Female Special Operators Now in Combat

[IMTT]

Army Special Operations Command has deployed its first teams of female Soldiers assigned to commando units in Afghanistan, and military officials are assessing their initial performance in theater as "off the charts."
In a controversial move early this year, the Army created a new avenue for women to serve with front-line combat units in some of the most specialized and covert missions. The so-called "Cultural Support Teams" are attached to Special Forces and Ranger units to interface with the female population to gain vital intelligence and provide social outreach.
"When I send an [SF team] in to follow up on a Taliban hit … wouldn't it be nice to have access to about 50 percent of that target population -- the women?" said Maj. Gen. Bennet Sacolick, commander of the Army Special Warfare Center and School, which runs the CST program.

FULL STORY

http://www.military.com/news/article/female-special-operators-now-in-combat.html?ESRC=eb.nl

[flanker7]

Demi, is that you?!

[TehSuig]

From the article:


"They're supposed to be used on secure target areas," Sacolick said. "I don't want them fighting their way to a target."

How is this any different than how they were used beforehand, and how does this make them "special operators?"

[LineDoggie]

So females now Longtabbed? Somehow I dont believe one has passed the selection.

[Stormz_STA]

So females now Longtabbed? Somehow I dont believe one has passed the selection.

You haven't read the article, have you?

;)

[muttbutt]

So females now Longtabbed? Somehow I dont believe one has passed the selection.
I don't know, other countries have female SF types. Poland for instance has women serving in GROM.

[Carib]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/usasoc/5882072468/


saw these the other day.... thought it was pretty interesting. reminds me of a certain type of intelligence gathering that can be performed by females as well.

[gaz]

Admittedly my knowledge of this kind of thing is practically nil but isn't this what Civil Affairs already does?

[subotai]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/usasoc/5882072468/

saw these the other day.... thought it was pretty interesting. reminds me of a certain type of intelligence gathering that can be performed by females as well.
That are LOTS of types of intelligence, targeting, acquisition that women can do better than men, especially in the middle east. I can see it now, we pass the word that we have women in clandestine roles in conservative Islamic countries and the hijab and burqa will be history in record time.

[Smoker Six]

women have been in SF support roles for decades. This cultural team is new, but women still aren't going through SFQC or kicking in doors.

[Special-K]

From the article:



How is this any different than how they were used beforehand, and how does this make them "special operators?"



It doesn't.

However, the headline will generate hits and/or sell newspapers. :roll:




-K

[Hagge17]

Personally I think that women belong in the armed forces just as much as men do - as long as meet they requirements/standards. If they meet the same requirements as men do, they should of course be allowed in. However, since women in general are physically weaker than men (I really don't think I should have come with any arguements about that, it should almost be common knowledge by now), there will of course be less women in the armed forces. I don't know about mental strength, but I'm guessing we are pretty much equal. Perhaps women are even a bit stronger mentally, I don't know.

TL;DR: Women should be just as accepted in the military as men if they can meet the same requirements.

This may seem a bit off topic, but I read some comments on the link saying how wrong this was etc. and I just had to express my opinion :D

I'm also tired of how in Sweden women are allowed in the military more or less because they are just that - women (I know the swedish word for all that is "kvotering", but I don't know what it is in english, sorry).

[Gonzo__]

I'm also tired of how in Sweden women are allowed in the military more or less because they are just that - women (I know the swedish word for all that is "kvotering", but I don't know what it is in english, sorry).


The word you are looking for .. Kvotering ...in English is 'Quota' :D

[HollywoodMarine]

Misleading thread title.
+1

MO, me, and a few other BTDT's have discussed this many times before. Unless the politicians drop the standards, its not gonna happen anytime soon.

[vinny_121_ND]

That's great news. 50% attrition rate is still pretty high.

edit: but by no means are they 'operators'. They're are there to support SF. I wish them well though.

[Big Bad Bob]

The article over inflates their role and status, they fall under the support company just like all the other support company guys.

