E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
NBC News
1st Lt. Audrey Moton is seen at the Army's Sapper Leader Training course for combat engineers at Fort Leonard Wood in Missouri.
While the Pentagon brass and U.S. military leaders are struggling over how to bring women into ground combat training, two young female soldiers have already proven they've got what it takes to join their male counterparts on the battlefield.
1st Lt. Audrey Moton and 2nd Lt. Carley Turnnidge, both West Point graduates, took on the Army's Sapper Leader Training course for combat engineers at Fort Leonard Wood in Missouri. It's one of the toughest combat training courses in the entire U.S. military and the only course of its kind that accepts women. Since 1999, nearly 60 women have made the grade.
For more on women in combat, watch NBC Nightly News' two-part series. Part One airs on Saturday, Dec. 1.
Sapper training may be dirty, grueling and bordering on physical torture but petite women are proving their strength alongside their bigger, beefier soldiers. NBC's Jim Miklaszewski reports.
Moton at 5'6'', and Turnnidge, barely reaching 5'4'', faced 28 grueling days of physical torture with little sleep or food. But that was only half the challenge. Training alongside 36 larger, more muscular male soldiers, both instinctively felt that as women they had to prove they could hold their own. They did.
Turnnidge, a high school and West Point soccer star, went above and beyond the call. After failing in tactical operations in her first try, remarkably, she took the course twice -- 56 straight days without a break. In a training swim, Turnnidge had to drag her exhausted male partner back across the lake. Moton vigorously trained to get in shape before she ever got to the course and believes she and Turnnidge actually motivated the men. "They'd think, 'Wait, I don't wanna get beat by a girl.' Well, then run faster," she said. "I'm not going to stop."
While women are permitted to fly fighter jets and attack helicopters in combat missions, Pentagon policy prohibits female soldiers and Marines from serving in direct ground combat roles. In the past 11 years of guerrilla-style combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, those battle lines were essentially erased. More than 130 female service members were killed and 800 wounded. This week the American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal lawsuit to lift the ban on women in combat.
Both Moton and Turnnidge passed the course and earned the coveted title "SAPPER." While it will likely open doors for future promotions and positions of leadership, they have no illusions they'll ever see ground combat themselves, but believe they're helping pave the way for other female soldiers in the future. "It sets me apart from my peers," Turnnidge said, "and over time more women will be able to prove themselves."
Moton is convinced with proper training and personal commitment, women will inevitably see duty in ground combat. "Down the road, we'll see many more women doing this. We're gettin' there."
Major Mary Jennings Hegar is among a group that is suing the U.S. military over a ban on women serving in combat. Hegar explains the lawsuit to MSNBC's Alex Witt.
More content from NBCNews.com:
- 66 species of coral proposed for protection by US
- College students witness murder suicide in class
- Wikileaks case: Manning asked why he didn't complain earlier
- Missouri Powerball jackpot winners revealed: 'We’re still stunned by what’s happened'
- Mystery man claims winning Powerball ticket ... in Maryland?
- Harvard latest college to accept BDSM club
Leave a Comment:
Next for those 4 tomboys is to file a multimillion sexual harassment suit against the military. That is strictly business, show bustiness.
MnM526, first, thanks for serving. But I will disagree with you. The numbers don't lie.
I can see it already: Mr. White-male soldier sacrifices his life to save a female-colleague during combat. He's her/our hero! This will happen thousands of times, over.
To the supporters of this asinine policy: Why stop with allowing them to engage in direct combat? Put them - women - on the front-line. Promote one to be a five-star general. Nominate one to be the commander of the Joint-Chiefs-of-Staff. We've seen the damage that they can do as Secretary-of-State.
Petraues and other Generals: Multiply it by infinity, take it to the depth of forever, and we still won't have a grasp of the stupidity of this proposal.
Eh, this is mostly all for officers who have no technical specialty and can't get that bird on their shoulder before retirement without combat experience.
You hit it straight on...0's trying to "punch that ticket" regardless of how it affects the rest!
Combat Engineer Sapper Course? Elite? Are they serious? My hats off to the women that qualified, but it is not " Elite ". Go do RAP, Ranger School, SFAS, and SFQC, then you can start talking elite.
