios built in that assess the candidates under stress, severe stress at that, but one that creates that stress by having them continuously carrying loads that exceed their bodies' capability is fundamentally flawed; it tests load carrying ability rather than leadership potential and only gives you the physically strongest and not the best leaders. (This used to be the way that fire departments tried to eliminate female recruits).

Setting standards is a very subjective art. It's entirely too easy to incorporate a standard that has unintended consequences (or even worse, a standard intended to discriminate against a particular classification of candidates). Where the statistics show a high failure rate amongst a certain classification of students, the legitimacy of the causation must be rigorously examined to determine if the causative standard is truly necessary for the objective of the course. If it isn't then the standard must be altered; if it is necessary then the standard should be retained albeit that even if necessary there may be considerations imposed from outside which may require a change the standard. It should come as no surprise to anyone in the military that there are often considerations above our pay grade that impact how we do things.

:cheers:

 

[Jed]

Actually, let me lay that issue to rest.

My time in the the military spans 1965 to 2009 with my regular force time from 1969 to 1982 which was the period where the old army deteriorated under downsizing, equipment issues and increasing administrative complexity. I know the old army, the transitional army and the new one.

Having said that, when it comes to "professionalism" I have absolutely no hesitation to say that today's soldiers and officers at the battalion level beat the old ones hands down when it comes to professionalism and they do that in an environment that makes it difficult (considering how much time and energy they have to devote to administrative crap that gets in their way). I think today's troops have every right to stand proud and should have absolutely no reason to wish for the "good old times". There were no "good old times", just a different time.

Administration and high level "management" has always been a growing problem for us. We've allowed ourselves to be wrapped in a blanket of bureaucracy that solves every problem it encounters by creating more bureaucracy, more regulations  and more constraints. That, regretfully, is also a level of professionalism, although many of us consider it very counter-productive to our main mission in life.

The specific arguments that you see voiced here in this thread by some of us aren't that "everyone who shows up should pass" or that standards should be "lowered" but that courses that are designed to teach skills and/or leadership shouldn't be designed with artificial standards that eliminate people (particularly women) from the course that do have the ability to learn the skills and that are capable of being good leaders. In its most simple terms, a leadership course (regardless whether the ranger course or a BOTC etc) should definitely have scenarios built in that assess the candidates under stress, severe stress at that, but one that creates that stress by having them continuously carrying loads that exceed their bodies' capability is fundamentally flawed; it tests load carrying ability rather than leadership potential and only gives you the physically strongest and not the best leaders. (This used to be the way that fire departments tried to eliminate female recruits).

:cheers:

All well and good, but when my house is on fire and the fire department has to drag my fat carcass downstairs to save my butt, I want someone strong and tough enough to do the job, and as a bonus, strong and tough enough not to endanger themselves or their fellow fireperson (sp) in the process.

 

[FJAG]

All well and good, but when my house is on fire and the fire department has to drag my fat carcass downstairs to save my butt, I want someone strong and tough enough to do the job, and as a bonus, strong and tough enough not to endanger themselves or their fellow fireperson (sp) in the process.

And yet, despite all the huffing and puffing in the eighties and nineties and with the revised standards, there are women firefighters these days who are doing the job extremely well notwithstanding ongoing harassment in many workplaces.

:cheers:

 

[mariomike]

(This used to be the way that fire departments tried to eliminate female recruits).

All well and good, but when my house is on fire and the fire department has to drag my fat carcass downstairs to save my butt, I want someone strong and tough enough to do the job, and as a bonus, strong and tough enough not to endanger themselves or their fellow fireperson (sp) in the process.

And yet, despite all the huffing and puffing in the eighties and nineties and with the revised standards, there are women firefighters these days who are doing the job extremely well notwithstanding ongoing harassment in many workplaces.

Says women represent "0.5 percent of the rank-and-file" in NYC. ( Not sure if that means Operations only, or includes the Prevention, Communications, Training, Mechanical, Quartermaster etc. divisions? )

"All over the nation, fire departments are easing physical standards, in response to litigation to increase the number of women firefighters.

It’s roiling fire departments, and the turmoil is a preview of what’s to come for the US military, which has committed to opening all combat roles to women by 2016."
http://nypost.com/2015/05/05/fdnys-unfit-the-perils-of-pushing-women-into-firefighting/

"The touchy issue of women in traditional men’s occupations will be center stage this fall, when the Pentagon announces its “gender-neutral” rules for military assignments.

