The first female passes the Army's Special Forces Assessment and Selection

[cduggles]

Woman qualifies for special forces training, on path to be first female Green Beret

A woman has qualified for training with the Army?s special forces and could become the first female Green Beret, according to the Army Times.

The woman, who was not named by the Army, passed the 24-day Special Forces Assessment and Selection and will move on to the qualification course that can take up to two years, according to The Fayetteville Observer.

The Army?s special forces units have only been open to women since 2016, the Army Times reports. Since then, several women have tried to pass the selection course, but none has made it through, according to the Army Times.

?Recently, a female successfully completed Special Forces Assessment and Selection and was selected to attend the Special Forces Qualification Course,? special forces spokesman Lt. Col. Loren Bymer told the Army Times. ?We?re proud of all the candidates who attended and were selected to continue into the qualification course in hopes of earning their Green Beret.?

The Fayetteville Observer reports Green Beret selection course ?is considered one of the most grueling selection processes in the U.S. military.? The qualification course, which soldiers must pass before receiving the Green Beret, is conducted at Fort Bragg.

?If she completes training to become a Special Forces soldier, she would open one of the last remaining all-male fraternities of the Army ? the Special Forces Operational Detachment-Alpha, or A-team,? The Fayetteville Observer notes.

?No matter what happens next, the fact the woman passed Special Forces Assessment and Selection is a major achievement. The training is both physically and mentally brutal and has a high washout rate,? writes the online military magazine Task & Purpose.

The woman who qualified might never be identified. The Army special operations spokesman told Task & Purpose: ?It is our policy to not release the names of our service members because Special Forces Soldiers perform discrete missions upon graduation.?

?Please respect the decision of these soldiers to enter into this profession by protecting their identity to the fullest extent,? the spokesman said, according to the website.

In September, Defense Secretary James Mattis said the ?jury is out? on whether women have been successful in combat roles with the U.S. military, according to CNN. The military opened all infantry and combat roles to women starting in January 2016, CNN notes.

?This is a policy I inherited, and so far the cadre is so small we have no data on it. We?re hoping to get data soon,? Mattis said, according to CNN. ?Right now, it?s not even dozens, it?s that few.?

But, CNN reports, Mattis said the military will give the program allowing women in combat roles ?every opportunity to succeed if it can.?

 

[zephyr]

Good on her.


Dont see the point in having an article like this "first woman to" thing since it's clear she is anonymous, she wont be any different to anyone else and respect of equal value to anyone willing to join up as hell I wouldn't.

Lots of identity politics here, but this is not so bad since it's a physical achievement , I suppose females would have more dexterity maybe but combat is combat, so hand to hand combat would be difficult against a foe that's bulky.


I thought there were heaps around already but guess not. There are in the navy right?


Yep. Good on her, well done. God no. Lol.

 

[jpgrdnr]

Qualifying is one thing. Passing it is another. Just by watching the docs of BUD/s training. Nothing against women in combat roles, but that stuff is scary. Very much some Right Stuff kinda thing. I always laugh at Dan Bilzerian saying he could have passed. Buddy, they have to like you. You can jump thru all the hoops. But it aint gonna matter.

Thats my armchair comment. :D

 

[PriestTheyCalledHim]

Qualifying is one thing. Passing it is another. Just by watching the docs of BUD/s training. Nothing against women in combat roles, but that stuff is scary. Very much some Right Stuff kinda thing. I always laugh at Dan Bilzerian saying he could have passed. Buddy, they have to like you. You can jump thru all the hoops. But it aint gonna matter.

Thats my armchair comment. :D

Yeah, I have relatives who were in special forces, Navy SEAL program, as well as the special forces or military police in other countries. They all said how the requirements would have to basically be dumbed down for a woman, or that the woman who actually qualified would have to have extremely high testosterone levels, or be taking testosterone.