They are not SF, they are not longtabbed, and they are not "special operators". they do not attend SFQC or SFAS, they do have a cultural qualification they attend. They come from multiple MOS's and have some pretty weak standards to qualify.

I have worked alongside them. Not to discredit them or the work they are doing which is helpful in Afghanistan, but it is just like the media to over inflate what they actually do.

and YES GAZ, CA and PYSOP(MISO) already do this!

[muck]

Stupid title, even though the additional training should earn them credit.
No need for the boys to get pumped up about this, cultural engagement and Psyops are crucial to today's wars. Especially when in a country where greeting somebody with the wrong hand might piss off an entire village. :roll:

[IMTT]

Misleading thread title.

Military.com used that title... I see nothing new here except a new title. We had females US Army personnel were assigned on occasion that were CA that functioned as described when doing MEDCAP and several other specific missions. The article basically states that women are EXTREMELY useful in specific missions and of course in the most flattering language supports their role in missions where needed. They won't be attending Range School of SF selection but will integrate as needed. My understanding of this project when it began was that these assets were civilians and not military personnel during the first trial runs. They were more of SMEs and mission specific not with team assignments. I see little difference between these folks and the CA units that already support SOF. But part of the problem with the active duty component of CA is that is uses younger less experienced and no expert knowledge in specific disciplines. This may have been identified by the SOF community and this is the next evolution based on the commands assessments. The Reserve CA typically uses career Engineers, Police officers, Medical professionals and experts in many facets of real society. Many are also much older and bring many more skills, life experience and depth. Not just military indoctrination and right out of high school and or college.

The interesting part of this article is the dress / attire of the female pictured. I found that very interesting from the stand point of uniformity and being more culturally aware by dressing more like the locals. Obviously in order to appease the male population in order to gain access. In the areas I worked when females in uniform went to meetings in the hinder lands their presence at times was frictional and more over undermined our objectives while offending the males and tribal leaders. Basically we shoved the females down their throats and if the females attempted to run the conversation or broker deals they were not taken seriously by the men. So the male counterparts had to run the conversation and have the females support the direction of the intent without direct intervention.

Another point is sticking here; are they going to reduce the foot print of CA in the SOF role and will a separate MOS be created for these personnel directly assigned within the SOC commands?

[Big Bad Bob]

Embare the Hate,

No they are not going to hinder the mission of CA or PYSOP. These females are on FET-T teams (female engagement teams), with a specific mission but it isn't even a skill identifier. CA will still function in this role and other roles that CA has. CA and PYSOP are also spread to thin right now supporting other missions than Iraq and Afghanistan.

You are spot on by the way on your assessment of CA but Active CA now has selection.

[LineDoggie]

You haven't read the article, have you?

;)Actually I did, but the title implies the females are now SF which they arent. Mil.com has a habit of misleading articles. Basically you have a squad of Civil Affairs Females who can fast rope and do ready ups.

[T-5 Killer]

Admittedly my knowledge of this kind of thing is practically nil but isn't this what Civil Affairs already does?
Same here.

[Glax69]

there's a pretty cool SF training video in that photostream:

EDIT: reminds me of the SFOD-D recruitment video

http://www.flickr.com/photos/usasoc/5840205596/in/photostream/

[michael9319]

How is this any different than how they were used beforehand, and how does this make them "special operators?"

These have been trained in all corners of the kitchen. and are specialized within the field of sandwich making.

[UJB]

These have been trained in all corners of the kitchen. and are specialized within the field of sandwich making.

I'll be sure and tell my daughters that is supposed to be their skill set.

And no, these women are not special operators persay (and no, this isn't really anything brand spanking new and unique) -- but it's a little more involved than sandwich making and kitchen proficiency.

[Hellfish]

Admittedly my knowledge of this kind of thing is practically nil but isn't this what Civil Affairs already does?

In the US Army, civil affairs units are under Army Special Operations Command.

Marines have been using their females in this role for a while now.

[vinny_121_ND]

In the US Army, civil affairs units are under Army Special Operations Command.

Marines have been using their females in this role for a while now.

That's what I like about the Marines. They adapt, improvise and overcome. None of this totally new creation and unit of a 'female special operations group'.