Some feminists argue that the Marine Corps’ grueling Combat Endurance Test is more of an “initiation rite” than a fair appraisal of physical ability, the same argument Wax’s supporters use about New York’s firefighting exam.

Joint Chiefs Chairman Martin Dempsey ominously announced at a Pentagon briefing that if “a particular standard is so high that a woman couldn’t make it, the burden is now on the service to come back and explain . . . does it really have to be that high?”

Military brass — like officials overseeing New York’s fire department — are too ready to lower standards, never mind the consequences in the field."

 

[Good2Golf]

You're reading into this too far, this is a discussion purely of physical prowess, not their mental fortitude or technical know how as I don't think you'll find anyone who'll dispute they can be equals there. The topic at hand in this forum is whether or not females are capable of meeting the physical rigors set out in extremely demanding courses and selections. Currently, they have yet to prove conclusively that they can.

Garbage!

Soldiering, especially elite soldier, is about the whole package - physical ability, mental resilience and technical/skill expertise.

You can't ignore two sides of the triangle because it doesn't suit your narrative.


G2G

 

[cld617]

Garbage!

Soldiering, especially elite soldier, is about the whole package - physical ability, mental resilience and technical/skill expertise.

You can't ignore two sides of the triangle because it doesn't suit your narrative.


G2G

I realize that, and as before, a mbr reads too far into things.

The topic at hand here is whether or not women can physically withstand the rigors of Ranger school, or schools/course/selections similar to it. No one is saying they do not have the mental or resilience of aptitude to take these tasks on. It's a given that they do, and that can be laid to rest.

 

[tomahawk6]

The majority of students are infantry officers and as yet females are not allowed to become infantry officers.Sending women to Ranger School who are not combat arms officers are is a waste of the slots.

 

[FJAG]

I realize that, and as before, a mbr reads too far into things.

The topic at hand here is whether or not women can physically withstand the rigors of Ranger school, or schools/course/selections similar to it. No one is saying they do not have the mental or resilience of aptitude to take these tasks on. It's a given that they do, and that can be laid to rest.

Take a breath before you feel the need to go off on someone because you don't think they understand soldiering.

Actually you are a bit off there. The original start to this thread raised by DaftandBarmy concerned four females suing to have women allowed to be in the combat arms and whether or not it was a proper place for the question to be decided. The physical aspects of females became a subset issue raised by those who question the ability of women to perform combat arms tasks. The actual issue raised in this thread is much larger than you wish to restrict it to.

I don't question anyone's position on the overarching issue of women in the combat arms; there are legitimate factors that go pro and con on this very important question. IMHO however, those who wish to restrict the discussion to the issue of average female physiology are either missing or deliberately restricting the debate.

At the forefront of this debate the real question of who decides whether or not women should be allowed to participate as equals at all levels of our society. We, and the US, have already decided at a national political level that they should and have put varying legislations in place to have that happen. There are some reservations in those laws which allow some limited form of discrimination where demonstrably justifiable (the extent and detail of those exemptions vary). In the US there are currently limitations to women in the combat arms.

The competing positions (in a greatly simplified way) are on the one side to allow equal unfettered access to all manner of employment for women regardless of the circumstances and on the other side to restrict that access where there is some demonstrable harm. The people who wish to restrict female access to the combat arms generally point at female physiology and "male bonding" as the two major factors why women would not succeed in the combat arms and accordingly their insertion into combat units would cause unnecessary harm to either themselves or others.

IMHO, both of the factors cited are real and not imagined. Therefore the real question actually is: do the consequences of those two factors constitute demonstrably justifiable reason to disallow equal female participation in the combat arms? In the end that is a national political decision, whether implemented by direct legislation by politicians or by judicial interpretation of existing laws by judges. The opinion of individual members of the military or even the entire military is just one factor to be considered in determining where the nation, as a whole, goes on this issue.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with politicians making life or death decisions about it's citizens, whether soldiers or civilians. Governments make that decision when they send people off to war or what weapon system to buy for the military or even what is the proper speed limit on a highway (lower speeds mean a lower death rate but will impede efficiency).

