Facebook COO (Never Served Civilian)- “There Aren’t Enough Female Leaders”
This week at the Air Force Academy Facebook’s COO, Cheryl Sandberg told cadets that there is a bias problem in the military in regards to gender.
What Sandberg was getting at is that there’s a lack of women in positions of power in the military.
This is a fact which is absolutely true- but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong, and it’s not necessarily a “lack”.
Sure, in the multi-acre wonderland headquarters of Facebook in California, political correctness and gender equality is a great idea and should be encouraged.
The military on the other hand doesn’t need to necessarily follow the same set of guidelines. When we look at almost all senior-leadership positions in the military especially for divisions or large commands, there’s a trend- most every leader has come up in a combat arms branch.
Why? Because you aren’t going to put someone who spent their career as a transportation officer in charge of a division whose job is to deploy and kill people. The transportation officer isn’t qualified to lead men into combat and develop wartime operational doctrine.
As we all know, women are currently barred from serving in a combat capacity, so yes, they are technically prevented from even gaining the skills and experience that would qualify them to assume these commands.
And then there’s the argument that women can pass Ranger School, so they must have the capability to serve in combat roles. Admittedly, I even once wrote a piece commending the women who passed Ranger School. Then however, it was released that the women who did pass had special privileges and treatment not afforded to their male counterparts; women were allowed to recycle certain parts of the school that men weren’t; before ever attending the school the women had special instruction in physical training and nutrition- essentially the “Ranger School experiment” was gamed.
Here’s the fact of the matter- the purpose of combat arms troops is to pick up the biggest thing they can, and then fucking smash it. And what it comes down to is men more often than not are more naturally equipped for the task.
Granted, some women can outperform 99% of all men in the service, but they are the exception. The military can’t afford to open up say, 30% of it’s slots for infantry training to women seeing as how (in proportion to men) a much larger percentage would fail- the Marines have already released a study confirming this.
We aren’t fighting battles like Stalingrad anymore- wars aren’t won by throwing more bodies (and taking more losses) at the enemy than they have bullets.
Of course the other alternative is to lower the standard so that more people are able to pass OSUT. However lowering the standard for everyone certainly isn’t an acceptable option for obvious reasons.
Furthermore, look at most patrol and firebases in warzones, occupied by a platoon or two of combat arms soldiers- these guys aren’t walking around in suits and writing orchestra pieces, a devolution of society and modern social norms takes place on these bases. It’s almost impossible to describe the actual atmosphere to someone who hasn’t been there, but to those who have they can instantly identify it. In short- these firebases and patrol bases aren’t places for women. No, it’s not politically correct but you know what, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t get the job done.
War is a zero-sum game, either you win or you lose. Making sure everyone feels special or that there’s an “appropriate” level of female leadership does nothing to enhance the kinetic ability of the U.S. Military.
About the author: Andrew Farquharson is an Iraq Campaign veteran and an ex-cavalry scout currently living the dream in Newport, Rhode Island as a college student. Aside from writing for 11Bravos his hobbies include mountain climbing, shooting guns and convincing women they should date him. Comments or hate mail can be sent email@example.com or, follow him on Instagram @Lord_Farquharson