[Ratamacue]

Personally I think that women belong in the armed forces just as much as men do - as long as meet they requirements/standards. If they meet the same requirements as men do, they should of course be allowed in. However, since women in general are physically weaker than men (I really don't think I should have come with any arguements about that, it should almost be common knowledge by now), there will of course be less women in the armed forces. I don't know about mental strength, but I'm guessing we are pretty much equal. Perhaps women are even a bit stronger mentally, I don't know.I can only speak for my experience in the USMC, but putting women in to infantry units is a lot more complicated than physical fitness. Fraternization will happen, and the petty jealousies and breakdown in unit cohesion that will result could be crippling at the small unit level. One might argue that professionalism should overcome these boundaries, but let's face it: in a regular grunt unit you'd be dealing with young men and women in their late teens/early twenties, not seasoned special operators.

I also might add that the behavior and performance of the Female Engagement Teams (FETs) we had attached to our battalion in Afghanistan did not speak well for the case for women in the infantry.

[LineDoggie]

That's what I like about the Marines. They adapt, improvise and overcome. None of this totally new creation and unit of a 'female special operations group'.
Hmm, so I didnt see Female Soldiers in 2004 doing the same thing in Baghdad?

[UJB]

I can only speak for my experience in the USMC, but putting women in to infantry units is a lot more complicated than physical fitness. Fraternization will happen, and the petty jealousies and breakdown in unit cohesion that will result could be crippling at the small unit level. One might argue that professionalism should overcome these boundaries, but let's face it: in a regular grunt unit you'd be dealing with young men and women in their late teens/early twenties, not seasoned special operators.

I also might add that the behavior and performance of the Female Engagement Teams (FETs) we had attached to our battalion in Afghanistan did not speak well for the case for women in the infantry.

Correct you are -- women really do not belong in infantry units. Doesn't mean they can't serve, but they do not belong in infantry units persay.

Unfortunately, yes, discipline is a problem -- even if the individual is completely professional, that's just one person. If the rest of the unit is going to act like a bunch of dip****, non-hackers thanks to your presence, then the unit as a whole suffers from your being there and to keep that from happening it's best if you weren't (there). On the other hand, it only takes one female acting like a twit to make the rest look bad following the one bad apple rule.

Then there are issues of physical combat effectiveness -- honestly, women just aren't as physically gifted as most men (there are some who are just as good, some who are better than some, but this is the law of averages talking here). Combat infantry troops need to be physically effective (also, as a personal antecdote, don't know if it's proven or not -- but women lose effectiveness when sleep deprived far worse than men do; that would be a big problem for a combat unit...this is just a personal theory however). Although it is another personal antecdote that women seem to function better on shorter rations for longer...again, just a personal theory; men really seem to burn through the calories and fluids at a higher rate and then hit the wall.

So I think it would be a mistake to have actual female teams...but if these are limited psyops and intel gathering missions where females are not really acting as infantry at all and are not staying in direct action as part of a combat team for extended periods of time, then there might be some value to having women in those roles (but that doesn't make them special operators).

[Leaper]

Personally I think that women belong in the armed forces just as much as men do - as long as meet they requirements/standards. If they meet the same requirements as men do, they should of course be allowed in. However, since women in general are physically weaker than men (I really don't think I should have come with any arguements about that, it should almost be common knowledge by now), there will of course be less women in the armed forces. I don't know about mental strength, but I'm guessing we are pretty much equal. Perhaps women are even a bit stronger mentally, I don't know.

TL;DR: Women should be just as accepted in the military as men if they can meet the same requirements.

This may seem a bit off topic, but I read some comments on the link saying how wrong this was etc. and I just had to express my opinion :D

I'm also tired of how in Sweden women are allowed in the military more or less because they are just that - women (I know the swedish word for all that is "kvotering", but I don't know what it is in english, sorry).