On a lighter side, as long as the women can keep up with the men, carry the same load, not cry and pout when they get a boo boo, and pull the trigger when crunch time comes, I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to spill their guts with the rest of us. Don't expect us to slow down for you though, it'll cost more lives. Just my opinion for equal gender rights.
Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.
One fight One standard. Meet it of die trying.
Agree 100%.
15 years in for me before getting all broken. If women can meet CURRENT standards and the Army waters down NOTHING to make it easier for them, then more power to the women that pass.
No difference whatsoever between what is required male and female WITHOUT weakening the male standard.
The biggest pain in the arse in the combat zone was women that were squemish abouit certain things in front of males. Many females that enter the Army don't think about the fact that they may be popping a squat by a truck tire in the wide open desert one day and won't have much privacy. I knew quite a few who developed thick skins and just didn't care... respected those women soldiers.
Just a warning.. you WILL need a thick skin and no a SGT. won't help you get down from the back of the five ton! (Yes one actually asked me to do that once, she caught an EARFUL!)
why do women try so hard to be men, ill never understand it.
Women have been serving in direct combat roles since 2001. What's the big deal? The enemy can't tell the difference between a bullet fired by a male or female when it passes through his (or her) head.
If females want access to courses like Sapper and Ranger, they must meet the same standard as males if they want to earn the same respect. There are no pink Ranger Tabs.
I don't mean to trivialize but im retired Army and the Sappers course isn't "elite" and the school changed their PT requirements for the women to pass, as well as their physical mandates changed for Male and Female.. as I have always stated, dont change a thing in any course, especially the elite courses such as SFAS, Ranger, Seals or force recon.. they are "elite"... Sapper, Airborne, etc are not "elite".. control what they determine as elite, its comical. If a female can pass an "Elite" course without ANY changes then, and only then, will I believe it. Ive spent far to many years in the military and I've see them bend over backwards for females.. lets call it like we see it and stop trying to sugarcoat it. This does get real old, they have been doing this for years now and I guess they think people are flat stupid.. this has been going on for 20+ years now.. its NOT going to happen.
Agreed... if women want fair, and equal, treatment, then the standards are the highest standards. Why dumb it down just so women can join?
I doubt there are many Sappers that want a weaker woman to have his back... when you need her most she MAY not be able there... if they are all held to the higher MALE standards, then those questions are mute...
I can't believe it - folks posting here still saying that women do not belong on the battlefield - you folk with that mind set; do you think that the women who crossed this continent in cloth covered wagons had protectors? do you honestly believe that they couldn't ride and shoot with the best of them? Do you honestly believe that a woman doesn't have what it takes to protect her family, or her brothers on the battlefield or are you just being contrary? Women have been warriors since the year one. I'm happy to see that 1st LT Moton & 2nd LT Turnnidge have raised the bar for the rest of us. Hoorah!
If you honestly "believe" what you have written then it just portrays you as one who is inexperienced, and one that holds an opinion.. anyone can have an opinion. Now if you have walked the walk, talked the talk and served in some form of the military in a mans world we can talk and compare notes in a polite debate. However, if you haven't even broken a sweat in the world of combat and horror you need not apply. Make sure your argument is worth its weight in facts and wisdom, not born of what you "wish" to think.
what planet are you on......put these fit women in a boxing ring with fit men.....and just see what happens......
If women want to be able to die for their country, then I say "go for it". But as a prior service Amry, there was NO WAY I would want a female doing the same job I did if she wasn't on the same physical level as I was held to. It's a fact that the US Military dumbs down the physical requirements for females. They must achieve 75% of the LOWEST male standard. That means, she does NOT have to be in the same physical shape as her weakest male counterpart. You really want THAT to rely on in combat situations? For a clerk, a paper pusher, or any othe desk jockey, that's fine. But to have to carry you two or three k's becuse you're wounded, not so much.
Have those women held to the same standard as men, or don't have them taking jobs that their male counterparts want...
Hmmmm..."raised" the bar? Lowering standards hardly qualifies as "raising" any bar. Grabbing at straws for recognition doesn't qualify as leadership either.
well if they are fit for combat against men....first put them into a boxing ring against men...........
Any Army hand-to-hand combat instructor will tell that if you are in situation where you have to use what they are teaching, you are already FUBAR. Even in spec ops groups like the Navy SEALs, having killed a man with a knife or bare hands is considered a rarity.
