OT A minute in the life...

[BrianFromWA]

This is not meant to make fun of the soldier. Frankly, I give her credit for practicing and keeping at it until she can get inside the vehicle. It's not easy, and that door is pretty damn heavy.

Now picture that soldier with 30# of body armor, a helmet, and a rifle, to say nothing of the 15-80# of gear that you may be carrying on any given mission. And imagine that AK47 fire is incoming, or that you're being attacked with mortars, or that and IED just went off.

While I disagree with the soldiers filming her and posting it (though she seems like a good sport about it, I don't like any part of our business getting onto Facebook), it can be useful to show the unsuspecting public that there are some things that go beyond "PC". There currently is nothing stopping that soldier from deploying as part of a convoy platoon to Kabul or Baghdad or (insert "hazardous duty zone"). If a commander were to say "sorry, soldier, you're staying on the FOB now b/c I can't risk you getting hurt b/c you can't get in the vehicle" that commander would be in danger of being fired for "loss of confidence". If the Army (and Navy is similar) says that soldier can be overseas (having passed their online computer training, a physical fitness test, and the rifle minimum qualification), they are deployable. Even if their actual performance is that of this particular soldier who can barely get into a truck.

That's not to say it's because she's a woman. It's to point out that there should be standards required to be met when, as a leader, you're putting the flower of American youth in harm's way. If a 5'1 male soldier had that much problem getting into an MRAP or MATV, you would be endangering him and his platoonmates by deploying him to a "hazardous duty zone". That's why I dislike the "female in combat" argument/motif. It's not that women shouldn't be allowed in combat or that they should. It's whether the mission can be accomplished better with Soldier A there or Soldier B, and including the Welfare of those soldiers in the balance. That's the very definition of Leadership.

Mission Accomplishment: The primary objective of Marine Corps leadership is to accomplish the mission - (get the job done). Good leadership gets the job done in the quickest, most efficient way. Mission accomplishment, when achieved, really stands for protecting the American people and protecting the welfare of our nation. Placing mission accomplishment before troop welfare merely means that all responsible military personnel must be prepared to risk their lives for the lives of those they have taken an oath to defend.

Troop Welfare: The secondary goal of leadership is to provide for the welfare of Marines. Troop welfare pertains to physical needs which include food, clothing, and shelter and security. Your security is also a physical need. Moral welfare includes a well-developed sense of right and wrong, the right kind of friends, and a wholesome outlook on life. Finally, your mental welfare addresses recognition, a chance to learn and grow, and a proper mix of work and play.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

This is not meant to make fun of the soldier. Frankly, I give her credit for practicing and keeping at it until she can get inside the vehicle. It's not easy, and that door is pretty damn heavy.

Now picture that soldier with 30# of body armor, a helmet, and a rifle, to say nothing of the 15-80# of gear that you may be carrying on any given mission. And imagine that AK47 fire is incoming, or that you're being attacked with mortars, or that and IED just went off.

While I disagree with the soldiers filming her and posting it (though she seems like a good sport about it, I don't like any part of our business getting onto Facebook), it can be useful to show the unsuspecting public that there are some things that go beyond "PC". There currently is nothing stopping that soldier from deploying as part of a convoy platoon to Kabul or Baghdad or (insert "hazardous duty zone"). If a commander were to say "sorry, soldier, you're staying on the FOB now b/c I can't risk you getting hurt b/c you can't get in the vehicle" that commander would be in danger of being fired for "loss of confidence". If the Army (and Navy is similar) says that soldier can be overseas (having passed their online computer training, a physical fitness test, and the rifle minimum qualification), they are deployable. Even if their actual performance is that of this particular soldier who can barely get into a truck.

That's not to say it's because she's a woman. It's to point out that there should be standards required to be met when, as a leader, you're putting the flower of American youth in harm's way. If a 5'1 male soldier had that much problem getting into an MRAP or MATV, you would be endangering him and his platoonmates by deploying him to a "hazardous duty zone". That's why I dislike the "female in combat" argument/motif. It's not that women shouldn't be allowed in combat or that they should. It's whether the mission can be accomplished better with Soldier A there or Soldier B, and including the Welfare of those soldiers in the balance. That's the very definition of Leadership.

Brian, as usual, you knock it out of the park. /salute

 

[Further]

There are so many folks pissed at drones, but I want more. Or another way to say it is I want fewer actual American soldiers in harms way. I think we are moving that direction, more Boston dynamic bots and virtual units that will allow fewer folks to have to be there. And with fewer soldiers in harms way, the standards required can go up significantly.

 

[Natebishop3]

Is that an MRAP?

Is that considered up-armored, or is that just standard on that vehicle?

 

[DaLincolnJones]

Is that an MRAP?

Is that considered up-armored, or is that just standard on that vehicle?