You dont know what you're talking about buddy

[Delta Niner]

The word you are looking for .. Kvotering ...in English is 'Quota' :D

for a while there, I thought the meaning would somewhat be more sexier than the "quota" :D

[Ratamacue]

Correct you are -- women really do not belong in infantry units. Doesn't mean they can't serve, but they do not belong in infantry units persay.

Unfortunately, yes, discipline is a problem -- even if the individual is completely professional, that's just one person. If the rest of the unit is going to act like a bunch of dip****, non-hackers thanks to your presence, then the unit as a whole suffers from your being there and to keep that from happening it's best if you weren't (there). On the other hand, it only takes one female acting like a twit to make the rest look bad following the one bad apple rule.

Then there are issues of physical combat effectiveness -- honestly, women just aren't as physically gifted as most men (there are some who are just as good, some who are better than some, but this is the law of averages talking here). Combat infantry troops need to be physically effective (also, as a personal antecdote, don't know if it's proven or not -- but women lose effectiveness when sleep deprived far worse than men do; that would be a big problem for a combat unit...this is just a personal theory however). Although it is another personal antecdote that women seem to function better on shorter rations for longer...again, just a personal theory; men really seem to burn through the calories and fluids at a higher rate and then hit the wall.

So I think it would be a mistake to have actual female teams...but if these are limited psyops and intel gathering missions where females are not really acting as infantry at all and are not staying in direct action as part of a combat team for extended periods of time, then there might be some value to having women in those roles (but that doesn't make them special operators).I'm in complete agreement. I'm not one to think that women don't belong in the military at all (like my prior-service grandfather and uncles have expressed when the topic has come up). I see no reason why they can't serve in the majority of military occupations, even outside the wire in-country. And while I can't speak for armor or artillery, which are also still closed-off to females, I can say that in the year 2011, women do not belong in the infantry. Unfortunately, the political winds are starting to blow in that direction, especially in light of the repeal of DADT. Hell, we had a meet with the new Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps last week, and a female Gunny (a career planner with a logistics unit) broached the subject during the Q&A session. Amusingly, this elicited rather emphatic booing from the guys in my battalion, not because we're misogynistic or sexist, but because we all know how it won't work...and because we're a bunch of belligerent assholes. Regardless, SGTMAJMC Barrett expressed that he was "all for it," much to our shock and dismay, despite the fact that the majority of his career has been spent as a grunt. I can only hope that he was just telling her what she wanted to hear.

[UJB]

I hope so.

As a female, it's nice to be able to serve your country -- but that means you also want your country to win. Lowering combat efficiency isn't a winning proposition.
Also, as a woman, it's best to be able to go to the minimum male standards; it makes you better, and it also means you're there on your own terms, not some special case that needs some sort of special help to get through and qualify. Again, that's just a personal opinion (plus it's fun to make those "belligerent" guys sweat a little every once in a while ;) ).

[IMTT]

I'm in complete agreement. I'm not one to think that women don't belong in the military at all (like my prior-service grandfather and uncles have expressed when the topic has come up). I see no reason why they can't serve in the majority of military occupations, even outside the wire in-country. And while I can't speak for armor or artillery, which are also still closed-off to females, I can say that in the year 2011, women do not belong in the infantry. Unfortunately, the political winds are starting to blow in that direction, especially in light of the repeal of DADT. Hell, we had a meet with the new Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps last week, and a female Gunny (a career planner with a logistics unit) broached the subject during the Q&A session. Amusingly, this elicited rather emphatic booing from the guys in my battalion, not because we're misogynistic or sexist, but because we all know how it won't work...and because we're a bunch of belligerent assholes. Regardless, SGTMAJMC Barrett expressed that he was "all for it," much to our shock and dismay, despite the fact that the majority of his career has been spent as a grunt. I can only hope that he was just telling her what she wanted to hear.

After spending 10 years in the infantry (Light and Mech) I completely disagree with women in Infantry or front line combat units I personally hate serving with them and avoid them like the plague. Their lack of ability will be overlooked falsely reported and performance will be ignored in the PC world and military. All this in order to avoid impact to individual career aspirations through being perceived as anti-female. This topic has been beaten to death and I think its pretty clear where most of the regular posters stand on the subject. The sad part is whoever is saddled with females if they end up in a front combat unit will have to pick up the slack and make the best of a bad situation. Which in some cases will be as if you are short one solider for regular duties and service. Of course mech. infantry and support heavy units will be much more friendly to females considering bathing requirements and the like. So lets hope we don't face extended convential combat operations and all this works out for the best.

