I respectfully disagree.
It's about damn time the Army did this. Here is why...we use the wrong definition of diversity. We think of diversity as differences in color, gender, religion, ethnic origin, when it reality it doesn't mean squat. Let's use race as an example. I can find you a black, white, latino, asian, and mixed SF guy and as x sf med says, they are the same "rifle green". Crossed Arrows worn proudly, I can guarantee they are all type-A, aggressive, savvy, smart, talented guys that want to keep swinging the bat for America. That doesn't mean they think different or act different. They could all be arrogant rapport crushers (I've met them all) I can also find you men of all five color groups previously mentioned who "grew up in poor/broken homes, went to bad schools, had bad parents, no parents, or single parents, never had any money, and overcame a metric ton of adversity to achieve their goals but someone mentored them correctly (coach, parent, teacher, etc.)" Different skin colors, but the same experience. That quoted line is the contextual background for affirmative action, minority admissions, and other such programs. Just having the color wheel represented within an organization does not denote diversity. It is the breadth of individual experiences which creates diversity.
Breadth of experience, broad experiences, DIVERSE experiences. This is what we, the military, civilian companies, other organizations should strive for.
The best boss I ever had before going into SF was a female from the Transportation Corps. She was also homosexual, at a time when it was illegal to be open. She was the best for a number of reasons, not the least of which were her competence, common sense, and focus on the mission. She was an exceptional leader for all the reasons we define leaders as exceptional (competence, integrity, aggressive, physically fit, ability to accomplish the mission, care for soldiers, etc). The point is, the fact she is female or homosexual should not matter. She was the best boss I ever had between 2005 and 2011, period.
Ranger Psych is correct. Plenty of men tried and failed at Ranger School, SFAS, the Infantry, or any number of difficult things within the military. There are certain men and women I've encountered that I never trusted in combat or training. Thankfully, they left units quickly or were marginalized to minimize negative impact on the force. There are men and women I've encountered who are exceptional Soldiers in combat and training. I've been lucky and fortunate to fight the enemy by their side. Sure, there may be only 1-2 women who could pass Ranger School or Infantry School but hell, why not? They bleed the same as us, they are as smart as us, can be as aggressive as us, etc. This is where Capt Serrano is incorrect.
The mission is gender-neutral. Combat is gender-neutral. Physical fitness is gender-neutral. The ability to carry a ruck, weapon, and your buddy under fire is gender-neutral. The word Soldier is gender-neutral! The right Soldiers will accomplish all of those tasks successfully, and then some. Uphold the one same standard we all know to be true, and our survivability on the battlefield is not negatively affected. Any boss worth his salt is going to select the best team to accomplish the mission, period. There were days I didn't take my female CST on patrol but it wasn't because they were women...it was because they were not going to help me accomplish the mission. I took both ladies in support of a commando op once and it proved most successful. The same goes for the female CA medic I worked with. Some teams didn't want a female on their firebase but a couple others, including mine, took the approach of "well, we have three SOCM trained medics now...better for us!".
The brotherhood exists whether there are women around or not, and truly exists overseas. Ask any Soldier...a man can ruin the feeling of Brotherhood just as easily. It's called "personality conflicts." Sure, the CA folks, CSTs, and other enablers knew that they weren't SF Soldiers but they never tried to act like SF soldiers. They performed as competent, aggressive, well-trained Soldiers and on that foundation we built successful teamwork. Performance matters, and mission accomplishment with the best team has primacy.
Assault and harassment occurred with women outside of the Infantry, and unfortunately will continue within it. It's a leadership issue and a character issue. Men and women of good moral compass will not participate in such acts, period. Our entire SOTF did not have a signal incident occur over the last five years. That is more common than people think or know.
Capt Serrano is right on two counts: it isn't about the individual, and the infantry isn't broken. I counter that all team members should have opportunities to serve in all capacities and just because something isn't broken doesn't mean it can't become something better. Soldier is a gender-neutral, ethnic-neutral, color-neutral term. The same goes for Airman, Marine, Sailor, and Guardsman. The mission we conduct is gender neutral, as are the known requirements to conduct that mission successfully. Meet the requirements, accomplish the mission.
Who cares about whether the Soldier in charge, getting an award, getting promoted, or getting kicked out for doing something dumb is black, white, asian, latino, mixed, male, female, gay, or straight? If the Army is serious about diversity, it will get rid of those metrics. If it is serious about diversity, it will focus on the Soldier, breadth of experience, and proper talent management throughout the ranks.
The End!