 

[invegauser]

@zephyr: on a lighter end it's a play on from the movie with demi moore called G.I. Jane. on a heavier note it's good women are accomplishing this but she is in the spotlight as setting a new standard let a lone seeing if women fail. well see what happens.

we have army, navy and air force (now spaceforce thanks to some idgit), they have their own special services forces attached to each one. the air force guys have a tendency to try and apply to become astronauts. not all of them, some do. others are test subjects for latest airplanes (or drones now).

army green beret is like somewhere between the navy's seals and marines. beret's were said to rival the seals who are cream of the crop imo (similar to UK's SAS). we used them in order to infiltrate and set up new systems using the existing populace and materials on hand in whatever country they landed in. i believe it was greenies who trained bin laden, them or the CIA. Rambo from the movies was a green beret. i think army rangers replaced the green berets for awhile when they were disbanded or something happened to them. you would have to do research or have someone more up on it than me elaborate on it.

either way as long as the woman can do the job that's all i care about. no matter if your a woman or man, you make the cut, live up to the standard requirements and do your job then your good in my book.

 

[cduggles]

Yeah, I have relatives who were in special forces, Navy SEAL program, as well as the special forces or military police in other countries. They all said how the requirements would have to basically be dumbed down for a woman, or that the woman who actually qualified would have to have extremely high testosterone levels, or be taking testosterone.

Perhaps "dumbed down" isn't the best choice of words?

After all, most men can't pass those tests.

No source I read stated that the requirements were changed for this woman.

 

[zephyr]

Dumbed down is fine, really imo, it's no big deal in comparison to the expectations of a job, I'd say the military are brutal and wouldn't accommodate sensitivities like that .

 

[invegauser]

@cduggles: i think there was ample enough evidence to support the discussion of why women in armed forces would be a problem in another thread. i didn't think we had to resort to low balling.

yep, still sharp.

though i do have concerns of my own. i'm not allowed to join armed forces (i'm too ugly apparently) but if i was i would be hesitant about women having my back. men are one thing, if they crumble under pressure you smack them around a lil and wake em up. you can expect them to fire randomly and keep enemies at bay.

a woman might be able to do what men can do physically, not all women can. plus women are not always prone to conflict. women have a higher emotional IQ than men do, yes. men tend to be more internally in conflict in nature than women are. this suppression of dealing with their more violent emotions may lead to a hesitancy when the time counts when it all comes boiling to the surface. war is not a pretty thing, nor does it make sense. it is ugly, volatile and chaotic by it's very nature.

i am not saying this is a guarantee, i'm expressing possibilities is all.

side note: if i was allowed to join and if i did, i would give a woman a chance. (it doesn't hurt the fact i've seen a woman kick a mans ass before irl.)

i have always wondered if the tests were set too high or even the men are not able to pass them lately because we are becoming more docile in nature. not up to snuff so to speak.

@zephyr: haha, agreed.

 

[cduggles]

Dumbed down is fine, really imo, it's no big deal in comparison to the expectations of a job, I'd say the military are brutal and wouldn't accommodate sensitivities like that .

When I'm in the special forces, I'll be sure to toughen up! :D

 

[zephyr]

Look, I am pretty sure anyone who passes their intense training, has the stamina and drive and balls ( literally or figuratively) would be capable considering the military life is something tath could let us in on, it's a life not a job, military are family sorta thing, no woman who could not last will last like blokes wouldn't.

I have a dickhead ex friend bloke who ran away from the navy and he is a big tough hard cunt so men can be pussies pardon my French.

Quite frankly if a bloke is too chicken shit and doubtful of her ability to have his back then he is more a danger to himself, shes equal, that's it get over it.


Practical things like what to do about periods would be a problem. But that's her problem, theres injections for that blot on freedom.

I wonder if PTSD would present differently or coped with better or worse, no idea, not a clue, she could be important to study later on.

 

[invegauser]

ya, i edited this post cause i need to chill out.

i'll go back to my space under the stairs and be a good inveggy now, i promise.

 

[cduggles]

@cduggles: i think there was ample enough evidence to support the discussion of why women in armed forces would be a problem in another thread.

men are one thing, if they crumble under pressure you smack them around a lil and wake em up. you can expect them to fire randomly and keep enemies at bay.

The ones not shot in the back while deserting, right? :D

There are a few dozen women in combat positions, according to Sec of Defense Mattis, for less than three years in the US military in combat positions.

I'm repeating myself from somewhere (it's all a blur...), but I would like to see readiness data. Until then...

a woman might be able to do what men can do physically, not all women can.

We're talking about an elite military force, for which upper body strength is currently a differentiating factor in general between men and women. And between men.

As in Serena Williams might not be #1 in men's tennis, but she isn't number 1 billion either...

I expect that differential to become less important... like the advent of power steering made it a lot easier to drive forklifts.

plus women are not always prone to conflict.