We've already made the decision in Canada that women are not restricted in the combat arms roles and I think the US will eventually go the same way. The problem that we have (as it is amongst the rank and file of firefighters) is that there will always be individuals at all levels of management/leadership who will disagree with the decision and will throw road blocks in the way of its implementation based on what they honestly believe is a higher and better understanding of the issues at their level. The fact of the matter is that while total gender equality may reduce combat effectiveness in some situations (and I'm not categorically saying it will or won't either way) that's an acceptable risk that the government accepts (and has every right to accept) in order to achieve the broader interests of society as a whole.

This is where the hard part happens. Once the political decision is made what does the existing rank and file (predominantly male) of the military do? IMHO it is their sworn duty to implement the policy.

The problem is that we again have two opposing (and usually honestly held) viewpoints: those who set policies and standards that foster integration in order to facilitate equality and those that set policies and standards that directly or indirectly restrict integration in order to maintain combat capability. IMHO the standards set should favour the principle of integration because that is the overarching intent of the government. Admittedly this is a hard balancing act as we who are or have served are generally not the type of people who want to willingly reduce our effectiveness.

Just a small side discussion on standards. In the US, the amount of time that it takes at a One Station Unit Training facility to complete both Basic Combat Training (BCT) and Advanced Individual Training (AIT) and turn out an MOS qualified infantryman is fourteen weeks. Give or take a bit, that's about the same amount of time we give a reservist in Canada to do BMQ, BMQ-L and DP1 Infantry while regular force training is over twice that amount of time.

Obviously standards vary depending on who is setting them, the criteria under which they are developed and the level of trade-off/risk one is willing to accept in order to achieve a desirable level of combat efficiency. The US is willing to invest half the time in training to put out a basic infantryman. I don't know whether that means Canada is too risk averse or the US is willing to accept a lower level of proficiency. I doubt that either is the reason. I presume it's simply that we have different criteria. For me the lesson is that standards are not set by some infallible being and the end-product produced by a given standard is not preordained, therefore one shouldn't consider the existing ones to be beyond reproach especially when they fail to work for a large proportion of the population.

That's going to be my last post on this issue for some time.

:cheers:

 

[Good2Golf]

I realize that, and as before, a mbr reads too far into things.

The topic at hand here is whether or not women can physically withstand the rigors of Ranger school, or schools/course/selections similar to it. No one is saying they do not have the mental or resilience of aptitude to take these tasks on. It's a given that they do, and that can be laid to rest.

Garbage x 2

Just because you repeat this, does not mean it is true.

 

[cld617]

Garbage x 2

Just because you repeat this, does not mean it is true.

Go over the last few pages and tell me what the discussion has progressed to. The origins of this thread are nearly 3 years old, and are the beginnings of an entirely different discussion, hence the merged topics in the title. If you guys wish to reply to a comment made, keep your response related to that individuals comment.

So, if you do in fact go over the last few pages of active posting you'll see they're related to the fair treatment of women entering and completing Ranger school, where their single largest hurdle has been their ability to keep up physically. The roadblocks by their own admissions are largely physical, the extra time allowed in preparation has been for physical training, and the overwhelming lack of females participating in these trades/units is a result of their inability to keep up physically at the same tempo under the same load as their male counterparts. A look to Canada and you'll see CANSOF is open to both genders, ask anyone who's spent any time within their ranks how many females fill operational roles as SF Ops, Assaulters and CBRN Ops.

 

[Good2Golf]

I know a number of female operators and supporters, and they made selection and training to operational standard with no alterations to the requirements, based on all three elements that have formed an integral part of this thread from the very beginning.  If we want to play your little game, I have also seen numerous males fail selection on physical standards as well as the other factors. 

Point is, there's a standard. Applicants meet it, or they don't.  The two females who passed the Ranger Course met the requirements.  Other females didn't, as many males failed to do, as well.

So what aspect of females being less likely to pass due to physical requirements do you want to still keep discussing?

G2G

 

[cld617]

I know a number of female operators and supporters, and they made selection and training to operational standard with no alterations to the requirements, based on all three elements that have formed an integral part of this thread from the very beginning.  If we want to play your little game, I have also seen numerous males fail selection on physical standards as well as the other factors. 

Point is, there's a standard. Applicants meet it, or they don't.  The two females who passed the Ranger Course met the requirements.  Other females didn't, as many males failed to do, as well.

So what aspect of females being less likely to pass due to physical requirements do you want to still keep discussing?