[vinny_121_ND]

.. And while I can't speak for armor or artillery, which are also still closed-off to females, I can say that in the year 2011, women do not belong in the infantry. ...

That type of attitude exists in our Canadian Forces infantry (reg force). The women there have to work extra hard to prove themselves that it is an extra burden on themselves one said. I really empathize her situation. Infantry is a very physically and mentally demanding job.

[OldRecon]

Personally I think that women belong in the armed forces just as much as men do - as long as meet they requirements/standards. If they meet the same requirements as men do, they should of course be allowed in. However, since women in general are physically weaker than men (I really don't think I should have come with any arguements about that, it should almost be common knowledge by now), there will of course be less women in the armed forces. I don't know about mental strength, but I'm guessing we are pretty much equal. Perhaps women are even a bit stronger mentally, I don't know.

TL;DR: Women should be just as accepted in the military as men if they can meet the same requirements.

This may seem a bit off topic, but I read some comments on the link saying how wrong this was etc. and I just had to express my opinion :D

I'm also tired of how in Sweden women are allowed in the military more or less because they are just that - women (I know the swedish word for all that is "kvotering", but I don't know what it is in english, sorry).

I guess you're plainly aware of that there is (or was) at least 1 female soldier serving with SSG in a combat capacity ;-), having passed the selection course not all that far ago.

[BrianT]

Technically, going through a selection & assessment and serving under USASOC would make them 'special operators.' It's not like the Army is doing anything dramatically new, it's just a formalized way of attaching women to SOF units. While they may not be door-kickers, if units plan on utilizing them, they'll be hitting these targets alongside Rangers and SF. It's impractical to do a hit, and keep it secure and then allow these women to come up later. They likely won't be kicking in doors, but they'll be sitting in the CP with the PL, PSG, or whatever waiting for the building to be secured. If contact is made, they could likely be in a firefight just as much as say a RTO would be. Not sure how Marines are improvising, adapting, and overcoming any better than their other military counterparts. Matter of fact, this method puts out a better product. Hopefully, the selection has some physical demands to it. Nothing worse than finding out some of the assets you can bring along can't keep up and fall out going up some mountain.

[IMTT]

Technically, going through a selection & assessment and serving under USASOC would make them 'special operators.' It's not like the Army is doing anything dramatically new, it's just a formalized way of attaching women to SOF units. While they may not be door-kickers, if units plan on utilizing them, they'll be hitting these targets alongside Rangers and SF. It's impractical to do a hit, and keep it secure and then allow these women to come up later. They likely won't be kicking in doors, but they'll be sitting in the CP with the PL, PSG, or whatever waiting for the building to be secured. If contact is made, they could likely be in a firefight just as much as say a RTO would be. Not sure how Marines are improvising, adapting, and overcoming any better than their other military counterparts. Matter of fact, this method puts out a better product. Hopefully, the selection has some physical demands to it. Nothing worse than finding out some of the assets you can bring along can't keep up and fall out going up some mountain.

The falling out portion is exactly what has happened with some of the CA and Phyops personnel attached during operations. Hence they have increased the PT standards unit / team specific that support these units in the AOR. It did / has become a problem with some of the DA units having to lug along support assets.

[LoboCanada]

Apparently CJIRU has a female Operator.

[h_rnzir]

after spending 10 years in the infantry (light and mech) i completely disagree with women in infantry or front line combat units i personally hate serving with them and avoid them like the plague. Their lack of ability will be overlooked falsely reported and performance will be ignored in the pc world and military. All this in order to avoid impact to individual career aspirations through being perceived as anti-female. This topic has been beaten to death and i think its pretty clear where most of the regular posters stand on the subject. The sad part is whoever is saddled with females if they end up in a front combat unit will have to pick up the slack and make the best of a bad situation. Which in some cases will be as if you are short one solider for regular duties and service. Of course mech. Infantry and support heavy units will be much more friendly to females considering bathing requirements and the like. So lets hope we don't face extended convential combat operations and all this works out for the best.

amen!!!!!!!!!!