It's less physical in most cultures but I wouldn't wholly agree with that statement.

women have a higher emotional IQ than men do, yes.

Or that one. :D

men tend to be more internally in conflict in nature than women are. this suppression of dealing with their more violent emotions may lead to a hesitancy when the time counts when it all comes boiling to the surface. war is not a pretty thing, nor does it make sense. it is ugly, volatile and chaotic by it's very nature.

i am not saying this is a guarantee, i'm expressing possibilities is all.

Which is fine.

Women have always been in war though, unwittingly or in roles that might not have had violence in the job description, but don't forget that Florence Nightingale has to take an Uzi and hose down some enemy spies. Fact.

Of course, Women have always served an important role in the military. My only issue with the current state of affairs is the front line service aspect. Women on the front lines in combat roles cause a lot of issues that don't otherwise happen. It's hard for Women to remain in the field where they don't have access to hygiene products for example.

I have to just squash this and agree with Zephyr that women can easily suppress menstruation with hormones-- Depo-Provera, for example. (Or maybe all the testerone they're taking 8)).

Also, men need rations, bullets and etc. I think it's an issue when using the latrine, but I assume we can discuss it in uncomfortable detail. :D

The main issue is the fact that the men around them will make decisions they otherwise wouldn't. If you have a case where a man would normally be left behind/for dead things change dramatically if you replace that man with a woman. The Army has done several studies on this and found that men will take risks to save a woman that they wouldn't take otherwise. It's just ingrained instinct and the Army has been unable to find a way to train it out of soldiers.

You see that as a "presence of females" problem, I see that as a training issue.

And nothing can solve all anticipated problems except data and honest answers.

For example, the presence of a woman ends up with every man around her competing for attention/sex/companionship. People get jealous of each other (again, instinct) and problems come up that don't happen in an all male social circle.

I see that one as a "male behavior problem".

I know you disagree on this point but there have been several studies done on this that seem to get buried in the name on political correctness. I can recall one incident where women were being flown out every few days for showers while the men were forced to spend many months deployed without leaving base. It's hard to leave a woman in the field without resupply for too long because of the hygiene issue where males can stay out for far longer without worries of suffering major complications.

I've been in the field with the military as a civilian. The only big problem the women faced was rape by a peacekeeping force and military members.

I wasn't going to get more security than a civilian guy (although I was asked if they behaved inappropriately, which only one guy did. That was taken care of "unofficially" by some other guys, so that was that.), so I passed a proficiency test and carried.

No I didn't shoot anyone and yes I was terrified. It was a v unstable situation on the ground.

There is also the issue of the Army having to lower standards on physical tests so more women could pass. In the field this would become an issue because they may not be able to render assistance to a fellow soldier due to being unable to lift their weight.

That is entirely possible. So is a guy shot in the leg being dead weight.

This goes deeper than just the Army/front lines. I don't have a problem with co-ed institutions for people mind you. I just think there needs to be a balance where you can have clubs/boys only/girls only being allowed as well. A lot of the issues we are currently having with men probably come from the fact that male-only spaces have been pretty much totally eliminated in society now. This leads to a huge lack of male bonding and places where men can be men. Currently, we live in a society where a male-only club is demonized for not allowing women in but women/girl only clubs are not. We need a healthy balance between co-ed and non co-ed social clubs.

I get it, but a lot of business gets done on the golf course. What can you do?

I think every kind of integration is difficult for BOTH parties, but I think there's a bit too much of looking for problems and excluding others, as opposed to utilizing strengths, which is what functional groups do.

This discussion I'm enjoying. Hope y'all are too!

 

[invegauser]

@cduggles: you bring up good points and a few good laughs. it's embarrassing having to eat crow cause a woman said something smarter than most men.

proof is still in the pudding luv. i don't doubt women are up to it or capable, just hypothesizing and killing time until it's been proven by more than one woman in special forces of any kind and in several actual combat situations.

if a woman can do the job that's all that counts and i wouldn't have a problem with that.

 

[JessFR]

Yeah, I have relatives who were in special forces, Navy SEAL program, as well as the special forces or military police in other countries. They all said how the requirements would have to basically be dumbed down for a woman, or that the woman who actually qualified would have to have extremely high testosterone levels, or be taking testosterone.