G2G

Your anecdotes as pilot are not confirmed by members of those units, so you may want to have a chat with those who claimed to pass both selections and course. Those units are not many decades old, knowledge of women who made the grade hasn't been lost to the ages. I am aware of one female to serve as an CBRN Op Officer, who made the cut prior to tweaking of the selections course to it's current standard, no others.

You're also willfully ignoring the fact that there is substantial reason to believe these women did not in fact met the same requirements as their male counterparts, and that they did not enter the course on the same footing. Again, you're enamored with the fact that they're standing at the end while ignoring the path traveled.

 

[cupper]

:deadhorse:

It's not about how they got to the course, but that they were able to achieve the same standards as their male counterparts.

And let's not confuse the two separate and distinct issues. Physical capability and Leadership are not the same thing, and one's ability to perform physical tasks at or above an expected standard is not an indicator of their leadership abilities.

 

[cld617]

:deadhorse:

It's not about how they got to the course, but that they were able to achieve the same standards as their male counterparts.

And there are arguments to support the claim that they did not in fact achieve the same standards, that while male students were presented pass/fail events, females were allowed to be rolled back.

It comes down to who you wish to believe. Their course mate's and a few outspoken instructors, or the packaged statements by the ranking members leading the school. I wonder who is under more pressure to keep the ducks in a row  :

 

[Good2Golf]

An operator is an operator. A supporter is a supporter.  They don't/didn't serv in those roles unless they made selection and trained to standard.  Full stop.

What does my MOSID have to do with anything?  If you have knowledge of the non-flying units, you know MOSID may be correlative in some cases, but causal in none.  Any more sweeping statements you care to make about specific MOSIDs? Take care not to stub your little guy with your answer.

G2G

 

[Jarnhamar]

We've already made the decision in Canada that women are not restricted in the combat arms roles and I think the US will eventually go the same way. The problem that we have (as it is amongst the rank and file of firefighters) is that there will always be individuals at all levels of management/leadership who will disagree with the decision and will throw road blocks in the way of its implementation based on what they honestly believe is a higher and better understanding of the issues at their level. The fact of the matter is that while total gender equality may reduce combat effectiveness in some situations (and I'm not categorically saying it will or won't either way) that's an acceptable risk that the government accepts (and has every right to accept) in order to achieve the broader interests of society as a whole.

I agree 100%  (I realize you said you wouldn't be responding for a while).

Just like open gay men and women serving in the US military.  People said it will never happen in a million years then BAM it happened and people could accept it or quit.  The same will happen with women having access to more and more trades in the US forces.

I agree with you in some situations it may very well reduce combat efficiency. This was a good article that relates to that.
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/09/11/marine-study-women-in-combat-injured-more-often-than-men.html

WASHINGTON -- Research on a test unit of male and female U.S. Marines suggests women in combat get injured more often and shoot less accurately than men, a study released Thursday said.

A summary of the results of a nine-month pilot test involving 400 male and 100 female Marines who volunteered to join the Ground Combat Element Integrated Task Force unit suggested women in combat conditions get injured twice as often as men, shoot infantry weapons less accurately and have more difficulty removing injured soldiers from the battlefield.

I recall reading a similar article about female artillery soldiers being injured twice as much as their male peers.

In the end that's going to be a risk their government takes for the bigger picture.  I'm not really tracking all the back and forth with the female ranger graduates and if they were given special treatment or not.  The funny thing is the government doesn't actually need all the smoke and mirrors when it comes to this stuff (if they infact did give them special treatment).
They can say they are lowering the standard for female applicants because they're the government, because they want to and if soldiers don't like it they can GTFO.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Actually you are a bit off there. The original start to this thread raised by DaftandBarmy concerned four females suing to have women allowed to be in the combat arms and whether or not it was a proper place for the question to be decided. The physical aspects of females became a subset issue raised by those who question the ability of women to perform combat arms tasks. The actual issue raised in this thread is much larger than you wish to restrict it to.

I don't question anyone's position on the overarching issue of women in the combat arms; there are legitimate factors that go pro and con on this very important question. IMHO however, those who wish to restrict the discussion to the issue of average female physiology are either missing or deliberately restricting the debate.

At the forefront of this debate the real question of who decides whether or not women should be allowed to participate as equals at all levels of our society. We, and the US, have already decided at a national political level that they should and have put varying legislations in place to have that happen. There are some reservations in those laws which allow some limited form of discrimination where demonstrably justifiable (the extent and detail of those exemptions vary). In the US there are currently limitations to women in the combat arms.

