Saturday, March 27, 2010

G.I. Jane

Many times throughout my military career have I been asked about my feelings about females in combat.

Historically, females have been limited to rear echelon jobs within the military. These jobs began with administrative clerical work during the second world war and have progressed to jobs such as mechanics, motor transport, and pilots. However, such progressive steps have not provided the allowance of females into what are designated "combat roles" or Victor Units (units designated for combat).

Some contradictions do occur with modern combat and the conceptualization of "combat roles". These contradictions come in the form of the label of "combat roles". With the advancement of technology, the M1A2 Abrams Main Battle Tank, with its impressive jet turbine engine, only gets eleven miles to the gallon. This means that supply vehicles must be close behind the "tip of the spear" to allow for continuous operations.

During the Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Iraqi Faydeen would allow 1st Marine Division's tanks to pass through their location to attack the less armored supply convoys. Because of these tactics, the Iraqi Faydeen were able to capture an Army soldier by the name of Jessica Lynch.

This is where the contradiction begins. In modern combat, there is no such thing as a "front line". There is no "we're over here" or "they're over there". The front line is the front gate out of the base.

The media proclaimed Lynch as being a hero. Stories were made about how she expelled all rounds in defense of her fellow soldiers and their convoy.

Her rifle was found caked with sand and reported to have a full magazine inserted.

Was this fatal shortfall due to her being a female?

No. My argument is that it is due to her being a soldier.


The Army, for decades, in their attempt to allow for more applicable soldiers, have substantially lowered their standards. The goal, for lowering these standards, was to allow for females to fill more roles, as well as to allow for those who were not as physically, or mentally, inclined to meet the previous standards to have the opportunity to join.

While lowering their standards, the Army has simultaneously increased their operation tempo and requirements for their soldiers.

Within the Army, soldiers are taught how to do their job specialization, in many instances in lieu of weapons training and maintenance.

Because of these shortcomings, the Army has recently started a new initiative towards becoming more "Expeditionary".


Many will argue, "How hard is it to pull a trigger?" in regards to allowing females to enter into the combat MOSs (Military Occupational Specialty, codes used by the military to designate seperate jobs within each branch).

It takes, roughly, five pounds worth of pull pressure to fire a trigger. However, it takes strong legs, unwaivering willpower, and an infinite supply of heart to carry a 140 lbs pack over 20 miles, set up a rally point, assault a target with pinpoint accuracy, then exfiltrate.

It takes that same formula to run into oncoming gunfire and grab a fallen friend, with gear weighing roughly 210 lbs, and drag them out of the line of fire.

Am I saying that a woman does not possess these qualities? Absolutely not. I've had the pleasure to meet a few female Marines who can lift, out run, and out shoot most Marines. It's quite a humbling experience to see a near perfect rifle qualification. Even more impressive to see one armed pull-ups from the same female Marine.

This female, however, is not the standard, and furthermore, the Marine Corps was not above lowering its standards to allow for the retention of females.


In summation: when the military lowers its standards, but raises expectations, we're setting ourselves up for military failures.

If a female can do all that I am required to do, then I feel confident in going to combat with her. Unfortunately, insurgents don't have female tees. They don't care whether or not you were able to hold yourself above the bar, but your fellow Marines care whether or not you can pull their asses out of the shit.

My stances on the logistics are the same as with the concept of homosexuals in the military. Something that is unavoidable, but adaptable.

Not every female is cut out for the job.

But for the very few that are, I say, "if you can live up to the standard that I'm held to, if you can shoot and hold your own in a firefight, then you're more than welcome in my fighting hole."

Friday, March 19, 2010

Only YOU can prevent sober driving!!

According to statistics (http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.html) in 2006, 2007, and 2008, only 37% of fatal accidents were caused by people under the influence of alcohol. In 26 years, this number has fallen to almost half of the fatal accidents reported a year.

My argument is this; if 37% of driving fatalities are from intoxicated drivers, then this means that 63% of them are caused by sober drivers. Due to these statistics, I propose DASD, Drivers Against Sober Drivers. If 63% of driving fatalities are caused by sober drivers, who is at fault? We can no longer blame alcohol.

What's also interesting about the statistics is that, besides 1988, the number of driving fatalities has remained fairly constant. Yet the number of alcohol-related fatalities has halved.

I think that we need to start insisting that more people drive while intoxicated to prevent the loss of lives that we see out on our roadways.


If we don't institute new laws against sober driving, then statistically speaking, we will continue to see the rise of sober-driving related fatalities.



How do we stop the menace of sober drivers? Do we set up sober checkpoints to ensure that people aren't sober while driving? Should we post police at the exits of AA meetings?

Maybe it falls on the individual? When was the last time you took a friend's keys because they were too sober to drive?



How about just enforcing stronger driving tests?

Maybe that's the key?

It may be a bit "out of the box", but what would happen if we ensured that these 17, 18, and 20 year old kids actually knew how to drive instead of them peeling out in the parking lot of our own campus?

When was the last time you, as an individual, saw a kid flying through the parking lot and didn't say anything to them? Who's responsibility is it?

It's our community; it's our college; it's OUR responsibility to stop these reckless individuals from speeding in our parking lot, or not stopping at the stop signs.


It's either that, or we start punishing all sober drivers for the ignorant behavior of those too irresponsible to understand and appreciate this privilege.

Because that's what it is, a privilege, not a right, to allow these young, barely, adults to operate a motor vehicle.






Disclaimer: I had a great argument prepared, one that would shock quite a bit of people and get people yelling at me. Which, for the sake of this blog, is really what I'm going for. I was really inspired by "Thank You for Smoking", as in that if you can argue a point for something so seemingly absurd, such as smoking cigarettes in the context of the movie especially, then you have certainly reached a level of influence and linguistic skill.

With that in mind, let me also say that before anyone reads what I'm about to write, I lost a very close and beloved friend of mine due to his poor decision to drink and drive. Furthermore, I found out about his death while I was in Iraq. My commander had to take me off of patrols and I was forced to see the chaplain for about two weeks. So please understand that I have nothing but sympathy for those lost due to drinking and driving.

Thursday, March 18, 2010

But I still love technology, not as much as you, you see...

Technology is bad.

By technology, of course, I'm referring to the advancement of mankind by the use of tools. The wheel, fire, the club; all technology that should have been avoided.

It's because of these technological advancements that led mankind to eventually create more destructive weapons such as napalm, agent orange, and VX (if you don't know what VX is, take 7 min 16 seconds of your day to watch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkbBnvz0rw0 ).

Because of the technological advancements of fire, the wheel, and the club, the human race has mercilessly slaughtered hundreds of innocent species into extinction, as well as destroyed over three quarters of the world's rain forest, which the Earth depends on for the sustenance of life.

What's even more horrendous is the thought that some people may disagree with my statements.

History has shown that it has been mankind that has caused the most destruction on this Earth. Whether it's oil spills, nuclear meltdowns, or simple pollution, these technological disasters could not have occurred had it not been for the invention of fire, the wheel, and the club.

Therefore, those who oppose my view point are those who support the desecration of the planet that they live on. These people would be the ones who support the destruction of the rain forest, the killing of endangered species, and the napalm attacks on innocent children.

Is this the technology that you love? Think about this picture the next time you text or forward a St Patrick's Day message. The technology that allows you to do so, is also the same that caused these images.