See this is the thing Ive never been able to make sense of.

The point of making certain roles in military services male only is supposedly because of fitness standards. OK, fine. But why not just apply that standard to everyone? Apply the same standard to men and women, and if 99% of women can't make it, fine. That's still a fair assessment for a genuine legitimate reason.

Having two standards makes no sense and totally undermines the original rationale, and having one test with artificial arbitrary restrictions is stupid.

Just have the standards and apply it to everyone. Either you can do it, or you can't. Easy.

Of course the other rationale for barring women is reproductive realities meaning a society will collapse much easier by losing most of its women than more of its men. Were we in a situation where that were a plausible outcome then that'd be fine. But right now it's not, we're a long way from that being a risk. So right now that rationale is bs too.

 

[w01fg4ng]

I've done some pretty physically and mentally demanding things such as a 3 week expedition to the top and back of the highest mountain in the world (outside of Asia).

I'm pretty sure I'd have a tough time making it through that training if at all. It's cute watching the people in this thread talk about how much things would need to be dumbed down for women though...like I'm sure your keyboard warrior skills would really come in handy during training guy...or not.

 

[jpgrdnr]

From what I've seen flunking out of the course had nothing to do with physical fitness (although Hell Week I guess is a bit of culling). People either passed the technical challenges related to combat diving or they didn't. The instructors put them thru endurance tests which were deadly, and flunking out due to medical seemed common. This isn't the place for people looking for a higher pay grade. Lest we forget, the men and women who attempt these courses are already full members of the Armed Forces. Hell, I'm not even an American.

 

[tathra]

See this is the thing Ive never been able to make sense of.

The point of making certain roles in military services male only is supposedly because of fitness standards. OK, fine. But why not just apply that standard to everyone? Apply the same standard to men and women, and if 99% of women can't make it, fine. That's still a fair assessment for a genuine legitimate reason.

its just your standard misogynistic bullshit, fitness standards have nothing to do with it. i heard all kinds of bs justifications for why women werent allowed in combat arms MOSes when i was in the infantry, basically all the same bullshit for why homosexuals shouldnt be allowed in the military. since DADT was repealed and combat arms are also de-segregated now, there's plenty of empirical proof that all those excuses were little more than bigoted bullshit.

 

[zephyr]

What's it like though, really, the whole combat role prep and going into conflict zones?


Because from this thread, it seems that ppl think they can decide to give this woman a chance if they were a bloke in the same infantry or whatever squadron thing.

I thought that there isnt actually that option of giving your fellow personnel a "chance".

Basically you're all in it, fucking just get on with it and have the generous luxury of knowing you got each others backs.

I doubt anyone would expect to be treated any diff than just friend or foe in combat.






(As for feminine hygiene, tampons and hands, and cramps. Everyone shits, and that's gross, dont see the army carrying bog rolls, women and having internal genitals and bacteria and stuff, penises are very useful, count yourself lucky really)

 

[cduggles]

Is a "bog roll" = toilet paper?

 

[HeadphonesandLSD]

I am not surprised by the news given the lowering of standards across the board for the entire Army in the name of getting new recruits. It isn't just women they're currently letting in all sorts of people that didn't previously qualify or meet the standards. Regardless of my own opinion on the subject I do not think lowering the standards is a good idea. The Military is not the place for virtue signaling or diversity quotas.

Concerning the special forces in particular:

https://www.npr.org/2017/12/15/5708...ets-accused-from-within-of-lowering-standards

The Army's Green Berets have gained a reputation over the decades for their toughness and fighting skills. They served with local forces in Vietnam, and in recent years, they've deployed repeatedly to Iraq and Afghanistan. The list of their deployments continues to grow: Niger. Somalia. Yemen. Syria. Philippines.

Now a fight appears to be growing inside the Green Beret community.

An anonymous and scathing 12-page letter that begins ? "Our Regiment has a cancer, and it is destroying the SF (Special Forces) legacy, its capability and its credibility" ? has gone viral over the past few weeks among active-duty and retired soldiers.

It charges that the Green Beret command at its Fort Bragg, N.C., school has lowered training standards and graduated Green Berets who are "markedly and demonstrably weaker; and quantifiably projecting measurable risk and liability onto the teammates with which they serve."

It is signed: "A concerned Green Beret."