Mine Resistant Ambush Protected

Heavy armored vehicle

 

[BrianFromWA]

Is that an MRAP?

Is that considered up-armored, or is that just standard on that vehicle?

It's an MRAP, but I can't tell which version. It's not the MATV, as that doesn't have the gas tank on the side for her to step on.

That amount of armor (and the V-hull) is standard.

Open-source page for MRAP knowledge.
http://www.fi-aeroweb.com/Defense/MRAP-Vehicles.html

 

[dviss1]

There are so many folks pissed at drones, but I want more. Or another way to say it is I want fewer actual American soldiers in harms way. I think we are moving that direction, more Boston dynamic bots and virtual units that will allow fewer folks to have to be there. And with fewer soldiers in harms way, the standards required can go up significantly.

How about less war, and less embassies?

Why must we police the world?

 

[Denny Crane]

Is she being asked to open the door to the MRAP with the 30# of equipment and under fire?

 

[Natebishop3]

By the way, this is the kind of vehicle being given to police departments.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

Is there a height/ strength requirement for being in the field?

 

[Further]

How about less war, and less embassies?

Why must we police the world?

That works too. I want the USA to be the new Canada

 

[stampedehero]

The manufacturer should invent a door opening spring for quick escape and female entry. A small extending ladder would help too.

 

[stampedehero]

How about less war, and less embassies?

Why must we police the world?

I have two major gripes. Why should we be world cop and why should we dispense foreign aid when we over our eyebrows with debt? Congressmen had no idea we were in Niger. In 2009 we gave the Russians 309 million and in later years plutonium.
What a stupid leadership class have.

 

[tlongII]

Somebody has to be world cop.

 

[Chris Craig]

How about less war, and less embassies?

Why must we police the world?

Control

 

[Chris Craig]

Is there a height/ strength requirement for being in the field?

Hey

 

[3RA1N1AC]

Hey

just wondering, i know like the whole flat foot thing and eyesight or whatever, and i heard air force pilots have height/weight restrictions or something so they can fit in the planes. just wasnt sure if there were any guidelines as far as strength.

it seems like having a simple strength requirement would weed out all the "i am not able to open a truck door" peeps from either sex. whether its a man or a woman is irrelevant to the job. the door opening job at least.

 

[dviss1]

Not sure if height/weight/strength requirements need to be made buuuuuuut...

A MF better be able to open the door of their vehicle.

 

[MarAzul]

This is not meant to make fun of the soldier. Frankly, I give her credit for practicing and keeping at it until she can get inside the vehicle. It's not easy, and that door is pretty damn heavy.

Now picture that soldier with 30# of body armor, a helmet, and a rifle, to say nothing of the 15-80# of gear that you may be carrying on any given mission. And imagine that AK47 fire is incoming, or that you're being attacked with mortars, or that and IED just went off.

While I disagree with the soldiers filming her and posting it (though she seems like a good sport about it, I don't like any part of our business getting onto Facebook), it can be useful to show the unsuspecting public that there are some things that go beyond "PC". There currently is nothing stopping that soldier from deploying as part of a convoy platoon to Kabul or Baghdad or (insert "hazardous duty zone"). If a commander were to say "sorry, soldier, you're staying on the FOB now b/c I can't risk you getting hurt b/c you can't get in the vehicle" that commander would be in danger of being fired for "loss of confidence". If the Army (and Navy is similar) says that soldier can be overseas (having passed their online computer training, a physical fitness test, and the rifle minimum qualification), they are deployable. Even if their actual performance is that of this particular soldier who can barely get into a truck.

That's not to say it's because she's a woman. It's to point out that there should be standards required to be met when, as a leader, you're putting the flower of American youth in harm's way. If a 5'1 male soldier had that much problem getting into an MRAP or MATV, you would be endangering him and his platoonmates by deploying him to a "hazardous duty zone". That's why I dislike the "female in combat" argument/motif. It's not that women shouldn't be allowed in combat or that they should. It's whether the mission can be accomplished better with Soldier A there or Soldier B, and including the Welfare of those soldiers in the balance. That's the very definition of Leadership.

I know it needs to be said. I hope it somehow gets heard.

 

[MARIS61]

I had a friend who was 5' tall and when he enlisted he found he was in high demand for service on a sub, specifically due to his size limitations.

I'm always about the glass being half full.

 

[MarAzul]

I had a friend who was 5' tall and when he enlisted he found he was in high demand for service on a sub, specifically due to his size limitations.

I'm always about the glass being half full.

Back in the old days, they wanted all the 6'+ 200#+ guys they could get to muscle around the Fleet munitions here at Port Chicago.
It seems natural, but people bitched about the end result.

 

[Denny Crane]

I still wonder if she is put in a position where she needs to open the door on that kind of vehicle, or if they got her to come over from a more suitable position and open it.