The main reason hand to hand and knife combat is taught and drilled heavily in the military is not because it's a necessary combat skill, it's because it teaches aggression and it's a good way to measure mental fortitude. Sure, they want soldiers to master the techniques and do it right, but the main takeaway from hand to hand combat training is not to see which soldiers win those fights. It's to see which soldiers keep getting up no matter how many times they get knocked down.
Win or lose? In combat your survival depends on winning. Losing gets you a black bag and a coffin. And this article is not about a true combat school. It is Combat engineer school. The people who sweep mine fields, build roadways and bridges. This article is false in giving women the idea that they passed a combat school. Infantry school, Ranger school, Seal course, Q-course are all combat schools. Airbourne school is tuff but it is not a combat school. I am 5'8" and 165 in weight, and would have a tuff time carrying a 225 lb soldier out of harms way. Also put me up against a 230 lb 6'4" enemy in hand to hand combat put the odds against me. That's reality, not this hyped up garbage. Yeah you may get up each time you are knocked down, but each time you get knocked down it takes its toll. Both physically and mentally, while your enemy is gaining confidence and maintains health and stability. So I do not agree with this statement about winning and losing. Winners get Medals pinned to their chests while alive, while loser get them put on their coffins. Combat does not have time outs, nor is it fair. It is Live or die, that's the facts people need to understand. I do not understand why any women would want this. If they do they got something to prove, and that is the wrong reason to die!
TCblanz-- but you miss the point completely. Yes, in combat, there are no prizes for second place. But even grads of infantry, Ranger, BUD/S, and Q-course almost never fight hand to hand. Almost never. The point of training in hand to hand combat is not because they think soldier will square of in single unarmed combat with an enemy. It's because they want to instill in soldiers a never quit, never out of the fight mentality that can only come from being punched in the face and standing up again.
The reality in a real fight, hand to hand, with a lethal enemy is that if you are knocked, you are dead. Military martial arts focus on quick kills and immediately focusing on lethal strikes, so it's not, like you are fantasizing, some rambo versus the russian fight where he gets beaten down and stands up over and over again until he wins.
If you are using your hand to hand training, your position has been overrun and you are out of ammo. FUBAR. In 10 years of 2 wars, you can probably count on both hands the number of times that has happened.
As to your question why any woman would want it, are you really so lacking in imagination that you cannot comprehend women wanting it for the same reason as a man would want it? Why are they not allowed the same motivations as men?
They are not men. The real "lacking in imagination" here, is that no matter what PC attempt surfaces to "create" a level playing field between males and females in this arena, is not going to be successful. The reality is that females are "tolerated" by their male counterparts. They have to be, to do otherwise would get them in serious trouble. Let's not pretend that it's otherwise. Where's the Infantry at? Why are there no "Grunts" being interviewed and asked their thoughts on this subject? Not going to happen. Where are the majority of female service members, and their thoughts on this? Not going to happen. Does anyone REALLY want all females to be subject to infantry assignments? Because that's how it would have to be...ALL would be subject to such assignments to "meet the service's needs." Or, maybe it would just be "voluntary." Raising that "bar" by lowering the standards? These are two female OFFICERS! This whole boondoggle is about "career enhancements"...for OFFICERS....FEMALE OFFICERS! So, to get this straight, simply because female OFFICERS (a minority) feel they are not "equal" to male counterparts for career enhancement (i.e., combat command experience = better chance for promotion), so ALL female service members (enlisted are the majority) should be eligible for infantry assignments (combat)to correct this inequality? And TWO are the example for the rest? BS! I spent over twenty years in the service (USMC & Army) as an enlisted Infantryman, and I know beyond a doubt, that the majority of female service members (officer & enlisted) ARE not, and DO not want to be infantry. Most males don't want to be Grunts! One here, one over there...doesn't make the case for the majority, let alone the Infantry. The military has been a test bed for social engineering far to long, and this issue here really brings out the utter stupidity of that. Something to ponder.
I wonder when we are going to see female NFL players?
Putting them in the infantry makes even less sense...
Also, these officers will be sitting behind their air conditioned desks or observing their enlisted soldiers working and saying to each other "remember how tough that training was?"
I think it's great to have women (and gays) in combat rolls... why should straight men be the only one's that are dieing for thier country?? If these idots want to go to combat, have at it!
