A recent edition of the Washington Times reports, “The Marine Corps’ historic experiment to allow women to take part in its Infantry Officer Course ended with zero graduates.”

The Marines’ experiment began about two years ago. Twenty-nine women volunteered. Only four survived the course beyond the first day. The last two washed out on April 2nd of this year.

The Marine Corps and the Army have been conducting extensive research and experiments to test the prospects for women to serve in direct combat units. This is in response to a 2013 directive by then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. At that time the Obama Administration announced that, by 2016, it intends to repeal regulations exempting women serving in the military in direct ground combat units.

It may not be acceptable to say this anymore in the military, but there are certain physical realities in life and one of them is that men are physically stronger than women.

A comprehensive study recently completed in Great Britain lays out the physiological facts including that women have smaller hearts than men, and about 30% less muscle. We have slighter skeletons with wider pelvic bones resulting in less explosive power and upper body strength. The report concludes that these
differences “disadvantage women by 20 to 40%; so for the same output women have to work harder than men.”  Output means “survivability and lethality” — in other words: being able to stay alive and kill the enemy. Women will die and sustain injury at much higher rates than men.

The only way to get women to meet standards for combat is to dumb them down, which is exactly what Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey is advocating. He says if women cannot meet a certain standard, senior commanders had better have a good reason why that standard should not be lowered.
Elaine Donnelly, President of the Center for Military Readiness said of the push to bring women into the infantry, “Land combat on the same involuntary basis as men would promote ideology, not women.”

The purpose of the military is to win wars, not to be a laboratory for social experimentation. This whole idea of placing women in the most dangerous and physically demanding combat positions defies logic and, now, test results.

Military women are not clamoring to be in combat. In an official Army survey, 92.5% of women said they would not serve in combat positions. Trouble is, according to Elaine Donnelly, they won’t have a choice. She points out that women have already been horribly injured working in convoys and doing other jobs that do not directly engage the enemy. But the new “gender diversity metrics,” require it.

Feminists — some not even in the military — and certain ambitious female officers see this as a necessary badge of equality. With these dismal test results, Elaine Donnelly wonders: “How will military leaders
handle the truth?” It’s a good question.