The letter writer's identity remains a mystery at the John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School at Fort Bragg. But the command does not dispute its authenticity and has responded with a letter of its own, signed by the officer who runs the school, Maj. Gen. Kurt Sonntag. It's addressed to the men and women at the school.

"Many of you have seen the anonymous letter calling into question the integrity of our training standards and the quality of the Soldiers being produced. Let me be clear," Sonntag writes in his letter, a copy of which was provided to NPR by the command, "I would be proud to serve with each and every one of our Special Forces Qualification Course graduates, and I stand behind the quality of every Soldier we send to the operational force."

The general went on to say that "no fundamental SF standard has been removed. No academic or character performance standards have been adjusted."

The Green Berets community weighs in

NPR reached out to nearly a dozen current and former Green Berets ? none of whom wanted their names used ? and got a mixed reaction to the dispute.

Some see the anonymous letter writer as disgruntled or lacking in sufficient experience or being unaware of the bigger picture, namely the difficulty in recruiting and retaining Green Berets.

There are some 7,000 active-duty Green Berets, and officials say they could lose hundreds in the coming years because of the strain of repeated deployments and failure to meet recruiting targets.

Others say the letter writer is raising some important issues.

They contend that the quality of the Special Forces soldiers has decreased for at least several years. "We don't want to lose quality for quantity," said one veteran Green Beret stationed at Fort Bragg, who requested anonymity. "You can't mass produce special operators."

This noncommissioned officer said that he only has a few years left to serve and that he'll stick it out. But if he had 10 more years, he says, he would opt out. He said the loss of veteran operators and the increase in less-competent Green Berets is having an impact.

"It's killing morale," he said.

Still, this Green Beret empathized with the command.

"I see it from both sides. The recruiting pool is gone. They're in a tough spot."

One Green Beret who served with Sonntag in Afghanistan praised his leadership skills and recalled him saying that all Green Berets have a responsibility to make sure every one of them succeeds.

Charges are detailed and specific

In the anonymous letter, the "concerned Green Beret" takes on physical fitness workouts ? where he claims that instructors are punished for making them too hard ? and says there are instances of favoritism and cheating.

The author's examples of below-standard students and maligned trainers are complete with names, rank, units and dates.

As far as training, the anonymous letter says students can no longer wash out for failing to pass physical tests, ranging from a 5-mile run to a 12-mile march with a heavy pack to dozens of pushups and situps. Instead, these tests became "diagnostic" to determine the student's level of achievement.

The only way out of Green Beret training is voluntarily withdrawal or injury.

"To say that standards have not been eliminated would be laughable, were it not so tragic," the anonymous letter states.

In his letter, Sonntag defended the diagnostic approach as opposed to simply washing out a student.

Such an effort gives instructors "more time to prepare the students for these events. Students must meet these standards prior to joining the operational force," the general wrote.

Those who applied and passed the physical tests and assessment to become a Green Beret student, the general wrote, should be able to make it through the more than yearlong qualifying course. If such an assessment "is correct, and we believe it is, the [Special Forces Qualifying Course] is not a place where high attrition rates should occur."

Sonntag declined an interview request from NPR. Instead, he agreed to address a few questions through his staff.

The anonymous letter writer says one Green Beret officer during a meeting ordered a 92 percent pass rate, though Sonntag says, "There has been no graduation percentage set by any level of command." The school declined to talk about graduation rates, but one current Green Beret said his class a decade ago saw more than 50 percent fail.

Sonntag did offer one statistic in his letter to the school: "In 2017, more than 2,000 Soldiers attempted the [Special Forces Assessment and Selection], and 541 graduated from the [Special Forces Qualifying Course]."

But he offered no numbers on how many passed the assessment and made it into the qualifying course, so there is no sense of the fail rate.

The anonymous letter writer claims there is a reason the standards are being adjusted: To bring in female candidates, a view supported by one of the Green Berets contacted by NPR. The Pentagon allowed women to apply for Green Beret training two years ago. Only a handful have tried; none have passed.

But Sonntag also denies that standards have in any way been altered to bring in more female students, saying in response to an NPR question: "That is not the case. Special operations training is inclusive, and each candidate is held to the same standard."

The general ends his letter to the troops by saying he wants a "healthy dialogue as a means of improvement."

"Every level of command," the general writes, "has been encouraged to challenge the current process, phasing and training methodology to ensure (the school's) training remains relevant."