But one thing... and this article doesn't touch on it... IF women want to be treated as men, then they should have the same standards as men. As it is, now, the women have only to achieve 75% of the minimum physical training requirements as men do... IF they can achieve that, and I know many that can, then, God bless them, let them have the jobs. Don't expect me to Rah Rah thes phonies when I know they really didn't pass the course as the men were required to.
Just another expample of women wanting equal, but no as hard, standards as men.
Don't believe me, do some research on it...
Glad to see someone knows the truth. Women are not judged in the Military by the same standards as Men. In all of the schools from basic on up they do not get held to the same standards as men. It is like affirmative action for women. You girls really want equality then get judged by the same standards as everyone else. No time off because of menstral problems, no time off because your pregnant. Oh by the way men do not get pregnant, nor have menstral cycles. We were made to do this stuff. But if you really want to die, fine then join the club. Here is something to think about. 90% of women taken prisoner are sexually assaulted. Men this does not happen too, and if it did it falls in at less than 2%. Military facts. So to all you women, is this what you want as a future for your daughters?
Sadden,
Are you suggesting that a straight male who volunteers for the military is a hero, but for a homosexual or a woman (or both!) to do so makes him/her an "idot"?
No offense to women, but after serving in the military I think I have groung to stand on. It is not about wether you can do this job. It is about their male conterparts inability to treat them as anything but a woman. A man and a woman in a foxhole or pulling guard together can lead to disaster. Just saying if one is busy thinking about something other than doing their job it will cause problems. Second this is a combat engineer school not Infantry school. Two completely different jobs and different types of duty. I do not think of it as being combat, like kicking in doors in Irag while going house to house looking for insurgents. Combat engineers lay mines clean up mine fields help set up roadways and bridges in a possibly hostile situation. Thirdly men do not get pregnant, nor suffer a monthly visitor. These two things alone I watched keep women from pulling duty, and even leaving the service because of Pregnancy. My mom was tuff and I always felt could kick some butt, but she was my MOM first. It ok for kids to loose a father as long as they have a loving mother still who will be ther for them. But loosing a mother and relying on DAD is different, and considering how many kids have only a Mom due to broken homes could raise even more problems. Guess I was lucky to have a Mom who stayed at home to raise me until I was 10, while Dad worked to pay the bills. Maybe a bit old fashioned but it worked. I guess what I am trying to say is it is not wehther you can but wether you should. Check out Scientific Research on Genes. Men were not made to be a mother nor have it DNAed into them to be patient care givers. Women are and it is in their DNA to do both. This may sound sexist but it is science that has proven it. Then there is my original statement, We men will always treat a woman differently then we do men. Sexual attraction will always be a problem, regardless of sexual preference. I understand some women wanting to prove they can, but not all can. The same goes for men, some can handle combat while most cannot. Congratulations to these young woman for completing this engineers course. But let's not jump the gun and put them in the infantry just yet. Young men a not trained not to look a women and not think about sexual relations. Finally why would you really want this for your daughter, do you really want your daughter to die in combat as well as your sons? Think about it. I would not wish that for my Daughter who I would like too find Love, get married, have kids, live long and prosper.
Now with open homosexuality, this problem will exists even if it's two males in a foxhole LOL! Just saying....
Wonder if the Army has eliminated the group shower facilities completely yet since I got out (like those I had to use at NTC in Death Valley)? If I a hetero male can't stare at the sex he prefers to stare at in the nude, why does a homo male get to stare at another male in the nude? Just saying....
During the Mexican Revolution (and this is documented in history books) women were used as prostitutes, so the soldiers wouldn't rape young girls in the small villages. Women were also used as mules, to carry things from one place to another. From those times, still remains a saying: "Pancho Villa y sus dos putas a la orilla."
The training they receive is as tough as it gets for an Engineer MOS..Not the toughest but still demanding and viscous.
The fact is that anyone who manages to pass the course is ''More Elite' that the standard 11-B, boots on the ground.
This statement cracked me up.......Unless it is SOCOM.
You don't have a clue do you.....
SOCOM Tour of Duty is probably the closet you have ever come from serving isn't it....
Your ignorance must be bliss....
And Elite Training courses are made to pass...Yeah right....
IS that why out of 330 soldiers that entered my cycle of RIP only 64 of us Graduated?
And anyone who has served in a JSOC mission would surely understand my displeasure with your use of SOCOM...