The competing positions (in a greatly simplified way) are on the one side to allow equal unfettered access to all manner of employment for women regardless of the circumstances and on the other side to restrict that access where there is some demonstrable harm. The people who wish to restrict female access to the combat arms generally point at female physiology and "male bonding" as the two major factors why women would not succeed in the combat arms and accordingly their insertion into combat units would cause unnecessary harm to either themselves or others.

IMHO, both of the factors cited are real and not imagined. Therefore the real question actually is: do the consequences of those two factors constitute demonstrably justifiable reason to disallow equal female participation in the combat arms? In the end that is a national political decision, whether implemented by direct legislation by politicians or by judicial interpretation of existing laws by judges. The opinion of individual members of the military or even the entire military is just one factor to be considered in determining where the nation, as a whole, goes on this issue.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with politicians making life or death decisions about it's citizens, whether soldiers or civilians. Governments make that decision when they send people off to war or what weapon system to buy for the military or even what is the proper speed limit on a highway (lower speeds mean a lower death rate but will impede efficiency).

We've already made the decision in Canada that women are not restricted in the combat arms roles and I think the US will eventually go the same way. The problem that we have (as it is amongst the rank and file of firefighters) is that there will always be individuals at all levels of management/leadership who will disagree with the decision and will throw road blocks in the way of its implementation based on what they honestly believe is a higher and better understanding of the issues at their level. The fact of the matter is that while total gender equality may reduce combat effectiveness in some situations (and I'm not categorically saying it will or won't either way) that's an acceptable risk that the government accepts (and has every right to accept) in order to achieve the broader interests of society as a whole.

This is where the hard part happens. Once the political decision is made what does the existing rank and file (predominantly male) of the military do? IMHO it is their sworn duty to implement the policy.

The problem is that we again have two opposing (and usually honestly held) viewpoints: those who set policies and standards that foster integration in order to facilitate equality and those that set policies and standards that directly or indirectly restrict integration in order to maintain combat capability. IMHO the standards set should favour the principle of integration because that is the overarching intent of the government. Admittedly this is a hard balancing act as we who are or have served are generally not the type of people who want to willingly reduce our effectiveness.

Just a small side discussion on standards. In the US, the amount of time that it takes at a One Station Unit Training facility to complete both Basic Combat Training (BCT) and Advanced Individual Training (AIT) and turn out an MOS qualified infantryman is fourteen weeks. Give or take a bit, that's about the same amount of time we give a reservist in Canada to do BMQ, BMQ-L and DP1 Infantry while regular force training is over twice that amount of time.

Obviously standards vary depending on who is setting them, the criteria under which they are developed and the level of trade-off/risk one is willing to accept in order to achieve a desirable level of combat efficiency. The US is willing to invest half the time in training to put out a basic infantryman. I don't know whether that means Canada is too risk averse or the US is willing to accept a lower level of proficiency. I doubt that either is the reason. I presume it's simply that we have different criteria. For me the lesson is that standards are not set by some infallible being and the end-product produced by a given standard is not preordained, therefore one shouldn't consider the existing ones to be beyond reproach especially when they fail to work for a large proportion of the population.

That's going to be my last post on this issue for some time.

:cheers:

Ok FJAG, I now understand your position.    You're basically saying that, whether we like it or not the government has made a decision; therefore, we need to work towards implementing it.

In that case, I wholeheartedly agree with you.  That doesn't mean I need to agree with any of it.  Just because I don't agree with something doesn't mean I won't work towards making it happen.

I know that it won't matter anyways because most women(more like most people) have zero interest in the combat arms anyways so the net impact is negligble at best. If allowing women to serve in the combat arms shuts up all the gender studies professors, feminists and talking heads that would probably be a net benefit for us anyways so I'm all in.

Lets put this to rest though, standards have been lowered/manipulated to accommodate this agenda, that is irrefutable and I've seen it with my own eyes.  Regardless, the politicians said make it happen so at this point I'm all in.

To add:

If we really are a profession than we should be able to talk about these sorts of topics irrespective of what the official party line is.  We should also be allowed to conduct a critical evaluation of everything we do.

Then again, the idea that the military is a profession is probably debatable as well.