[Honneur et Patrie]

Here in France, we have a few women serving in combat role (infantry, tanks, artillery, marine infantry, airborne) and even with special forces or assimilated (air force commandos, pararescue, FAC)... We also have a female medics involved in ground fighting (french armed forces medical service is independant from other branches). A female medic was honoured last year for bringing a wounded back in our lines under enemy fire in Chad. No real problem with them as they remains exceptions and should achieve the same physical tests as men... Many european countries allow women in ground combat roles. And many women are serving with police forces through the world and are involved in civilian gunfights every years, it don't seems to me that they're performing bad!

[vinny_121_ND]

You guys who oppose women into the infantry must have real good reasons why they should not be allowed. The ROK's top special operations unit 707 allows females into their unit.

SecDef Gates potentially sees female SF operators integrated one day.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i4_UXKrcJTTi6Ps03CM8I_911BRA?docId=CNG.55ec7757a4af09952fd88a338f1d1349.1f1

[muck]

This discussion is growing the usual beard, completely ignoring the fact that it's happening either way and no matter what expertise says.

Politics is the keyword.

I'd rather have my military look for suitable and rather reasonable ways to employ female soldiers in whichever role than this "Get back to the kitchen"-crap dominate as that would only going to lead to trans-gendered politically hyper-correct pushs from overmotivated feminists which would rather lower effectivity and morale than somebody with a brain just sitting down and drawing a concept that doesn't largely affect combat readiness but is seen through without exception then.

Funnily enough, it's largely accepted in Europe and our mixed-gender units be them infantry or not make a good job. Unit cohesion is not threatened, FOBs don't turn out to be brothels.
The American members tend to see it not working, though. Why's that? Due to a different fighting spirit or even a different breed of soldiers (maybe the female ones)? I can't tell, although I sense some Yanks here like to think so - no offence meant.

You don't need women in either branch just because of their frigging ***, but you must allow women to serve because it's everybodys given right to serve their country if they can. This cultural engagement program is actually a rare example of where you need them. If they're to accompany SF, they should at least be able to hang on. If that course does so, let the press guys call them "operators" for the love of God.

I thought everybody with a Magpul catalogue in their bags was an operator anyway.

[Big Bad Bob]

@BrianT and Embrace the Hate, these are the current selection standards for CST and FET-T, like I said in my earlier posts, these are pretty lame, and CA selection while not discussed what goes on, is a million times harder.


Female volunteers only

· Eligible grades: E-4 to E-8; O-1 to O-3; WO-1 to CW-3

· Enlisted only: Minimum GT score of 100 or better (not waiverable)

· Have a current Army Physical Fitness Test score of 210, with at least 70 points in each event (no profiles, no alternate events)

· Must meet height and weight requirements outlined in AR 600-9

· Be deployable in accordance with current unit status reporting procedures, covered in AR 220-1

· Pre-screened by current unit of assignment

· Have the ability to carry 35 lbs. for six miles in at least 1 hour and 39 minutes (weight includes ruck, helmet, weapon andwater source)

· MOS is immaterial, however, preferred specialties include: nurse practioner (66P), nurse midwife (66G8D), health care specialist (68W), military police (31B) or military intelligence specialist (35M, 35F, 35P); or service-equivelent.

· Must hold a current secret security clearance, at minimum. Interim secret clearance is acceptable.

· Must not be currently flagged, under criminal investigation or pending adverse administrative or UCMJ action

· Language profiency in Pashtu, Urdu or Dari is desirable, but not required

[HollywoodMarine]

And many women are serving with police forces through the world and are involved in civilian gunfights every years, it don't seems to me that they're performing bad!
Two totally different occupations homeboy! You're comparing apples with oranges.