Firstly just to educate you....
Each branch has a Special Operations Command that is unique and capable of running its own operations, but when the different Special Operations Forces need to work together for an operation, USSOCOM becomes the joint component command of the operation, instead of a SOC of a specific branch...Rangers SOC of the Army, Seals for the Navy, MAGTF or DRP for the Marines //Which for the Marines is a very new SOC//..353 SOC in the Airforce to name a few....
Units come "Pre-Psckaged" and are just assigned specific duty's in a mission...
For example..I was 3rd/75th Rangers/10th Mt.Div. in Somalia..Our JSOG was made up of men from Delta, My Unit and 160th SOAR as well as Air Force STU, and Seal's from the NSWDG. We ran 6 missions without a flaw..It was the 7th one I will never forget.
Funny thing about that one...Task Force Ranger in Operation Gothic Serpent was considered a failure because we were unable to complete our mission, capturing Mohamed Farrah Aidid.
I have served in your SOCOM and received no further training, other than familiarization with maps, missions and terrain that I came pre-trained to do...Thus the reason I was there......
There are NO SOCOM Training facility's that Drill Soldiers for Combat roles...
As for the article..I say train them use then..I don't care if they are Male Female, Gay Straight, Blue Purple etc..If they have the will and can endure the training, let them use it..Otherwise don't train them.
I stood beside Soldiers all night only to realize at first light they were Israeli Women in Combat roles..Did not effect how I treated them ..
Better to look at though..Sorry if that sounded sexist it isn't...
As a Ranger highly qualified in many aspects of warfare, I say to anyone...ANYONE..who can make the cut..
HUAHH...
Ranger On....
I don’t mind women in the military or combat. In fact, I think every American should have to serve at least two years before the age of 30. However, when I was in women did not have the same hygiene or physical standards as the men. In the area of hygiene they were not required to have a short haircut. In jump school, they were not required to perform the same number of pull-ups, push-ups or run the same distance as the boys. I also don’t believe they had to carry the chute back to the staging area. This may seem trite; however, a fully loaded jumper’s gear is over 120 lbs. I see gals at the gym that could certainly perform the necessary physical requirements but in the Army (when I was in) there was a double standard for these two categories, so I hope the Armed Forces do not reduce the requirements looking for a few good women and get a few good troops (x or y) injured. It seems America will lower standards for training courses, schools, jobs athletics etc. just to make to make things seem fair. Lowering the standards only serves to weaken. Do you think we are a brighter society now than we were 40 years ago? Less kids graduate from high school, over 50% are obese, and I doubt 10% could change a tire, cook a meal, patch a whole in the roof, grow a garden, set a leg or open the door for someone. Don’t ask for an easy life, pray for a strong body and a sharp mind.
My thing is this. Why do you want to have the right to get your brains blown out, brutally raped, if captured; or die on some Godforsaken rock where they may never find your body? Are women really this hellbent on having the right to go into combat? or is it a select few nutty feminist with their own agendas?
I'm sorry, but if a total of 60 women have passed this course then in no way could it be considered one of the "toughest combat training courses" in the Army.
This is great as long as they did not lower the standards. But why is this news worthy? These gals are America's Soldiers. We are proud of them no matter what their sex is. Ooooroah..
Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.
This story undermines all the women in combat or already on the front lines. I HAVE NEWS FOR YOU! Women are in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. Just ask the female MP's or the Medics. They have seen combat and lived the horror's of war. And some were only 5'2 and 100 pounds!!
Sorry, but MP's and Medics are support. And although they may at times be subjected to firefights at times, they are not infantry. Infantry TAKE the battle to the enemy, MPs are behind lines, and Medics save lives. Simply being fired upon, and possibly firing back, does not qualify as Infantry. Nor does it automatically make one an infantryman. Apples and oranges.
I have two new role models. Go girls!
First off, I had it harder in Pnoc than they did in this course.
Secondly, I would go to combat with other soldiers, male or female.
Lastly, in combat you would risk your life for your battle buddie without regard to race, creed,
color, anatomy, or any other criteria. C Co. 2/16 inf. First Id. "Rangers lead the way"
Now it is time for women to join the Green Beret. Good luck to the 2 women job well done.
@just_a_veteran~ talking about dismounts and sappers tanker. think you slipped track...